The Netroots On Iraq: Clueless

Again, speaking for me only.

Maybe not all the Netroots, but certainly this man:

. . . This bill makes the war illegal, which is just as unenforceable as defunding the war (which Bush can easily bypass with Enron-style accounting). There is $800B in that pot, and you know the money can be moved around.

Where does this man come up with this? How in heavens does it make it illegal? By saying so? Does it repeal the Iraq AUMF? No. This is pure and simple, ignorant arrant nonsense.


Besides, there's still the conference with the Senate, where the bill will be filibustered (the Senate version is better, too). There's still the veto to overcome.

And this is a SELLING POINT? But let's get to the nitty gritty. Stoller does not care about ending the war:

This whole exercise is about politics. Bush is in Iraq 4evah, and he's not going to let anything derail him, whether it's making the war illegal or defunding it.

If that makes you feel better Matt, keep lying to yourself. Because that is what you just did. Defund the war and see how Bush pays for it. With an 800B slush fund? Sheesh. You sound like a 9/11 conspiracist, Matt.

But let's get down to what you really think:

There's only one endgame for Iraq, and that's to force Republicans in Congress to recognize that it's their asses on the line.

Say what? That's YOUR strategy? Might as well say you are not going to do anything. Hell, that is what you are saying. You have given up. So just stop pretending, none of you will do a thing. Go stop Presidential debates, you sure as heck are not going to do anything to try and stop a war.

And here is a man who will not listen because he does not want to:

But I'm going to put you on the spot. You are valiantly arguing that Iraq is a total mess, which is true. But where's your endgame. Nothing, even defunding, is enforeable without political will.

Nice to know the "netroots" has decided to sit out the most important issue of the past decade. Good job boys.

< Folding: House Dems Cave In On Ending Iraq Funding | March Madness 4 - BCS Conferences vs. Mid Majors >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What should be the role of netroots? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cal11 voter on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:37:59 AM EST
    Pushing and prodding Dem leaders from the outside IMHO.  There are plenty of Dems available to explain Dem leadership's moves from the inside.  

    This seems obvious to me (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:50:28 AM EST
    on THIS issue. Sometimes the role is to rip the GOP. Not this time.

    BTD Tell me why. (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:32:03 AM EST
    Could you explain why you think that the anti-war Left can actually:

    a. Get the "bill" necessary.

    b. Get it past the Senate fillibuster?

    c. Get it repassed with two thirds vote?

    War is an issue of short and long term safety. It is an issue of culture and history and future history, You have made no case for the war not being pursued based on any of these.

    You have not addressed the question of will the country be better off 10 years from now.

    You have not addressed the issue of the terrorists declaring they intend to make Islam and Shari law the controlling force through out the world.

    You have not addressed the issue of how we can avoid future terrorist attacks on the country.

    You have not addressed any of these.

    You have not defined what your negotiating position will be these various groups.

    You have not said what your position will be when Iran explodes their nuclear weapon.

    All in all you act as if your position is unquestionably correct and that by merely saying something you make it true.

    If you can make a case besides, evidently, that this war us wrong because you hate Bush, then please do so.

    If you can make a case besides, perhaps, all wars are immoral and should not be pursued, then please do so.

    In other words, what is your basis for just assuming that people will blindly follow the Left's attempt to take control of the country?

    Do you have a plan besides anti-war? Do you think the country will accept Sorros as a "leader?"

    Let us hear from you, Big Tent. Show us your product. It may be better than I think. But right now, no one besides the converted know.

    Read sometime Jim (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:59:49 AM EST
    Your cfomment is indicative that you hav eno idea what I have written on the subject for the past two months.

    Truthfully, I am not interested in your views here. This is a dispute for Dems to hash out, not Republicans.


    Actually big tent, (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:26:38 PM EST
    I have been reading what you have written, and as an informed citizen I am seeking to engage you in a conversattion about a subject that you seem to think important. As so do I.  

    My points, which you obvously can't answer, are really very simple. If you want to change the direction of the country, and if you want to stop the war, you should be ready to discuss the issues.

    That you seem to think that the Demos, with no help, for the Repubs or us Independents, can do this gives an intriguing glimpse into your world.

    Because without the ability to sell your point of view, you can not win.

    So you can choose to ignore, make false claims, or engage.

    Your turn.


    Really, ppj? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    Either you did not read BTD defunding proposal, or you misunderstood it on the most fundamental level. Hard to believe that someone could have read it and commented as you have.

    Embarrassingly obvious.


    Maybe I'm just totally frustrated, (none / 0) (#1)
    by roboleftalk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:51:19 AM EST
    but I have had it.  No more kabuki for me.  I think I'm just going to post on structural issues (the threat of the neocon ideology/psychology, for example) and leave the silly games and dances to the  politicians and the strategists.  

    Not the most important issue of the past decade (none / 0) (#2)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:42:59 AM EST
    I want to point out, because not to realize this is to put head in sand, that global climate change and ocean acidification, taken together, and both due primarily to carbon dioxide emissions, are the most important issue of the last decade.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:37:20 AM EST
    When Congress has the power to defund global warming, let me know.

    Leaaving Article 1 Section 8 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:52:13 AM EST
    While the President may have unitary CinC powers, they mean little if he  has no troops.

    Surest way, short of impeachment, to pry him out of Iraq is to strip him of the National Guard, by defederalizing.

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Welll (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:38:42 AM EST
    The Governors will not necessarily decide it the way you want.

    I think that is a red herring solution.


    but (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    Just 1 Republican Governor not playing, and the whole house of cards tumbles. Rell? Lingle? Ahnold?

    I'm sorry, BTD... (none / 0) (#4)
    by mattd on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:51:08 AM EST

    ...but we are dealing with an administration that has shown repeatedly (and that's a huge understatement) that they will not conform their actions to law, be it from Congress or court decisions.  There have been extensive reports of billions of dollars missing from Iraq that were supposed to be spent on various projects, too.

    Given this past conduct, what reason does anyone have to believe that the administration will obey any Congressional declaration, even if it's passed into law by an overriden veto?  From FISA to Josh Wolf, the current administration insists that the law is whatever it says it is, and Congress and the courts can be damned.

    What evidence is there to believe that the administration will obey any law or ruling that goes against their plans?

    (I'm not the author of the original comment this post references, btw, and what I write above scares the poo out of me, but people don't throw around words like "constitutional crisis" lightly.  It means something.)

    Defunding (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:38:05 AM EST
    requi9res giving Bush zero respect.

    I do wish you would follow the argument I have made.


    And I do wish... (none / 0) (#13)
    by mattd on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    ...that you would address criticism instead of accusing your detractors of "not following" or "not reading."

    I read your argument.  You say it's impossible that there's an "800B slush fund," and that defunding is the answer.  I cited the administration's long history of ignoring the law and asked why you believe that this administration would obey an appropriations bill requiring that money be spent on one effort and not on another.

    Your non-sequitur of a response that "defunding requires giving Bush zero respect" does not answer any of these questions, so I must presume you have no answer to them.  I admire your faith that the administration will obey funding directives, but I no longer have any presumptive belief that the administration will honor any law it does not like.


    Forget it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:12:22 PM EST
    You think that is a reasonable comment. To me it is not.

    Moving on.