Democrats now own the Iraq war

[bullmoose88]

Does anyone still think that the Democrats are going to actually pass a binding resolution to end this war before the next Presidential term? Nope. Today was a vote to continue the war until at least 2009, if not decades longer. The Democrats are not going to do anything meaningful to end the war.

My question is this, assuming the Dems can pass a JR (and get past a filabuster in the senate)...how do you think public opinion would take to them being impotent as to being able to actually get a veto override and the troops home?

I mean, i think it could go either way, they could look noble and idealistic in the face of sure defeat, or they could look even more ineffective (Granted, I agree, they haven't used their mandate to end the war).

But I don't know, Bush is a lame duck, and can afford to just veto this thing and look like the big old bad guy and hope that history justifies his call(s). Its obvious Bush doesn't give a damn about congressional and state Republicans and cares more about being proved right (in the long run, if it happens) than saving his party's ass. And in a sense, it might be wise, in that Americans hate to lose.

Vietnam hurt this country while we were there, but I think pulling out hurt this country's pride which took a lot of time to heal. I don't think a President wants to do that...especially one that has to face re-election.

I, sadly, think that if a Democratic President wants to bring the troops home, (even if its the absolutely clear right thing to do), may need to conceed that he's taking one for the team.

Shrug

[bullmoose88]

The Democrats are not going to do anything meaningful to end the war.

By which you mean "pull American troops out of Iraq", right? The two things are rather different.

There wasn't a war there before we got there.

Does anyone still think that the Democrats are going to actually pass a binding resolution to end this war before the next Presidential term? Nope. Today was a vote to continue the war until at least 2009, if not decades longer. The Democrats are not going to do anything meaningful to end the war.

My question is this, assuming the Dems can pass a JR (and get past a filabuster in the senate)...how do you think public opinion would take to them being impotent as to being able to actually get a veto override and the troops home?

I mean, i think it could go either way, they could look noble and idealistic in the face of sure defeat, or they could look even more ineffective (Granted, I agree, they haven't used their mandate to end the war).

But I don't know, Bush is a lame duck, and can afford to just veto this thing and look like the big old bad guy and hope that history justifies his call(s). Its obvious Bush doesn't give a damn about congressional and state Republicans and cares more about being proved right (in the long run, if it happens) than saving his party's ass. And in a sense, it might be wise, in that Americans hate to lose.

Vietnam hurt this country while we were there, but I think pulling out hurt this country's pride which took a lot of time to heal. I don't think a President wants to do that...especially one that has to face re-election.

I, sadly, think that if a Democratic President wants to bring the troops home, (even if its the absolutely clear right thing to do), may need to conceed that he's taking one for the team.

Shrug

Umm, you don't need to over-ride a veto to end the war.

Yes Yes, I suppose you're attacking this from the supply.  Considering that part now seems err moot with the Senate vote...I seem to think the Dems would now have to pass some act/bill etc that ends authorization, and then override it when Bush vetoes.

But, I dont think the dems would try to cut funding now, that would be painted as an attack on the troops and not Bush. (I think attacking the funding was probably the easier, but less proper path).

[bullmoose88]

Yes Yes, I suppose you're attacking this from the supply.  Considering that part now seems err moot with the Senate vote...I seem to think the Dems would now have to pass some act/bill etc that ends authorization, and then override it when Bush vetoes.

But, I dont think the dems would try to cut funding now, that would be painted as an attack on the troops and not Bush. (I think attacking the funding was probably the easier, but less proper path).

They sent a bill fully funding it, and Bush refused to sign because it wasn't a blank check. The Democrats blinked. They are cowards that deserve to lose.

So we go back to my question, why not override the veto? Would it be worth it?

[bullmoose88]

Yes Yes, I suppose you're attacking this from the supply.  Considering that part now seems err moot with the Senate vote...I seem to think the Dems would now have to pass some act/bill etc that ends authorization, and then override it when Bush vetoes.

But, I dont think the dems would try to cut funding now, that would be painted as an attack on the troops and not Bush. (I think attacking the funding was probably the easier, but less proper path).

They sent a bill fully funding it, and Bush refused to sign because it wasn't a blank check. The Democrats blinked. They are cowards that deserve to lose.

So we go back to my question, why not override the veto? Would it be worth it?

With which 67 sane Senators?

Thats my point...do you fight (in a noble manner) a battle you can't win...and hope that it makes a statement [hey we tried, or hey its on them] and risk looking impotent

or do you do what the dems have done and wuss out despite their obvious mandate from the country?

[bullmoose88]

16 Republican Senators? I'll settle for an end to world hunger and a cure for cancer by September.

Yeah you're probably right, but there's really not much else we can do. I think Democrats have done their best on this issue, but the war is not going to end until we changed the minds of many more Republicans.

Well, I think you took out quite a few of the Republicans, last november, who were the more disposed to take your position.

What you left seems to be a much more stubborn bloc.

[bullmoose88]

True, bullmoose.

I think its unfortunate, though I dont think even with the more reason-friendly republicans, you probably wouldnt get the votes.

Well, I think you took out quite a few of the Republicans, last november, who were the more disposed to take your position.

What you left seems to be a much more stubborn bloc.

Burr, Coburn, and Enzi did vote no. It could have been because of other stuff in the bill, or they could have forgotten their usual brainwashing pills.

You're still how many Republicans short, even if those 3 decided to end this mess?

[bullmoose88]

My question is this, assuming the Dems can pass a JR (and get past a filabuster in the senate)...how do you think public opinion would take to them being impotent as to being able to actually get a veto override and the troops home?

I'm going to be blunt on this point.  51 Senators, after a great deal of fuss, can end a the filibuster without violating the rules; it involved fatiguing your opponents.  Neither party wants to.  It would have been easier in 2005.

Oh the nuclear option. Would the democrats who joined the gang of 14 turn around and do that? if push came to shove?

Not that the filabuster was the main point of that post...rather the veto override.

[bullmoose88]

Wow, FreeRepublic is officially on another planet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839369/posts

Yeah, that's right, everyone who voted for this bill is a leftist.

Might explain the rationale of the 3 Rs.

[bullmoose88]

How many times are you gonna and post essentiallyt the same thing Dave?