On Iraq: Anti-War Groups Bring Too Little, Too Late

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:42:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Some anti-Iraq Debacle groups have discovered that the House Iraq supplemental funding bill that they supported has led to nowhere. They feign outrage now and try to reclaim some type of pressuring role. It is too little, too late:

On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org . . . sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership. “In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. . . . The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

NOW they will oppose? They supported a bill that would not have even, theoretically, ended the war until September 2008, two months before an election!

I wrote then:

The House bill will not end the war in September 2008 as proclaimed. That simply is false. What it does do is fund the war until that date when the Congress will vote more money, as any sane person realizes they will, 2 months before an election.

Move On was wrong then as were most of the Left blogs, as events have demonstrated. There is one way to end the Iraq Debacle - announce that the Iraq Debacle will not be funded after a date certain and then NOT fund it after thedate certain. Yes, the Reid-Feingold framework.

Even now, the Move On anti-Iraq War coalition pursues a bad strategy:

The coalition, which has raised $7.1 million since January, has concentrated its activities on 57 House districts and senators in nine states, places where they believe Republican lawmakers face tough races in 2008 or have shown signs of wavering in their support for the president.

Republicans will NOT end the war! Even if they change a handful of GOP votes, it will not make a diference. What this group is really doing is election work for Democrats in 2008. They have been coopted and apparently do not even know it. What a shame.

< Defending Karl Rove | Why Does Anyone Pay Attention To Doris Kearns Goodwin? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Iraq: Anti-War Groups Bring Too Little, Too Late | 77 comments (77 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The urge some people have, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:57:18 PM EST

against all of the evidence, to believe that Republicans can be convinced of anything, is quite strange.

Coopted (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by squeaky on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:08:20 PM EST

Never thought you as an optimist. Nice way to frame it. They are doing us a big favor by acting like such greedy warmongering aholes.

Hope that we don't get our second terror attack three months before the election. It would change things against us.

They know it. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Lora on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:50:39 PM EST

Republicans will NOT end the war!

That's Ri-ight!

What this group is really doing is election work for Democrats in 2008. They have been coopted and apparently do not even know it. What a shame.

They know it. They think the "system" works.

: of course they know it (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:13:52 PM EST

moveon was originally formed in response to the impeachment proceedings against bill clinton. it is just a matter of time before they endorse hillary. moveon is all about elections.

A BIGGER TENT AND A BROADER AGENDA! (1.00 / 4) (#39)
by JoeCHI on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:15:56 AM EST

The only way this country can move forward after 2008 is if more Democrats are elected. Crashing the party into the rocks in 2007 with repeated attempts to stop a war that it can't stop does the party no good.

The Democrats need to be smart on how they spend their political capital!

: Oy! (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:17:24 AM EST

: Of course, protect the party (none / 0) (#71)
by Militarytracy on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:00:23 PM EST

forget about doing the ethical thing, the moral thing, the right thing, and ignore all the people losing their lives in Iraq due to American involvement. I can't believe we have Dems preaching this trash, it makes us no better and just as sociopathic as the Right!

"cut & runners" (none / 0) (#2)
by downtownted on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:01:08 PM EST

You need to give them an alternative. America needs to see and hear an alternative. An alternative palatable to MSM. An alternative the MSM can get behind and push as its own. Think of Professor Lakoff and his ideas.

The Democrats need to formulate a powerful frame or simple SERIES of frames to offset "cut & run." Good Lord, think of the US casualties to come that get pinned to the "cut & runners." Think of the failure to have democracy in Iraq because you "cut & runners" prevailed. Think of the 100,000s of Iraqi deaths because you "cut & ran." What about the brave American fighting men who died or suffered awful injuries whose lives will be minimized because you "cut & ran." I can keep going for pages and you "cut & runners" will hear each of them dozens of times, hundred of times, thousands of times unless you have an answer to "cut & run."

Don't forget politics 101. What is the most important task for an elected politician? ANSWER To get reelected. President Bush may be below 30% (Newsweek's latest is 28%), but no Republican is going against the Iraq War. Why not? How about "cut & run!"

Don't give me a long answer. Don't give me the thinking man's response. Don't give me a complex solution. Give me a simple declarative sentence. John Kerry would be President today if he could speak in simple declarative sentences.

At worst give me a short, simple declarative rhyme.

If you cannot, you will be tarred for a generation or more as "cut & run."

: it is against the noble, educated, selfless (none / 0) (#37)
by seabos84 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:03:56 AM EST

Dem professional political ethic to make anything easy to understand or to say.
when I was a 5 buck an hour cook in boston in the early 80's, I would get so derided and disparaged cuz I'd ask
how come we don't say anything simple like that liar RayGun? How come we don't have easy soundbites for our ideas.
even now, more than 1/2 of the diaries I read about the imporantance of framing don't have 1 go##am soundbite ! they have paragraphs and paragraphs explainging the need for framing!
too few on our side really get it, they think it is enough to sneer
we are smarter
we don't lie
we don't steal
we care
BFD.
rmm.

Move-On (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:12:45 PM EST

appears to have co-opted themselves. They are acting like a political party whose number one priority is retaining and expanding their power and influence. They've sold their "soul".

Heh (none / 0) (#5)
by jarober on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:39:53 PM EST

So you've only now figured out that the whole thing is nothing more than posturing? Reid is in this for one thing only - more Senate seats. It's not about anything more.

Welcome to your own grubby little version of Trent Lott

You obviously haven't (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:43:18 PM EST

been paying attention.


: understatement (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:14:29 PM EST

Heh (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:46:11 AM EST

Yes, I've always been very naive about politicians.

Riiiiight.

Sheesh are you a piece of work.


Move-On Did The Right Thing (none / 0) (#7)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:48:28 PM EST

with the House Bill. They were going to change nothing and they were losing any credibility they had with the party especially after sabotaging the Fox Debates. The Party did not appreciate that - Moveon had to make peace.

Now because of unrest among the membership they are once again having to salvage credibility - this time with the membership - thus the letter to leadership.

Defunding the war could be the biggest mistake the Party ever made. The public is against it and if things go bad it could cost us the election.

The stakes are high. If we lose the WH and the congress because the public turns on us we will have 8 more years of more of the same.

We will end up back in Iraq, and very possibly in Iran with combined death tolls that will stagger the imagination. And domestically the USA will not be recognizable in 2017.

Those of you that promote defunding really ought to think about that. Defunding is a huge gamble with no turning back. And the cost of that strategy not working out in our favor is catastrophic.

It is more realistic to think about something fruitful come September when the surge will be reported on with likely dismal results. Then the public may demand defunding and we can weigh our palette of options to end the war then.

I've been accused (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:54:22 PM EST

of being an establishment apologist before, but this really takes the cake.

Move on had to make peace with leadership? What absolute nonsense.

You've shown that absolutely do no understand the particular strategy for ending the war that BTD has offered, nor do you seem to really want to try. Throwing around threats and invective without substantiation does not constitute discussion.


He doesn't want it to end. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:56:06 PM EST

He needs it.


It would Be Nice (none / 0) (#13)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:59:34 PM EST

if the two of you could actually rebut the points and I made instead of impugning personalities.

But of course you can't so you play blog games and attack the messenger instead.

Last comment from me to the both of you unless you want to debate the points I made.


: Your message is the Beltway message (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:41:47 AM EST

Democrats can't end the war, Republicans have to.
Since I have debunked that view from Juanry until now, I need not repeat myself.
Your assertion is wrong. I have demonstrated it in my citations to polls and history and through my arguments.
I won't rehash it for you now.
I've rehashed it for 3 months.

: You see yourself as a messenger? (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:10:56 PM EST

Enough said.

You (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:50:08 PM EST

sound like Karl Rove.


What part (none / 0) (#12)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:56:11 PM EST

does not sound realistic?


This (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:03:43 PM EST

part.


maybe (1.00 / 3) (#16)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:11:52 PM EST

We come at this from two different perspectives and with distinctly different goals.

I guess. You are thinking short term. I am thinking long term.

You don't think about the consequences. I do.

In my experience thinking things through is always better. Weighing the good outcomes and the bad outcomes. What is controllable and what is not.

On the other hand you can toss all of that...

Just like Bush did in Iraq which is why we are here discussing this.

I'll stick to real world even if it is painful.


If you think that staying in Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:34:13 PM EST

is a positive "long term" strategy, then there's no use talking to you.


I Said Wait Until September (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:38:27 PM EST

We are going to be there anyway until then. No one is going to defund and say everyone home by the end July. Get real.

If all you want to talk to is 'me too's' the what is the sense of talking.


: As a soldiers wife I find your post (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by Militarytracy on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:04:37 PM EST

repulsive and cowardly. We may be there until September but much can be happening to pack us up and withdraw in the mean time.

: What happens in September (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:40:45 PM EST

If we've already funded until October of 2008? Your "strategy" is cowardly.

: What happens in September? (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:45:01 AM EST

What's your plan for September?

Oh Wow (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:28:20 PM EST

Always a 1 rating when they can't answer.

I guess your Karl Rove deserves a 10 but I can't give it. Besides I don't rate people. Rating is a substitute for a lack of words.


seriously, what's your point? (none / 0) (#22)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:37:46 PM EST

i've seen the same comments, almost verbatim, at dkos. don't you have enough people to argue with and insult over there?


yeah (none / 0) (#24)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:40:32 PM EST

A lot of those comments were mine. In fact as far as I know I was the first one arguing for a veto proof majority which is what the leadership is now working toward.

Now slowly but surely more people at dkos are coming around to that position.


somehow that wouldn't surprise me in the least (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:44:07 PM EST

given the celebrations after the house supplemental vote. simply because more people come to agree with you at dkos is hardly going to make me change my mind.


I'm Not Trying (none / 0) (#28)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:50:31 PM EST

to change your mind. People change their own minds after thinking about different points of view.

We are making progress. It is just that some want it to end now regardless of the consequences.

Not thinking of consequences almost always end bad.

Good night - I'm out.


Not thinking of consequences (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:54:44 AM EST

real world and political is precisely what we have done here for 4 months.

It is you and the most of the rest of the Left blogs that are now shocked and dismayed at the Dem cave-in.

I predicted it when you and others cheerleaded the House supplemental.

I knew this day was coming.

You and Move On did not.


Ha ha (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:28:40 AM EST

Don't act like a sage. It's pretty clear that Pelosi and MoveOn and myself and other bloggers who can think forward knew that Bush would veto that bill. But it was the only bill possible.

You see you are failing to consider the different factions within the House and the balance that Pelosi had to orchestrate.

As it was that bill barley passed and that was with the full cooperation of the 'out of Iraq' caucus so there are no more votes to be had out of that caucus. The additional votes for your desire - defunding - must come from Blue Dogs and or repubs. You are not going to get them at this time. Why you can't figure that out for yourself is amazing.

You and the rest of the defunders can yell and scream all you want but that is not going to change the minds of the people whose votes you need. That is another reason MoveOn signed on with Pelosi's bill - once they saw what the vote count was and where those votes were coming from they realized that there was no further progress for a tougher bill that could be made.

But you guys don't factor that. You charge blindly into the night with no clue of the political realities. You think you can magically get a defunding bill passed - even though it was near impossible to get the last House bill passed and that one didn't even call for withdrawal until September '08!

Try dealing with reality here why don't you.


You are missing the point of defunding. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:43:51 AM EST

It requires no votes to not pass a bill.


No You Miss The Point (1.00 / 1) (#55)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:01:10 AM EST

The first point you, not miss, but refuse to acknowledge is that the public by a large margin does not want us to defund. Of course you will cite the polls that show they would like us out of Iraq but you want to ignore the polls you don't like.

the other point you miss is that we can't defund without getting our troops out of Iraq. That will take money that is not in the regular budget so must come in the form of a supplemental. So there has to be a vote on that. Good luck getting the votes for a smaller supplemental that's purpose is to pull out the troops with the end result being to not fund the war.


: IMMEDIATE Defunding (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:11:27 AM EST

Not NOT funding in
April 2008.
You are is obtuse as Joe Klein on this.
Really stupid.

: Whether wilfully or not (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:13:24 AM EST

you are completely uninformed and have no idea what you are talking about.

With this (none / 0) (#48)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:48:47 AM EST

You think you can magically get a defunding bill passed

You have just confirmed that you don't know what you are talking about here.


Reconfirmed (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:50:33 AM EST

: nope (none / 0) (#57)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:02:28 AM EST

I just addressed that above (none / 0) (#56)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:02:03 AM EST

This is quite a statement (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:50:08 AM EST

Then they were lying? Pelosi is a pol, I don;t mind it from her.

So is MoveOn just another Beltway Political Group?

Why yes, Sort of the point of this post.

I was being polite about them being liars.

You called them out good. Well done.

Also, what Edger said on the substance.

you are extremely foolish and ignorant I must say.


Whose (none / 0) (#59)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:09:53 AM EST

foolish and ignorant? And you call them liars - not I.

Just because they passed a bill that they knew would probably get vetoed makes them liars? No.

It just means they passed the best bill they could. The alternative would have been a weaker bill which we now know that if included ant timeline language - even non-binding - Bush would have vetoed it.

So what's your point?

You guys seem more invested in proving me wrong that dealing with the actual issues. Now from the others here I might expect that considering yesterday - but from you Armando i expect a little more than trying to play got-ya.

It is the issues and understanding those issues that is important.

I'm just trying to point out some things I don't think you have thought about regarding defunding.


You are projecting. (none / 0) (#60)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:11:25 AM EST

Take A hike (1.00 / 1) (#66)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:21:11 AM EST

with your personality games.

if you want to continue that game you might push me to participate and you don't want to do that. You have no idea how I can trump you.

So give it a rest as you are only making a complete ass out of yourself. I know that is easier for you than thinking through the actual issues as you have probably been an ass to other people your entire life.

Now do want to continue playing?


Don't try those games (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:27:59 AM EST

as I am the King of that.

Besides, not allowed here.

You may get banned.


: Why? (1.00 / 1) (#74)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:10:38 PM EST

Why would I get banned?
I post legitimate views. It is others that attack me personally for those views instead of debating the views themselves. It is they who should be banned for personal attacks.
I give one a taste of his own medicine once and you call ne on it! - LOL
I doubt that Jeralyn would fairly see it the biased way you are.

TalkLeft is not a neutral site. Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues

Yep. that's what I am doing. Examining the issues.
Now just because they don't fit your frame of mind does not make them invalid as view. Nor does it man that I am the only one who holds those views.
My concerns are valid one. Just because you refuse to acknowledge that they ar legitimate concerns is not a reason to ban me. Don't be an idiot.

Give it your best. (none / 0) (#73)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:07:22 PM EST

Which so far isn't much.


Either I amn a Sage or they are liars (none / 0) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:26:34 AM EST

You can't have it both ways.


REALITY (none / 0) (#58)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:09:09 AM EST

The Iraq invasion and occupation has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years - passed by the republican controlled congress except for the last one passed by the Democrats.

"Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."
The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.
[with the last supplemental] "DOD's funding ... increase[d] by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.
--Link

There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without another emergency supplemental.

It requires NO votes to NOT pass a bill.

So-Called Democrats who supported passing the supplemental were doing exactly what the republicans were doing for six years.

And apparently want to keep doing. Great way to think they can win an election next year - by paying for it with death.


It's Debatable (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:16:35 AM EST

on where the money can come from for withdrawal. Neither you are me have those actual numbers so I won't debate that any further other than to say bush would likely not draw other funds even if he could and he would force a vote on a withdrawal supplemental. if you don't think he would do that you haven't been paying attention.

As for the leadership not just flat-out defunding perhaps they like me have thought through the ramifications including 8 more year of republican rule and causing thousands of more deaths by trying to save death now. It is an tough situation.


: I just gave you (none / 0) (#67)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:21:39 AM EST

actual numbers. We both have them now.
You're not just here trying to waste others time.
You are wasting your time. Go back and tell whoever sent you that they need to send someone more capable.

: I'm done with you. (none / 0) (#68)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:22:56 AM EST

I suspect others are, too.

Thinking of the consequences (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:18:56 AM EST

I meant.


Didn't think so. n/t (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:13:06 AM EST

Name the Republicans who will (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:41:27 PM EST

vote to deauthorize. We need 16.


I don't have a list (none / 0) (#29)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:00:43 AM EST

Snowe has her own bill to end the war in 4 months. It won't pass but it shows that some repubs will come over to our side slowly but surely.

Come September I think you will see some repub movement from both chambers. They are already talking benchmarks - the rest is a matter of time.

Yeah it's painful - good people are dying. Thats on Bush not us.

We have a system of government. It isn't perfect but it is the best there is. At times it is painfully slow.

The repubs who don't want to do the right thing now will roast in hell for not doing the right thing.

I'm out for the night - good weekend.


Make a list (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:43:19 AM EST

and then come back. In the meantimjke the number of Republicans who voted for binding withdrawal is ZERO.


Might Consider That (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:08:23 AM EST

As soon as you provide some links to the defunding you said you wrote about. I've requested those twice now. Do they really exist? Specifically i'd like to see what you wrote about the political/electoral ramifications of such defunding and the possible end effect it could have on our country.

Honestly I rather doubt that you have even thought about those things little on written about them. And if you haven't they are something an intelligent, thoughtful and responsible person should consider.

In the meantimjke the number of Republicans who voted for binding withdrawal is ZERO.

That's not much of an argument as you know. How many Democrats voted for "binding withdrawal"? Less than voted for other Iraq bills?


In the subject header War In Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:19:57 AM EST

You will find at least 20 pieces authored by me.

Do you not know how to navigate a web site?


He has repeatedly asked for links to (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:37:16 AM EST

your stories since he dismissed my comment giving him the link.


Nice Dodge (none / 0) (#46)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:43:02 AM EST

As for long as I have been reading your blogging you have NEVER had a problem referring to you past posts, complete with links, in any new posts you write. You easily go back to your old posts and refer to them. But yet you all of a sudden cannot do that here and now? BS.

The fact is that you have NEVER considered the possible political/electoral ramifications nor have you considered the possible end effect it could have on our country.

Well now you might take time to consider those things if you do in fact want to weigh everything that an intelligent, thoughtful and responsible person should consider.


I told you where you can find them (none / 0) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:52:19 AM EST

There are at leaqst 20 of them.

I will not list them here when the darn site will list them for you in that section.

Nice dodge of you. You seem incapable of clicking the link titled War in Iraq for some reason.


Because his objective (none / 0) (#54)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:59:23 AM EST

is not to learn. It is to troll and disrupt and divert and waste your and others time.


True (none / 0) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:12:43 AM EST

It seems that is his objective.

I know him from daily kos. He is pretty bad there to but better behaved than he is here.


: Intentionally disruptive. (none / 0) (#64)
by Edger on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:14:42 AM EST

There is an agenda of some kind behind this, I think.

You could well be (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Warren Terrer on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:24:09 PM EST

the laziest person who ever lived. This is almost as bad as demanding that a certain diarist over at DailyKos provide proof that he ever diaried about circumcision.

Every fifth post from BTD is about defunding the war using the Reid-Feingold framework. That's your problem if you can't be bothered to figure that out.


How many Democrats? (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:21:23 AM EST

So you now agree that that the House Supplemental bill was not a binding withdrawal bill?

I need to correct myself however, 2 Republicans voted for that bill - Ron Paul and Walter Jones.


Lost In The Muck (none / 0) (#52)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:52:59 AM EST

NO! The original House Bill DID include binding language of withdrawal of September '08.

The subsequent that was sent to Bush out of the House/Senate compromise committee did not include binding language.

I need to correct myself however, 2 Republicans voted for that bill - Ron Paul and Walter Jones.

Yes. And on the Senate side your failed to mention Hagel and Smith.


No the Senate bill was NOT binding (none / 0) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:54:48 AM EST

Chuck Hagel SAID SO in his floor speech.

And said he would not vote for a binding timeline.

You simply do not know that much about the subject.

I do.


Duh (none / 0) (#77)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:05:19 PM EST

you asked:
So you now agree that that the House Supplemental bill was not a binding withdrawal bill?


: continued (1.00 / 1) (#78)
by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:13:00 PM EST

You asked:

So you now agree that that the House Supplemental bill was not a binding withdrawal bill?
I answered:

NO! The original House Bill DID include binding language of withdrawal of September '08.
And then you say I am wrong because the SENATE bill was not binding!!! WTF You'll do anything to try to win a debate even if it is looking stupid.
You ask about the House and then come back with the Senate to prove I was wrong about the House?
Obviously you are more about winning an argument even if it is based on falsehoods. I've always wondered why people on blogs do that. Does it not bother them that they lie and twist to win...
When in the end you win nothing on lies. do they go to bed at night actually satisfied that they 'think' they won when both they and the person they responded too know that they are willingly delusional?
What kind of person is that?

excuse me - sabotage the fox debates? (none / 0) (#21)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:35:14 PM EST

dems turning on fox and pulling out of the debates was one of the smartest things they've done in a long time. showed some backbone and was the beginning of them standing up for themselves and us. i wasn't aware that moveon was responsible, but if it was, kudos to them.

that moveon's membership is furious is a no-brainer. the poll on the house iraq supplemental was misleading at best. that move is now coming back to haunt them - and more importantly the rest of us. you are concerned about losing the election in '08 - well who do you think is going to vote for a party that doesn't stand up for its constituents? the american public is disillusioned by a party that backs down to get along. if the dems don't take serious steps to end this occupation, then the american public will truly turn on them.

you want to wait until september - how many more will have to die? 104 american service members died in iraq in april - eight fewer than december's toll of 112, and the sixth-highest figure for a single month since the war started in march 2003. god knows how many iraqis. clearly, the "surge" is taking us down the bloody path we all expected. so what is your argument for waiting till september? that if more american lives are lost the american public will have less tolerance? what makes you think that then they will demand defunding rather than disgustedly writing off the political expediency that didn't push for it in may? no, the time to defund and end the occupation is yesterday.


Getting out of the quagmire (none / 0) (#31)
by wlgriffi on Sun May 06, 2007 at 07:32:10 AM EST

The utter nonsence that we have to stay or the "CONSEQUENCE" will be horrendous is an argument of those who haven't a clue as to the horrendous chaos they have created. If we leave now or five years from now the civil war will escalate. So if the "we must not cut and run" talking point is followed we must continue the inexcusable cost on our treasury to "save face".