Democrats now own the Iraq war

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They just gave Bush a blank check to warmonger. Remind me why I donated to the Democrats last year?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's what Murtha said: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/to-end-the-iraq-war-se_b_49287.html

Tough call actually, because there are a lot of good things in that bill and I do share his concerns that it'd be the troops suffering, not Bush. On the other hand we need to stop this sometime and I'd hate to simply resign to not being able to stop the war as long as Bush has his veto.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats aren't going to ever stand up to Bush.
It just passed the Senate by an even larger margin than the original Iraq War Resolution.

The media has made Democrats more afraid of Mr. 28% than their own base.  Their reporting on this is the most biased reporting I've ever seen. They want to keep their war going. Well, everyone's to blame now, Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the media for the mass killing of brown people.

[Aizen]

I'm a little upset too but frankly the Democrats don't have the power to override Bush's veto. It's probably going to take a Democrat getting in to the white house to stop the war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Speed of Sound]

The word "Obsequeous" now has Dem pictures near it. -_-

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Everett]

Well, I didn't think they would do much even when given the opportunity.

[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

[Aizen]

Upon closer inspection, it really seems like they just surrendered. I don't see any "compromise" here, just the Democrats giving in to Bush. This is why Pelosi and Reid should not be leading the Democrats - they're too soft. They stand up to Bush for a month and just surrender. Absolutely disgraceful.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Upon closer inspection, it really seems like they just surrendered. I don't see any "compromise" here, just the Democrats giving in to Bush. This is why Pelosi and Reid should not be leading the Democrats - they're too soft. They stand up to Bush for a month and just surrender. Absolutely disgraceful.

Hey, it's got the word "accountablity" in its name, and its got some non-binding benchmarks for Bush to ignore that were written by a Republican Senator. That will really show Bush who is boss.

[jokerman]

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.

And that logically leads to the conclusion that should we leave the war would end?

[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).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It passed the Senate 80-14. Don't ask me about the 3 Republican nay votes.


Senators voting no:
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

[TheresNoMoney]

The Democrats are in a crappy position. I give them credit for passing a bill two weeks ago that set a timeline. THeir hands are kind of tied on this issue, as they don't have the votes to override a veto.

Reality is that the war is not going to end as long as there is a Republican in the White House.

Hopefully by the end of September enough of the Republicans will cross over to override Bush's veto (we need 16 of them in the Senate).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats are in a crappy position. I give them credit for passing a bill two weeks ago that set a timeline. THeir hands are kind of tied on this issue, as they don't have the votes to override a veto.

Reality is that the war is not going to end as long as there is a Republican in the White House.

Hopefully by the end of September enough of the Republicans will cross over to override Bush's veto (we need 16 of them in the Senate).

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

[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?

[TheresNoMoney]

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.

[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.

[TheresNoMoney]

True, bullmoose.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.