Just Say No

to this:

The Defense Department is seeking an additional $42.3 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total request for 2008 to nearly $190 billion, according to prepared testimony Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is to present to Congress this afternoon.

No funding past a date certain. The Iraq Debacle must end. Only the Congress can do it. By NOT funding the Iraq Debacle.

Just say no.

< Gutted Lieberman-Kyl Iran Amendment Passes | Court Postpones Ruling, Craig Stays (For Now) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That means you, Weak Tea! (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:14:35 PM EST
    Do NOT let this come up for a vote.

    Do not let fewer than 41 Democrats vote against cloture.

    This is the proverbial last straw.

    I suggest that, henceforth, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    all admonitions be addressed to members of Congress by their proper names and titles.  Much stronger (assuming any of them are paying attention, which is doubtful).  

    They don't seem to care.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    They seem to think the electorate will capitulate to them next year.

    Zogby, August 01/07

    3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President

    THREE percent.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    Nancy? Harry? Barack? Hillary? THREE percent..

    You're fighting for election next year.

    And you're losing. Already.

    The same Zogby report continues with:

    This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats - some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq - expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue.
    End the occupation. Completely. Combat troops. Bases. Mercenaries. All of it. Quit trying to talk out of both sides of your mouths.

    Don't make the same stupid assumption the Republicans have made that people are so stupid that they cannot see through you.

    Time to wise up. THREE percent.. Do NOT let this come up for a vote.


    What the hell was our "Shock and Awe"... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    ...if not terrorism?  What has  much of our presence in Iraq been?  What is the Blackwater Sniper Club there?

    And none of this is negated by however bad or worse one believes the Republican Guard to be.  The malevolent hypocrisy is truly disturbing.

    The "Right" Spin (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sanity Clause on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    Apparently, this Congress needs a media friendly catchphrase that will make NOT funding the occupation NOT sound like NOT supporting the troops while NOT sounding too negative.  I propose calling such action (or inaction) in response to the Defense Department's request a "Legislative Veto," thereby imbuing it with an air of respectability equal to the esteem of the President's ultimate threat.  It seems to me they need only get a little bit of media support for the proposition that sending the President and the Defense Deartment back to the drawing board is NOT the same as defunding the troops.  By putting a "not without my conditions" spin on this thing, those Congresspersons too reluctant, too timid, or too intimidated to vote FOR deadlines (knowing they would be vetoed, or fearing that their reputations might somehow be tarnished back home) can do the will of the people and shift the burden of compromise back to the White House.  

    They won't do it (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:58:50 PM EST
    It's all about keeping this war as Bush's war all the way to November of 08.  The Democrats could do what you ask but they want to score big in 08 and they think it won't happen if they decide to make the war their own.  Politics my friend.

    It's this, but not just this (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    Part of it is, I agree, political opportunism of the most cynical and depraved sort--what's a thousand or so more troop deaths in exchange for another 10-20 seats in the house, 5-6 in the senate, and the presidency? But there are other factors, I believe. Cowardice, for one, of course. Apathy too--I think that some of them honestly don't care all that much. Some are clearly supportive of the war--e.g. Baird--be it for ideological or pork-based reasons (um, defense contracts). And some are simply clueless, flailing about with no idea of how to act like a majority party. All told, it's quite sickening to observe, and makes me want to leave the country for a few years until they get their act together--which is not a given.

    Until the party has a leader--a real leader, like FDR or even LBJ, before he came apart--it's going to continue to make us ashamed of it, quite deservedly. And I can't see one on the horizon. Hillary will likely be a stand-in, but I don't really respect her leadership abilities, as it were. She is and will be a triangulator, panderer and compromiser, rather than a fighter and leader. Ech.


    C o m p l i c i t y (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:29:04 AM EST
    Not cowardice in the face of Bush, or apathy.


    They are on Bush's side, not on the side of the voters. 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq. How much more obvious does it need to be?

    They have some fear, but not of Bush:

    They are afraid that the US economy cannot and will not continue to dominate the world economy, and will collapse, unless the US is able to dominate the energy resources of the world, and that cannot be done if the US withdraws from Iraq.
    when Bush says, "Even if you thought it was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull out now," he's expressing a fear -- from an imperialist viewpoint - that a U.S. pullout would leave the empire weaker. And he is saying this in opposition to other forces in the U.S. ruling class who, also coming from an imperialist viewpoint, now think it's a big mistake for the U.S. not to withdraw.
    This whole dynamic of riding the anti-war vote to power, then voting to fund an ongoing war while claiming to be ending it, reflect the conflicting necessities the Democrats face. As representatives of U.S. imperialism, they are committed to maintaining U.S. global dominance. Yet they fear the U.S. is sliding toward a strategic debacle of epic proportions and may already have lost the war in Iraq.
    The evidence states that Democrats are basically on board with Bush.
    If Democrats were filled with fear that they would lose Congress and the presidency UNLESS the occupation was ended before the 2008 elections, they would end the occupation of Iraq.
    C o m p l i c i t y

    Their thinking is a$$-backwards and causes the problems they think think hegemony and imperialism will solve.

    If the "empire" falls it will be because insanely misguided attempts at preserving it like invading and occupying Iraq produce the opposite result.

    You Must Be Mad, Or You Wouldn't Have Come Here

    One of the legacies of six years of the George W. Bush Administration is that America has gone "From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years

    The US is insolvent.

    That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare.

    They have some fear, but fear of the wrong thing.

    That fear needs to be replaced with another fear.

    They would notice if enough people turned the tables on them and used fear to motivate them, instead of voting simply out of fear of republicans.

    If Democrats were filled with fear that they would lose Congress and the presidency UNLESS the occupation was ended before the 2008 elections, they would end the occupation of Iraq.


    Get (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    Why are we even debating this (none / 0) (#6)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 06:56:27 PM EST
    Seeing as more than enough Dems have openly and adamantly come out specifically AGAINST not funding the war? I.e. there aren't enough of them to filibuster any bill that funds the war, and neither Reid nor Pelosi--nor Levin nor Skelton--will keep funding bills from going to a floor vote. So is this basically a way of shining a light on these Dems and embarrasing them into, if not NOT funding, then at least de-funding or something less effective? I don't get it. They're just as unlikely to NOT fund as they are to impeach.

    Hell, half of them voted to condemn the first amendment in the senate last week, and 2/3 did so in the house today, and they all passed the horrible FISA bill last summer and will likely pass a permanent extension of it soon. So why are we continuing to act as if we expect them to do THIS? They either do not care or are too stupid and gutless to even consider such a move. I'm all for beating them up over this, but expecting them to do this? Not realistic.

    Appeasement always ushers in fascism (none / 0) (#10)
    by aahpat on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 09:03:26 PM EST
    The Daily Kos today posted this from a member:

    Von Spakovsky to slip through?
    by Kagro X
    Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 01:25:26 PM PDT

    It looks for all the world like former Justice Department evildoer Hans Von Spakovsky will slip through and land his share of Wingnut Welfare: a paycheck from the Federal Election Commission.

    Von Spakovsky's nomination has been red-flagged for months, since revelations regarding his role in voter suppression schemes, approval of racially discriminatory redistricting schemes, and other transgressions came to light. Von Spakovsky's reward for permanently perverting the electoral system on behalf of the Bush "administration?" A cushy seat with the nation's elections watchdogs. Brilliantly played!

    So, you already know where this is going, right? Senate Democrats aren't going to stop his nomination.

    Why not?

    Well, one suggestion has been that there's some kind of a dealbetween Democrats and Republicans -- specifically to accept Von Spakovsky in exchange for a preferred Democratic nominee -- but I believe the reason is much more mundane than that.

    In today's Senate Rules committee session, which met to consider the nominations, Republicans were pulling out all the procedural stops to get this done:

    It seems the Democrats decided to cede the election to the Republicans thirteen months early.


    I'm not the appeaser--these Dems are (none / 0) (#11)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    I WANT them to do this. I do not believe that they WILL do this, no matter how much we urge them to. So I'm asking why bother with this approach if it's not going to succeed--unless, in lieu of getting them to do this, we want to at least make not doing this as painful as possible for Dems? Is THAT what people are trying to do here by pushing for the "not funding" option? Or do people actually believe that it might actually get them to not fund? I'm confused on this. Seems to me to be just as quixotic and futile as pushing for impeachment. But if someone can convince me that I'm wrong--without calling me or implying that I'm an "appeaser", I'm open to being converted.

    There are times (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    when we have to keep doing what we know is the right thing to do.

    Especially when it seems there is no hope.


    Try them as war criminals. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dongus on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    Every member of Congress who votes for the additional funding or who abstains or is absent should be tried as a war criminal.  Good Nazis all.

    "Plan Afghanistan" (none / 0) (#9)
    by aahpat on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    Since the Afghan campaign has mutated into the drug war I think we should be calling any and all programs and policies related to it "Plan Afghanistan".

    Plan Colombia. Six years $ 7 billion and a total failure.

    Plan Mexico. Thirty-six years, countless billions spent already and the government is designing yet another campaign as we speak.

    Plan Afghanistan.  Five Years tens of thousands of allied military, some $ 100 billion spent SO FAR resulting in no capture of bin Laden and new record opium crops with each passing year.

    Someone needs to tell this government of ours that success is not in the planning but the execution. they can plan their asses off but they have no follow through at all.

    good luck on that BTD. (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:33:02 AM EST
    while i wholeheartedly agree with you, i'm not betting the rent money on it happening.

    it's funny how people suddenly lose their spine, once elected to public office. perhaps this is yet another example of darwin's theory of species adaptation?