Dems. Back Down on troop increase!

[DiaryOfAMadman]

Yep it's almost official here in the early hours of January 15th that the Democratic Congress have decided to back down in their threat to attempt to stop the new troop increase in Iraq. There even seems very little chance that they will pull the funding for the troop increase as well as they have once threatened. It may have been the transcripts segments of President Bush's 60 Minutes interview on sunday night that were released around Friday of last week. Top political stragetists are saying that the DEMS discission to back down is out of fear of what Iraq will look like at the time of the next election in 2 years. They're scared that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate into a larger quagmire over the next 24 months in which the Republicans will point out that "Iraq would have been peaceful today, if the Democratic Congress didn't block the Troop Increase".

It's being touted that the Democrats will make a "show" of it. Still casting their symbolic votes against the troop increase. Whats the point in that. I'm disappointed that it seems as everything that has been said since their November win, that only 15 days into the New Year and they're already playing politics as usual. They seem only concerned about covering their own asses in the next election. Plus a recent poll shows only 20-25 of Republican Senators would actually approve a Senate resolution calling for the troop increase.

I really hope that all the information coming out of DC over the past 2 days is not true. I hope the congress will stand up and say NO MORE. Senate and Congress are preparing their "non binding resolutions" WTF is the point. It's a waste of time and money, not to mention that soon it will also be a waste of life for those troops who are sent to Iraq.

 

[NickCole]

Democrats have no choice but to let Bush go ahead with his "new plan."

That's part of the reason Boxer said what she did to Rice. Democrats, each in their own individual way, are trying to make clear that they disapprove of Bush & Co's "new plan" and why.

But Bush is still Commander in Chief, he's already sent the first surge of the 20,000 into theater, and that leaves Democrats in the impossible position of either refusing to fund those new troops already there --which would be outrageous-- or "backing down."

They have to let this go forward and play out. But what Boxer was telling Rice is that we know the disgustingly tragic price that letting this play out will mean to many families -- does Rice know that? Does Bush know that? Does Cheney know that? Do the few Americans who support this insanity know that? And does it MATTER to any of them?

 

[Ramindra]

I see it all. What everyone is talking about is a country which is about 11 inches (28 cm) long and about 22 inches (56 cm) in circumference at the center. The exterior of the object is made of leather and is called Iraq, AKA a political football. The object of this game is to garner points for your own team whilst preventing the other team from scoring.

It is a game where integrity counts for little and scruples count for nothing. Participants can do and say whatever they like, provided they win. If innocent bystanders, also known as spectators, get wiped out, just pretend you never saw them and whatever you do, DO NOT COUNT THEM! If a few thousand of the visiting ball carriers, forwards and defensive specialists bite the dust, just believe the captain and coach when he says, "Well a few sacrifices are necessary." (You can bet your life that the captain and coach will make sure that all his cronies and their kids will be in the bunker when the shit starts to fly - that is the nature of the game of political football.)

Now, you may think this is about the players in their camo uniforms and the spectators and the Monday morning q'backs, and Halliburton who supply the orange juice at half time, and the gravediggers who are making a fortune but it ain't!

It is all about who gets to be captain and coach.

Kick off is anytime soon.

 

[Brad]

I have a sneaking suspicion the Democrats want the "surge" to go ahead. They want to give GWB enough rope to hang himself.

There obviously isn't enough rope in the US to do this. If there weren't so many right wing fanatic rednecks in this country blinded by concerns over gays and abortion, he should have been swinging so long ago his eyeballs rotted out.

 

[kevin23]

Ramindra is correct, it is about politics. There is really no difference between Democrats and Republicans. The more you read and listen to the different parties, you realize they are just a like. It's like two rival schools playing football, I cheer for one team, you cheer for the other, but there is really no difference.

The Dems will likely take the White House next election, but their greatest fear is Iran getting too involved in Iraq. They may squawk about Bush not handling Irag correctly, but they sure don't want to inherit Iraq and Iran.

 

[JackFTwist]

There is rhetoric and there is reality.

There is no way to just cut off funding now given the budget.

Bush is not sending tons of new troops - he is extending time for those there (such as my son).

And its like once I give you a check - that's how the budget works - the administration has the money, its been approved in the past. If I giove you a check, once you cash it I can't control what you do with it. I can refuse to give you more checks - the Congress will have the chance in months ahead to stop future spending but there is not one fucking god damned thing Congress can do about money that the administration has now based on the budget from fiscal 2006-2007.

So to say the Democratic congress can do something now, and is not, is absurd.

The fiscal year ends October 31, by the way. I urge oeople to listen to NPR, to read up on the actual appropropiations process. Today on Talk of the Nation there was extensive discussion on how the the White House knows they have carte blanche financially and militarily - the president is commander in chief - for a short window of opporunity which ends in the fall. The Republican Congress of last year passed apportioned the money. It simply cannot be cut off now.

And try and compose in 30 minutes what some seem to expect - a bill that can prevent any money for troops going without cutting off funds for troops there because they need protection until they get home. It is more complex than simple rhetoric. I wish it were simple. My son is there under fire.

But simple minded "cut off funding" now requests actually complicate things because that is not reality, that is now how it works, and it isn't getting my son home one moment quicker. it actually delays things because the groundwork to get the troops out will need to be done carefully and skillfully. And in the end, we are at mercy of the president, given our system.

Want to blame someone? I didn't vote for any fucking Republicans for president, congress, senate, in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2002 - or ever, since I first voted in 1972. And I have voted every election. Things such as troops stationed in the midst of war cannot be undone so simply. I hold responsible everyone who voted Republican and everyone who didn't vote.

 

[DiaryOfAMadman]

It pleases me a great deal to see that everyone's "GOLDEN BOY" Barack Obama has publically shown himself to be "just another politician". He's nothing great he's arealdy flip floped on his stance on Iraq. First against and now undecided. Just another useless person in a nice suit. Bring on the next GREAT HOPE to the party, the story always turns out the same way.

At what cost? How many lives have to be sacrificed?

IT DOSEN'T MATTER. Thats the answer from our goverment be it Democrat or Republican. You talk big while on the campain trail, then as soon as your elected your primary focus is on wining your next election. That's all that matters.

There is rhetoric and there is reality.

There is no way to just cut off funding now given the budget.

To to say the Democratic congress can do something now, and is not, is absurd.

But simple minded "cut off funding" now requests actually complicate things because that is not reality, that is now how it works, and it isn't getting my son home one moment quicker. it actually delays things because the groundwork to get the troops out will need to be done carefully and skillfully. And in the end, we are at mercy of the president, given our system.

Want to blame someone? I didn't vote for any fucking Republicans for president, congress, senate, in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2002 - or ever, since I first voted in 1972. And I have voted every election. Things such as troops stationed in the midst of war cannot be undone so simply. I hold responsible everyone who voted Republican and everyone who didn't vote.

1. Regardless of how abusrd the notion is to decide to instantly "cut funding", that is EXACTLY what was threatened by the new Democratic Controlled Congress. Everyone knew they couldn't but yet they liked making the headlines and soundbites for the past week. They are to belame for even bringing up the very notion.

2. Who to blame? It's not about Democrats and Republicans. This entire war is and has always been the fault of one man George W. Bush. This war was 100% personal, regardless of his party he would have done this. A person would be nuts to think that John McCain or Steve Forbes would have ever gone to war in Iraq this decade if they were elected a Republican President. Democrats aren't always right about war just because they're NOT REPUBLICAN. Look at L.B.J. who ordered increases of 532,000 troops into Vietnam during his presidencey, he was a republican. I beleive even with the new troop increase we're talking about much less then half of that number of troops being in Iraq. So that makes LBJ and the Democrats twice as evil as Bush and the Republicans.

 

[JackFTwist]

Look at L.B.J. who ordered increases of 532,000 troops into Vietnam during his presidencey, he was a republican.

Oh?

Credibility lost.

 

[JayHawk]

He mistyped but to close the issue:

Lyndon Baines Johnson (August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973), often referred to as LBJ, was the 36th President of the United States (1963–1969). After serving a long career in the U.S. Congress, Johnson became the 37th Vice President; in 1963, he succeeded to the presidency following President John F. Kennedy's assassination. He was a major leader of the Democratic Party and as President was responsible for designing his Great Society, comprising liberal legislation including civil rights laws, Medicare (health care for the elderly), Medicaid (health care for the poor), aid to education, and a major "War on Poverty". Simultaneously, he escalated the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 in early 1968, of whom over 1,000 were killed every month.

Well not close it just add some ...umm stuff....

Source wiki

 

[Andreus]

this thread is making my head hurt

i cant see where the dems have changed their position in any media reports that i can find.

they have always said that they oppose the expansion of the war but acnowledge that they cant do much to stop the CinC besides the use of the bully pullpit.

they have said from the begining that they would not cut the funds for the armed services, that they would not use that as a political tool because it could put the men in uniforms lives in danger.

what has changed here???

this thread seems to be misleading in that it implies there has been a capitulation of some sort when there has only been a consistent policy.

 

[JackFTwist]

this thread is making my head hurt

i cant see where the dems have changed their position in any media reports that i can find.

they have always said that they oppose the expansion of the war but acnowledge that they cant do much to stop the CinC besides the use of the bully pullpit.

they have said from the begining that they would not cut the funds for the armed services, that they would not use that as a political tool because it could put the men in uniforms lives in danger.

what has changed here???

this thread seems to be misleading in that it implies there has been a capitulation of some sort when there has only been a consistent policy.

right on my brother

 

[mojoe54]

If this is true,it is disgusting. So now both parties are going against the will of the vast majority of Americans? What is to be done about it? Every poll says that the vast majority of Americans does not want the troop increase, and wants the troops to come home. I say Protest! And let the Dems know that they too can be voted out of office if they don't represent the will of the people.

 

[JackFTwist]

If this is true,it is disgusting. So now both parties are going against the will of the vast majority of Americans? What is to be done about it? Every poll says that the vast majority of Americans does not want the troop increase, and wants the troops to come home. I say Protest! And let the Dems know that they too can be voted out of office if they don't represent the will of the people.

the Dems will do what they were elected to do - in every realistic way possible - but the commander in chief is in the drivers seat here - funding cutoffs when voted won't take effect until the current appropriations are expired - and must be well crafted with troops still in harm's way

I am very confident that the congressional/senate dems will do th right things in the ways they need to be done, so please I ask spare your wrath on them - they are dealing in the real world, where there is no instant gratification

now for the protest: yes - fill the streets and keep up the demand - end the war, bring the troops home - while congress does what it must given the system, it is up to us to keep the demand up - flood the streets, protest the war

 

[JayHawk]

 

[NickCole]

^^It's a damn sight more than Republicans did when they were in power in Congress, and now some Republicans --including Senator Warner believe it or not-- are slowly joining Democrats.

There's more than one way to get things done.

 

[White Eagle]

There is a protest this saturday in Washington DC. I would go myself if I could afford it.

http://www.peacecoalition.org/action/cfpa/070127_princeton_bus.aspx

March on Washington Saturday, January 27, 2007
Join the Coalition for Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice and tens of thousands of concerned citizens in Washington DC to End the War in Iraq!