Billions More in War Money

[Dardedar]

Perhaps. So why not make Bush work a little for his mass murder program?

DAR
Because it wouldn't accomplish what you imply. And it would also make "the obvious blunder of handing the Repub's the opportunity to make it look like the Dem's lost the war by hurting troops." If you want more wars, make the republicans more powerful.

If you consider ending the mass murder important, then it is not a blunder to cut off funds.

DAR
You are confused. Dem's are smart enough not to fall for your rightwing trap (hopefully). It wouldn't end anything. Lots of pentagon money sloshing around as I said. Bush can drag it out for quite a while. The Dem's are on board to change track but they don't have large enough majorities to do much of what they wish. What will matter at this point is the handful of reasonable (to the left) republicans that will cross over to the side that wants to end the war.

Dem's want to end the mess, the vast majority of republicans want to keep going.

Nah, there's no difference between the Dem's and the Repub's.

D.

[Dardedar]

[Dardedar]

DAR
This bit from Bartcop makes my point nicely (except Jerry is mistaken in the idea that congress could even stop it this quick by fiddling with the funding):

Subject: cut funding for the war?

I think this would be the stupidist thing the Dems could do before the End of this summer.

The Dems have to let George Bush's "last chance run out" and if they stop it before Sept. 1st THEY will collect ALL the blame for the failure of the Iraqi occupation.

This is Bush's War so it HAS to be His to lose.
He and the right wing say they will know if it is working by the end of the summer. They have set their own end date. I can not see the Democrats cutting their own throats for the difference of a couple of months.
--Jerry

BART
If they tamper with it, they own it.
It will become the Democrat's quagmire if they assume control.

Bush (and America's whore media) will say,
"We were winning until the Democrats stopped supporting the troops."

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

ANYTHING that can be done about Bush - war, unconstitutional stuff, whatever - has got to be bipartisan. Until the Rs come over and say, help us stop this totalitarian madman, the Dems can only do damage control. We don't have a large enough majority for anything else. We're in a political version of civil war - and can only hope it doesn't go any further. (He does have, at the moment, authorization to delay elections and declare martial law using the National Guard as his "brownshirts" to deal with any protest. Should he actually try that, we may have civil war in fact as some Guard refuse and others, augmented by mercenaries who have no uncomfortable oath to the constitution to worry about, obey.)

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> So why not make Bush work a little for his mass murder program?

Darrel> Because it wouldn't accomplish what you imply. And it would also make "the obvious blunder of handing the Repub's the opportunity to make it look like the Dem's lost the war by hurting troops." If you want more wars, make the republicans more powerful.

Very few people think the Vietnam War was lost by peacenik Democrats, so "the obvious blunder" doesn't wash - it's a weak excuse to continue funding the occupation. The last comment ignores the historical fact that most US wars were instigated by Democrats. Not to mention that the Dem faction of the War Party loves the occupation of Kosevo, is clamoring for war in Darfur, and has not said a peep about the recently instigated war in Somalia.

It [cutting funding] wouldn't end anything. Lots of pentagon money sloshing around as I said. Bush can drag it out for quite a while.

I don't get your logic here. Cutting off funding would not immediately end the occupation ... so you want to enable it by continuing funding?

Dem's want to end the mess...

This seem to be an article of faith for you, but in fact the leading future presidential hopeful (Hitlery) and most of the Dem faction elites seem to support the occupation. In fact, they seem to be using it to help gain power - a platform for Bush-bashing.

The Bartcop excerpt is illogical. If the Dem faction votes to fund the occupation, how can it be considered a Rep faction war? By funding, the Dems are literally supporting the mass murder.

Obviously, the Dem faction thinks nothing of sacrificing lives to get power in '08.

[Dardedar]

Cutting off funding would not immediately end the occupation ... so you want to enable it by continuing funding?

DAR
I don't know why you have trouble grasping this. Quote from earlier:

"As Murtha put it: withdrawal/redeployment to the horizon, consistent with the safety of the soldiers."

D.

PS

Democrats Propose Bill to Withdraw Troops Starting in 120 Days

LINK

Brushing aside criticism from the White House, Senate Democrats said
Friday their next challenge to President Bush's Iraq war policy would
require the gradual withdrawal of US combat troops beginning within 120
days.

Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization

LINK

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal
the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower
authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of
combat troops.

Nah, there's no difference between the Dem's and the Repub's.

[Hogeye]

Despite the Dem faction's control of both houses, your source says, "The odds against it ever becoming law are high."

Note that the bill is totally for show; it has no substance. It sets no deadline for ending the occupation, only for starting some withdrawal, no matter how small or how slow. The "clear limits on U.S. involvement" are bunkum, and would change little or nothing in the occupation. Darrel, you need to apply a little skepticism when politicians promise you things. They lie you know, and use vague language to seem to say something.

[Dardedar]

Despite the Dem faction's control of both houses, your source says, "The odds against it ever becoming law are high."

DAR
Oh, that's a given. The president can still veto, and it takes 60 votes to get cloture in the senate. So the idea that the Dem's "control" both of the houses is misleading if you don't know and include these details about how that control is very limited unless you have large majorities.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The Dems' majority is so small in congress that the ONLY thing they can guarantee is that nasty bills never leave committee. Once on the floor, the Dem leadership cannot guarantee the blue dogs won't cross over and give the vote to the Rs. In the Senate, only Joe Lieberman "caucusing" with the Dems gives them that majority. (That really puts Joe in the catbird seat. As a Dem, no matter what he said or did, he'd be counted as a Dem, but as an "Independent" he counts as he caucuses - and he can change that any time he wants to.) The only way out of that prior to the 2008 elections is for some R to change parties, or at least do a Jeffords and go Independent caucusing with the Dems. The Dems have to "gang warily" because they have a majority, but not enough of a majority to override a presidential veto without R help.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Barbara, before you get too worried about losing that slimey warmonger Liberman, consider this short article:

***
Sirotablog
Real-world wisdom from outside the beltway.

2.22.07

Why we should all hope Joe Lieberman becomes a Republican

After reading about Joe “I’ve given my word I will caucus with Democrats” Lieberman threatening to switch parties and potentially throw control of the Senate to Republicans, I had a thought: Would it really be that big a deal? I ask this question out of my loyalty to the progressive movement and the Democratic Party - not out of ideological purity or my disgust for Lieberman as an individual (even though that disgust does exist). Before you scream "YES IT REALLY WOULD BE A BIG DEAL," just hear me out.

...

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Darrel - I read the article and it wouldn't switch the committee chair situation like it did in 2001 - but a 50-50 Senate would not onlyhave all ties broken by Dick Cheney, but would both encourage blue dogs to jump ship and Rs to toe the party line. The knowledge that a pure party line vote goes to the Dems encourages blue dogs to stay at home and moderate Rs to cross over. Again the ONLY thing Dems could do is keep nasty bills from getting to the Senate floor.