Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"We cannot say we're against the war and then vote to fund it"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:43 AM
Original message
"We cannot say we're against the war and then vote to fund it"
Kucinich just made this statement on the House floor ...

he also said that if Congress votes for more war funding, they will be responsible for more troop deaths ...

Kucinich is right; if you vote for more war by voting more war funds than you are in favor of MORE WAR ... if you are in favor of MORE WAR, you cannot say you oppose the war ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. You need to stop making so much sense
Leave our "leaders" alone to tap dance around the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's time to DROWN THIS WAR IN A BATHTUB!
Starve it of funding, just like Grover and the Bushbots have attempted to do to our entire system of government, with some success. Fuck them all...they are no longer even remotely in power now, so they should just sit back and shut the fuck up. They've FAILED. Not a penny more to fund the deaths of American soldiers.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikey929 Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. Against Troops
And if you say you support the troops, you are also supporting the war. What do troops do? That's right, kill other people. I cannot condone killing innocent people, even if the troops are ordered to do so. So I regretfully must say I do not support the troops. The only way I support the troops is that I support their right to hop on the first flight out of Iraq. I support their right to lay down their arms and declare peace. If the soldiers stop fighting, war will end. Because you know the generals and leaders aren't going to do it.

The military should be used for good -- humanitarian aid, handing out food, ensuring safety. Our military should not be used as an offensive weapon against innocent people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Welcome to DU, Mikey929! Truly: if you REALLY support the troops,
you do NOT send them off to a war based on LIES, to squander their precious lives, bodies, and blood to satisfy some oil baron's hard-on, or some chickenhawk's jones to show how macho he is (since he passed on the chance to show that when he was young and COULD), or some ideological cabal (of chickenhawks) greedy for world conquest, or because some arrogant coward insists on proving that his dick is bigger than his dad's. You do NOT "support our troops" if you waste their sacrifice on such selfish, greedy, sinful, worthless trifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
43. Hear, hear!
And it would be nice if they were here to defend the US in case of emergency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. One recommendation for saying the bleeding obvious!
We need more of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's going to take many billions more to withdraw and pay off the regional powers
Edited on Fri Dec-08-06 09:59 AM by blm
that will be stuck with the aftermath of our withdrawal for a long time.

I agree in spirit with Dennis, but practical logistics are another matter and I would say PAY WHAT IT TAKES to be ABLE to get out as soon as possible. And I just don't believe it can be done as quickly as 6 months, but is doable within 8-10 months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jarab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. If we want to retain majorities, we must do exactly that ...
Everything Denny says makes practical sense, but the ramifications are severe.
Congress is NOT going to refuse troop funding. As a matter of fact, the vote to fund will be overwhelming on both sides of the aisle.

It's sad to say, but this is *s war, and we must fund it til shrub hollers "Daddy!". We cannot assume blame for those 2900+ lives lost, and to de-fund will place us in the position of being the ones to blame.
Neither is going to happen, but impeachment is more likely than withholding troop funding.
mho
...O...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. it's not "troop funding"; it's war and occupation funding!!
you are probably totally correct in how both the chickenass republicans and democrats will vote on continued war funding ...

let me say that, as you pointed out, it is being done TOTALLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND IT IS DISGRACEFUL !!!!!

a pox on both your houses if the will of the people and doing the right thing is going to be ignored just to "stick it to bush" ... while Congress is so busy do battle with the pea-brain in the WH, thousands of more people will die ... is that where the Democrats' priorities lie? do we accept putting politics ahead of life and death ...

again, i totally agree with your assessment of the situation and i totally reject it as well ... Democrats are letting misguided fear stop them from doing what they know is the right thing ... they need to stop worrying about the republican spin machine and take their case to the American people ... we want the war to end and we do NOT believe anything good is going to come out of Iraq whether the US remains there another 6 months or another 6 years ...

the American people will reward Democrats if they stop being so mealy-mouthed and step up to the plate ... people are dying every single day; can't they understand that?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. Impeachment is the ONLY way out -- and the ONLY moral option. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. and then what? n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. ?? -- Removal is the only way we have a shot at putting the US on the road of sanity
Edited on Fri Dec-08-06 01:50 PM by pat_k
Defund the war in Bush World and Bushes would probably just get the Saudi Royal family to pony up all the money needed.

In Bush World, the US is guaranteed to continue on the path of insanity -- spreading chaos, and inhumanity throughout the Middle East.

Doors of opportunity will remain closed as long as the massive power of the American presidency is in the hands of war criminals.

Door of opportunity that care closed to the War Criminals when we reassert our collective sovereignty and restore legitimacy to the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. politically, that is suicide.

"defunding the troops" is how that will be played.

this is one of the big reasons Kucinich never got above low
single digits in the primaries. zero political sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Ineffective too. The Saudi Royals would prob just pony up. Impeachment is the ONLY way. . .
Edited on Fri Dec-08-06 01:59 PM by pat_k
It is the ONLY moral option, and the only way we have a shot at putting the US on the road of sanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. the . . . votes . . . aren't . . . there.

they just aren't. not until waxman and conyers get well
into their investigations anyway. and that will take more
time than we have before a vote on funding the war comes up.

and so we arrive back at the same dilemma.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. (1) That rationalization can't trump duty, (2) Don't be so sure. . .
Edited on Fri Dec-08-06 01:58 PM by pat_k
First off, "Can't win, so don't fight" is a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2832600&mesg_id=2837018">DEADLY rationalization that the DC Dems have been invoking to justify their refusal to do what duty demands for decades.

Members of the House have a choice. Duty or Complicity. Accuse or Exonerate.

Bush and Cheney are committing their war crimes and conducting their criminal surveillance program in plain sight.

Elected bodies, good government groups, and countless citizens have leveled charges and have concluded that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to our Constitution.

The case is clear, complete, and compelling.

Each day that Members of the House refuse to act -- to dismiss those charges or accuse (i.e., introduces articles of impeachment, make the case, and call on their colleagues to move to impeach) they are derelict in their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.

Their Constitutional function is to ACCUSE and put the charges before the Senate for final judgment. Unless they dismiss the charges as baseless, the danger to the Constitution is real.

The oath is an individual oath.

Their duty and individual duty.

Each and every Member of the House is willfully turning a blind eye each day that they adhere to Pelosi's "off the table" pledge.

No human being can predict the course of events until they are behind them. It is their place to BEGIN the process. It is not their place to predict an outcome in the Senate that no human being can know. It may never GET to the Senate.

Their oath is not an oath to win. It is not an oath to sit on their hands until the prognosticators who believe in their own omniscience tell them they will win. It is an oath to figh; to "support and defend".

. . .
Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Continued. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. (3) you're dreaming.

very well said. but utterly impractical.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. WWII was pretty "impractical" too. Moral obligations trump "practicality"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. and it is NOT even practical
that's the saddest part of this discussion ...

voters don't trust Democrats or republicans ... the last election was not about "Dems have the right vision on Iraq" ... it was purely anti-bush ...

when bush is taken out of the equation, as he will be in future elections, voters are going to be looking first and foremost for candidates with integrity ... they will find NO INTEGRITY in Democrats who are afraid of their own shadows and who are afraid of republican spin ...

the right path both morally and practically is to take our case to the American people that bush is trapped in his own madness and it will take a bold Congress to stop him and put an end to his insane war and occupation ... Democrats will be rewarded when they show some backbone and integrity ... they will just be a bunch of ho hum politicos no different than the republicans if they continue on their current course ...

people of integrity do NOT vote for continued funding when there is NO HOPE doing so will yield better results ... if Democrats hand bush another round of billions, they are every bit as responsible for continuing the war and occupation as he is ...

i doubt they'll vote to cut-off funding and that's too bad ... we could find in our Congressional Dems a new generation of leadership that could restore Democratic majorities for the next 50 years or more ... from the looks of things right now, it just ain't going to happen ...

and btw, what's so practical about devastating the US image around the world, weakening our military, failing miserably in Afghanistan because of Iraq, and bankrupting the country in the process ... this is what is being called "practical"?????? i think not ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
40. Spot on. How can Americans trust Dems to stand up to terrorists if they won't stand up to Bush?
With great crises come great opportunities. Their dereliction is deplorable, but what pours salt in the wound is that they are passing up an opportunity -- an opportunity such that the Party may never never see again (at least we can hope we don't fall this low again).

You would think they would have learned their lesson from their failure to impeach Reagan and HWB in '86/'87. They "took the high ground" of appeasement then because they convinced themselves that doing so would lead to presidential victory in '88. Sound familiar?

They don't even need to look back that far. They need look no further than their failure to fight tooth and nail against Bush's Authorization to Use Military Force. Sure, they were conned by promises to build a coalition and get a UN resolution, but it was their fear of being labeled "unpatriotic" that made them such easy marks. Those who voted to abdicate their war making powers and responsibilities have been paying, and will continue to pay, a very high political price.

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2879455&mesg_id=2882875

. . .

Democratic leaders may never have a greater opportunity to engage and inspire the public

The biggest problem the Democratic Party has is the perception that Democrats are weak and unprincipled. It is hard to imagine a more effective way that Democrats can prove they are the party of strength and principle than to stand and fight for the Constitution.

What better time than now, when the principle of consent and the dictates of our Constitution are so desperately in need of a champion?

The Nov. 7th "wave" demonstrated the power of the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush Cheney White House. But the election could only give voters an indirect means of venting their anger, and as such, it did not fully tap into the anger or bring it into focus.

If they have the courage to stand up and make their case for impeachment, Democratic leaders would provide a voice and a focus that could energize voters across the political spectrum.

Countess elected bodies, good government groups, and citizens already recognize that the only way the nation can restore the institutions and Constitutional principles that Bush and Cheney have abused and subverted is through impeachment and removal. The numbers that are looking to Congress to act are growing.

Instead of being champions of the People and the Constitution, they choose the path of "responsible" and tactical appeasement. (As they wipe their foreheads in relief, believing they have dodged the Impeachment "bullet.")

The Democratic Party's failure to take up the fight for impeachment is symptomatic of a deeply ingrained pattern of self-defeating behavior. (We have seen the enemy, and it is us). Their failure stand up and fulfill their is deplorable, but what makes it so heartbreaking is that they are failing to seize an unprecedented opportunity.

Every day that Members of Congress do nothing they betray their oath and demonstrate contempt for the concerned citizens who are calling on them to act. They may find that the price of their contempt is higher than they can imagine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I think there is probably a bit of a difference

between the moral imperative of defeating hitler, and attempting
an impeachment that is doomed to failure.

the connection escapes me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. Fighting to stop War crimes? Torture? Ring a bell? (nt)
Edited on Sat Dec-09-06 02:56 PM by pat_k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. no matter how much we hate the fucker

bush is NOT hitler.

that is flatly ridiculous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. Torture is torture. I said he was a War Criminal. I said NOTHING about "being" Hilter.
Edited on Sun Dec-10-06 01:59 AM by pat_k
The United States is a War Criminal Nation. Bush and Cheney have abused power and subverted our most treasured principles to make us so.

Bush does not need to "be hitler" for the moral imperative to stop the war crimes to be EXACTLY the same.

When you add their Stalinist elections, where those who count the votes decide everything, to their torture and criminal war of aggression, Bush and Cheney actually combine the worst bits of both Stalin and Hitler.

___________________________________________

P.S. Criminal insanity in any form is evil that we must defend against. Willful evil acts demand retribution. Hatred has nothing to do with it.

I love the vision/idea of a true America that most of us share; the vision our Constitution finally embodied with the the passage of the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments. A vision that Bush and Cheney are systematically destroying. The only way to stop the destruction is to remove the destroyers from power using the means we established for that purpuse -- impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. grab the GOD DAMN reigns!

abu graib is NOT Auschwitz.

anything to the contrary is JUST.FUCKED.UP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. So, 100 tortured is ok? Or 1000? How many does it take before intervening is a . . .
Edited on Sun Dec-10-06 01:39 PM by pat_k
. . . moral imperative?

War Crimes are being committed by Americans under color of law NOW.

Non sequitur pretense that I have equated things that I have not does not change the truth.

We are a war criminal nation under bushcheney.

Get used to it or demand the extraordinary procedure we put in place to deal with extraordinary abuses of power and to reassert our Constitutional principles.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. The... Votes... Aren't... There... YET! INVESTIGATE Until They Are
That is how we got rid of Nixon.

Of course, once we had the votes to impeach Nixon, we didn't have to. He could count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
45. I think I said that, didn't I?

the investigations will almost definitely uncover something . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. truer words were never spoken
The Dems have their eye on 2008 and I'm afraid are not willing to put politics aside and do the right thing. We must leave Iraq immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. The only way this works
is if appropriations and funding are published so that the public knows this isn't depriving the soldiers of what they need to protect themselves.
This is only effective if he publishes on paper where the money is going.
He needs to learn some strategy. For example, if a senator or congressman were to take this approach they should come out with a report that is similar to an audit before giving this kind of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. education is critical
Edited on Fri Dec-08-06 09:21 PM by welshTerrier2
too many have argued that it would hurt Democrats if they cut-off funding for Iraq ... there's no doubt that republicans will try to spin the news against the Democrats ... but that does NOT mean the Democrats should choose what policies they support accordingly ...

we cannot "lead" if we are reactive rather than proactive ... we need to do the right thing for the country and the American people ... period!!!!!

but your point is dead on that it has to be made very, very clear that we are not cutting off necessary funding to safeguard the troops ... funds should only be used to protect the troops in every possible way and to withdraw them as quickly as their safety allows ... what needs to stop is funding for continued OFFENSIVE operations ...

educating the electorate is the only way to counter deceitful republican spin ... it's exactly what Democrats should be doing ... we shouldn't run from a political challenge; we should explain to the American people why the choices we make are the right choices ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. True
Without proper calculation, in politics a bold move based on the right principles will easily be demonized or written off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
23. If the "Best of the House of Representatives in the 21st century" dvd
were produced, Dennis would get top billing. At least he would if truth, integrity, courage, and enlightened positions count as "best."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
24. On the other hand "you can not say you suppor the troops and then
vote to leave them high and dry."

There are many ways to view this, and I appreciate Dennis's position, but one can't pretend this is a black and white issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. high and dry???
are you arguing that cutting off funding for offensive operations and using funds only to protect the troops while we withdraw them is "leaving them high and dry"??? one might suggest that keeping them in Iraq in the middle of this endless carnage is leaving them high and dry ...

do you think that's what Kucinich supports anything that would harm the troops? it's not what he supports and it's not what i support either ...

as for it not being a black and white issue, I agree ... but, to quote Bob Dylan, "he not busy being born is busy dying" ... the bottom line here is that you're either for leaving or for staying ... no, that doesn't necessarily mean "staying the course" ... i understand some think we have to stay but that we need new tactics ... but slice and dice it any way you want to, in the end, staying is staying and it is a pro war and occupation position ... "against the war" means LEAVING; NOT staying ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. No, I'm arguing that cutting off funds is "cutting off funds."
Kucinich is putting forward a black/white line in the sand bullshit position with his - "with us or against us" "pro-terror or pro-american" "cut funding or you support the war" bullshit. And, you proved my point with this absurdity "you're either for leaving or for staying." You went on to further bolster my point here:

staying is staying and it is a pro war and occupation position ... "against the war" means LEAVING; NOT staying.

:eyes:

This is the one thing I can't stand about Kucinich. He tosses out the same bullshit Bush does, but does it with a leftist twist. If Bush brings home the troops tomorrow, I will celebrate, but if he keeps them in Iraq, I want them to have the equipment needed to stay alive. Got it?

Further, I'm for leaving, but I am not for cutting funding at this point. You don't get to lable me, or my position to your liking. Remember Liberals are supposed to understand nuance, you do understand nuance, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. i understand nuance; i also know nonsense when i see it ...
and sure i get to label you as you get to label me ...

and i am going to label you, IF your position is that we should remain in Iraq to achieve any purpose beyond troop safety and the most rapid departure their safety will allow, as pro war ... because if you are saying that we should remain there to continue fighting, regardless of the possible good intentions you may have, then you are arguing that continuing the war and occupation is better than stopping the war and occupation ... sorry, but i call that pro-Iraq war ...

don't like the logic and the description? them's the breaks ...

btw, if you aren't familiar with McGovern's bill (HR4232 which Kucinich is supporting), it might be useful to check it out ... here's a link: http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/mcgovern-exit-bill.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Guess what WT, YOU and I don't get to decide when we leave.
Neither does Kucinich. Remember who does? And, you do know what kind of a person he is, no? The fatal flaw in your argument, as well as Kucinich's, is that Bush is still "the decider." You think it's logical to assume that if Dems cut funds Bush will say "let's leave?" I find that laughable frankly. What he'll do is scale back on an already under supported military. You think they lack body armor now????

I want the troops to come home ASAP, but IF the pResident isn't going to pull them quickly, (which he isn't) - I refuse to support the notion that he'll be forced to do our bidding if we cut funds. It's naive beyond belief.

Also, remember Kerry's vote against funding was used against him by those on the right who don't understand "nuance." I refuse to listen to similar praddle from my fellow leftists without pointing out the flaw in this position.

btw, you may want to check this out to consider what can happen if we "cut funding."

http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html

I checked out your link, and it doesn't change my position. WE are still at the mercy of Bush.

I'm out for now, I'll check back later.

Peace

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. naive beyond belief? indeed ...
Edited on Sat Dec-09-06 08:59 AM by welshTerrier2
well, you raised the perfect argument ... you said: "I refuse to support the notion that he'll be forced to do our bidding" ... you added the phrase "if we cut funds" ...

but think what handing a madman MORE FUNDING does ... what is it you're expecting him to do with his "run of the war contract" ???

have you not ensnared yourself in your very own argument???

by funding this madman, you are indeed supporting the notion that "he'll be forced to do our bidding" ... and therein lies the rub ...

yes, bush is in power and it may take a massive effort to stop his prosecution of the war and occupation ... maybe we do need to impeach him and remove him from office ... surely handing him a blank check is not the way to go ... giving him more funds does nothing but enable HIS agenda ...

btw, i don't agree with your premise that if Congress shuts-off funding, bush would try to fight the war anyway ... bush would love to have anyone but himself be held responsible for Iraq ... if funds were shut-off, he'd use the opportunity to try get himself off the hook and blame the Democrats for "losing the war and cutting and running" ... it would be all their fault ... bush is a child looking for someone else to blame for his own actions ...

the argument, someone upthread made it, that shutting off funds would hurt the Democrats politically, is exactly how bush and the republicans would TRY to exploit the situation ... the remedy for Democrats, if they do the right thing and pull the plug on this madness, is to take their case to the American people ... my view is that the American people will reward them for stopping bush and ending the war ... doing the right thing shouldn't be feared as a political liability as long as you clearly communicate why you're doing it and how you arrived at your decision ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. I think the war will continue with our without the funding. A madman with money
is better than one without if you're a soldier in Iraq.

have you not ensnared yourself in your very own argument???

No, I stated exactly what I see happening, let me say it again in bold, simple terms.
LESS SUPPLIES FOR THE TROOPS IF WE CUT FUNDS. And, IT'S NAIVE TO THINK BUSH WILL END THE WAR, JUST BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO GIVE HIM MORE MONEY. He's looking for a way out alright, AFTER he leaves office. He has said so time and time again.

I hope my position is clear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
29. What Dems should do is expose the fraud and waste in Iraq.
Edited on Fri Dec-08-06 09:41 PM by AtomicKitten
That would be an excellent way to get America's attention. It would tie into wanting to cut resouces and will add another dimension as to why we need to get the hell out of Dodge immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
32. The conscience of the House and Senate both is Mr. Kucinich
Time for somebody to say, stop funding the war. No funds for the war, the troops have to pack up and come home. Yes, it really is that simple. You can't prosecute a war when you don't have the supplies and money to do it with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katzenjammer Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
51. Yes, he is indeed. Or should be.
It just amazes me how many people here at DU can't seem to grasp the first rule of how to get out of a hole: stop digging.

They're apparently willing for more people to die so that Democrats can possibly get a political advantage. That's part of the Democratic party value system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
34. Yes they can..
... and they will.

Some of you folks are pretty slow to GET this. The Democratic party is only one tiny increment better than the Republicans when it comes to this god damned war. They are timid, they are scared, they are afraid to take a stand and with the exception of a handful of them they pretty much suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. where are all the "candidate cheerleaders"?
Edited on Sat Dec-09-06 09:13 AM by welshTerrier2
it's always interesting on threads like this that all the (your candidate here) cheerleaders seem to have nothing to say ...

the truth is that many of them like to see themselves and the candidate they support as "anti-war" or at least "anti-Iraq war" ... they like to think that their candidate has the vision to "end this thing" ...

as far as i can see, every single prominent '08 candidate supports MORE WAR ... not one is willing to take a political risk and step away from the pack and set a bold new direction ... instead we're offered all these ideas about timelines and troop training and "talking to the Iranians" ... wonderful ... we can talk to the Iranians and the Syrians and anyone else AFTER WE GET OUT ... they know we have no cards to play in Iraq and can just wait until we finally leave ... we have no chips to bargain with ...

the bottom line is that we either do everything we can to stop bush or we don't ... what the current crop is offering is MORE WAR and a blank check for bushie boy ... and that deserves the support of no one ... if you're really against this war, stop pushing candidates who aren't and start pressuring them to change their tactics ... lead them to your anti-war position; don't follow them if they keep funding bush ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. That is because..
... most of them want the Presidency more than they want to do the right thing. Even when lives are at stake.

It's 100% political calculation, just like Bush**'s calculation that if he keeps rolling the dice in Iraq, he'll eventually roll a seven. Never mind that each roll costs the lives of our soldiers, and our fast-dwindling treasury.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
39. that damned Kucinich
telling the truth again

who does he think he is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
41. I find myself in agreement
Congress is, as far as I know, the U.S. government's bill payer. I'm sure I've read that in the U.S. Constitution.

The logic of the OP's title quote seems inescapable.

Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
42. As our esteemed bush* says, take nothing off the table. Get out - or defund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
46. "Bring em Home Now"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
47. Go, Dennis, go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
52. "More money for war" =/= "more war"
It's an entirely consistent position to say that one would rather there were no American troops in Iraq, but that given that there are and that even if the decision to begin a withdrawal were taken tomorrow it would still take months to get them all out then it's worth spending money on keeping them well-equipped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. check out the McGovern bill
there are tons of co-sponsors (including Kucinich) to the McGovern bill which, of course, has not seen the light of day in the republican-controlled House ...

here's a link to a description of the bill: http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/mcgovern-exit-bill.php

the "black and white" distinction i draw across the spectrum of positions people might endorse on Iraq is between the "we should remain to achieve something" versus the "we need to get out as rapidly as US troop safety permits" ... the cut-off of funds should be targeted at continued offensive operations; not at providing for the troops ... i can't imagine anyone endorsing that ... all funds needed should be spent to protect and provide for our troops until they can be safely withdrawn ...

on the other hand, giving bush yet more hundreds of billions to continue the madness is NOT ANTI-WAR; it's pro-war ... Democrats who are pushing such nonsense as remaining in Iraq to "train Iraqi troops" or "until we can "work some things out" with the Iranians" just don't get it ... bush has neither the inclination nor the skill nor the international prestige to accomplish anything in Iraq ... regardless of how well-intentioned some might be when calling for a new course that still keeps US troops in Iraq, their vision is lacking and, whether they like the label or not, they are pro-war and occupation ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC