dems cave on iraq funding?

DosEquis · 05-23-2007, 09:26 AM

Apparently the democrats folded and are going to put through a bill that funds the war until Sept, with optional time tables that the president can just ignore. I figured this would happen at some point and feel it to be a double edged sword. The bad part is that it is just one more example the democrats didnt man up and stick to their guns. On the good side, to me anyway, i dont think we should remove our soldiers immediately and should put them in a different role. This buys another few months to debate and try for a change in strategy. The "surge" is not working.

The "liberal media" is being kind of hard on them with headlines such as "behind the democratic retreat",

JaJae · 05-23-2007, 12:27 PM

I think that's exactly it. The Dems I think pulled this on Bush at the last possible second recognizing it was going to be debated and vetoed. They had to add a lot of pork and bribe votes, etc. If it passed on those terms it may have had long term negative effects on the Democrats, especially considering th Generals on the ground are saying the surge is working. I think the right decision was to put it off to be debated further and to give the surge a chance.

thomez · 05-23-2007, 01:54 PM

pussies

DosEquis · 05-23-2007, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

pussies

You are what you eat?

thomez · 05-23-2007, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

You are what you eat?

maybe I should have said "dicks" then

garbagemanlb · 05-23-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think that's exactly it. The Dems I think pulled this on Bush at the last possible second recognizing it was going to be debated and vetoed. They had to add a lot of pork and bribe votes, etc. If it passed on those terms it may have had long term negative effects on the Democrats, especially considering th Generals on the ground are saying the surge is working. I think the right decision was to put it off to be debated further and to give the surge a chance.

whereas the last 3 or so surges have failed miserably.

garbagemanlb · 05-23-2007, 03:46 PM

Come September, there will be people on this board supporting yet another surge or wanting Congress to give the President 'just a few more months'.

Publius · 05-23-2007, 03:47 PM

and the Imperial Presidency continues unopposed.

Scrum · 05-23-2007, 03:51 PM

Any support I had left for those people vanished after this.

Donkey® · 05-23-2007, 04:28 PM

Pathetic.

Thorgrim · 05-23-2007, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think that's exactly it. The Dems I think pulled this on Bush at the last possible second recognizing it was going to be debated and vetoed. They had to add a lot of pork and bribe votes, etc. If it passed on those terms it may have had long term negative effects on the Democrats, especially considering th Generals on the ground are saying the surge is working. I think the right decision was to put it off to be debated further and to give the surge a chance.

Uhm, they weren't going the pass the "bribing pork" *laugh* this time, that already got voted on and got a super-majority

The reason they didn't resubmit the bill was because they knew Bush would veto and it would begin to hurt the troops, they didn't have time to play another round before they started taking in attacks from the GOP and some military families that they are hurting the military

Had nothing to do with "not enough votes for the plan" it's just they didn't have enough votes for a veto that would lead to the troops being without funds...basically starting to cut off the war, they already had a vote on cutting off the war, like you all wanted, and it didn't get enough votes...basically the same thing here, dragging this out while the military runs out of money is one way of ending the war, and that's not what the original people signed up for

for the 100th time, not only was the planned bill to contain no pork, but the "pork" was to vital areas that are reserved for *drumroll* supplemental funding bills! What was this...a supplemental funding bill!

Spinach farmers should all go out of business because they have to wait for next year for a funding vote?

The GOP bailed out the airlines, and they bailed out peanut farmers in the past, no reason the Dems should stop, it's a matter of helping american farmers not some corrupt scheme

DosEquis · 05-23-2007, 06:55 PM

i love you.

As John Edwards said, if democrats had any balls they would just keep sending the original with time tables back to his desk over and over. He would get his funding for the rest of the war and could begin planning the beginning of the exit...or he could veto it and eventually be forced to bring them home immediately.

Another thing i would support is having the Iraqi people vote on whether they would like our soldiers there anymore.

Thorgrim · 05-23-2007, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

i love you.

As John Edwards said, if democrats had any balls they would just keep sending the original with time tables back to his desk over and over. He would get his funding for the rest of the war and could begin planning the beginning of the exit...or he could veto it and eventually be forced to bring them home immediately.

Another thing i would support is having the Iraqi people vote on whether they would like our soldiers there anymore.

Democrats have balls, it's just we're a big tent party, we'll never have organization like DeLay did

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, could bring God himself down and Rep. Taylor and Sen. Lieberman would never consider changing their vote

You don't have the votes = you don't have the votes

No matter how bad this setback looks, having the vote Edwards is calling for, and having it fail, would look really pathetic

Any money says Gordon Smith (R) and Bill Nelson (D) told Reid "look, we'll vote on the Warner resolutions and that's it, we're not going to vote for anything Bush will veto again" and Reid is simply screwed, thats 49 votes at best, and they lose

In the House, the blue dogs simply said the same thing...and without their votes, the Dems don't have a majority

It sucks, because the public is overwhelmingly on their side (unlike Newt's government shutdown) but people can be terribly stubborn

RMNIXON · 05-23-2007, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

pussies

Somebody blinked!

But obviously the whole thing will come up again and I hope we will all be happy to see more progress in Iraq by then whether you think it will happen or not?

Thorgrim · 05-23-2007, 07:41 PM

The right-wingers have nothing to bring on the democrats, except partisan little "tee hee u look bad on TV!"

The Democrats sent the president a bill with a timetable
The Democrats voted up or down on cutting off the war
The Democrats fully funded the troops

The last two especially are what the GOP has been crying for

6SpeedTA95 · 05-23-2007, 07:41 PM

I hope between now and september that we make progress in Iraq. If not I hope congress/senate has the balls to draw the line in the sand. Something needs to change. If attacks continue the downward trend and they can show progress I do not think anyone democrats included will have a problem continuing to fund the efforts in Iraq. If they continue to go bad then I believe they will and should force Iraq into a timeline.

RMNIXON · 05-23-2007, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Another thing i would support is having the Iraqi people vote on whether they would like our soldiers there anymore.

Actually I have heard that is very much misrepresented in the polls.

What people mean when they almost always say they want us out is eventually when it is safe for "their" people to take control. Who wants Americans sitting on their lap forever! They don't mean right now this minute in the middle of an insurgency.

Thorgrim · 05-23-2007, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I hope between now and september that we make progress in Iraq. If not I hope congress/senate has the balls to draw the line in the sand. Something needs to change. If attacks continue the downward trend and they can show progress I do not think anyone democrats included will have a problem continuing to fund the efforts in Iraq. If they continue to go bad then I believe they will and should force Iraq into a timeline.

Uhm, 85 coalition forces have already died in May and there are 8 days left, it's already deadlier than March, which was the first full month of the surge, and it's headed to be the deadliest month of the year

6SpeedTA95 · 05-23-2007, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Uhm, 85 coalition forces have already died in May and there are 8 days left, it's already deadlier than March, which was the first full month of the surge, and it's headed to be the deadliest month of the year

Go see the graph you posted in your own thread.

Thorgrim · 05-23-2007, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Go see the graph you posted in your own thread.

Notice a lack of May?

More importantly, see that the month when the surge was kinda active, Feb, and then the full surge month, March...

There's a rise, when we went from partial to full surge, the attacks went up