So, Democrats vote overwhelmingly to approve more money for Iraq

The approval of the money by Democrats (94-1 in the Senate, with ALL of the pres candidates in that body abstaining. Kuch voted 'no' in the House) was meant to hold the occupation at status quo while they decide what course to take next to force an end to the occupation. That's THEIR rationale as I see it.

I think their main rationale for passing the extension was that they wanted to continue the funds that go to entitlements in the budget . . . checks for health, SS pensions and such. I would say that it is very difficult to separate those to allow the other money to proceed.

And also, I don't know how it would be received among Americans if we found ourselves, in effect, blocking the continuation of those essential subsidies and services (like the government shutdown did) in the attempt to strangle the relatively less amount which is marked for Iraq. I just don't know how folks would balance those.

But here's where I am on this. I've said all along that I believe our troops should have what they need to keep them safe and secure in whatever period it can be reasonably determined that they are stranded by the political debate in Washington. But, to follow that reasoning forever clearly allows a way for Bush to just continue his occupation in these dribs and drabs of extension funds. It also allows Democratic legislators to hide behind the republican obstruction (if they are insincere), claiming to have done all they could, but allowing it to continue under the excuse of supporting the rest of the entitlements and priorities.

These funds which have been voted forward represent to me that the leadership still hasn't found one strategy they are willing to (or have found enough support to) put all of their efforts behind. I don't know what the thinking is in the leadership's chambers, but I imagine they're hoping this will wash over us. But they had better realize (after we tell them) that we're still waiting for them to do something dramatic to lead the opposition with the same level of anger that we've put behind electing them.

That's a bit of a shift for me, so be gentle.

...as a way of skirting the possibility of a veto?

if we accept that they're insincere in their vote

Attach something the President really does not want and that you really do want (such as expanded hate crimes legislation for gays and lesbians) to something that the President really does want (like money to go kill people) and make it so he can't have one without the other.

It's maddening. I remember getting Clarance Thomas because Danforth negotiated a tradeoff of an extension of the Civil Rights Act (vetoed five times by senior Bush) for floor votes.

It's definitely not ideal, but thems the brakes you know? It's a one-hand-washes-the-other kind of world in D.C.

telling us which parts of the legislation he intends to comply with and which parts go into the shredder. Any guesses on what goes where?

wp

Isn't that politics for "avoiding taking a stand while I'm a candidate?"

"Avoiding backing up my criticism of the continuing Iraq war with actual congressional votes?"

We call those who spend their aggression by waging war with lives other than their own "chickenhawks."

What do we call those who are too cowardly to take a stand in congress?

slick

that continues funding of the war and/or to deauthorize the war. They could authorize a withdrawal instead. A deauthorization wouldn't require it to go to the president. My position is essentially Richardson's position.

... as a reality fro the coming decades. They think they must, to win, also. It's sad. The Democratic Party President will NOT leave Iraq.

the Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are in the form of Supplementals, not in the Defence Authorization bills.

"The Senate agreed on Thursday to increase the federal debt limit by $850 billion -- from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion -- and then proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq.

Additionally, the administration has been given emergency authority to tap further into a $70 billion "bridge fund" to provide new infusions of money for the occupation while the Congress works on appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and other agencies. "

n/t

all hate it.

And it leaves you standing there, betrayed and without any good choices. I will grudgingly go vote for the clowns they run on 'our party' line, knowing full well that this shit is not going to end 1-20-09.

and it turns out to be a couple hours of speeches. They can't be serious if they think that's nearly enough. Right here we have a bill with tons of leverage available to press republicans . . . if they'll use it. They need to come up with something more than a 'we did everything we could' continuing resolution.

And, yeah, it hurts.

almost everything they wanted, INCLUDING THE INVASION OF IRAQ

They thought that would prevent them from being labelled as "weak" on terrorism

In reality, the have become a self-fufilled prophecy, because their actions have made the terrorists stronger

2008 is going to be very interesting. If the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Clinton, and the republicans nominate guiliani, it will be quite fun to watch them distinguish themselves from each other, as the country goes down the tubes

The Democrats and their Republican colleagues who voted more funding are all trying to avoid facing the inevitable as long as possible.

The "Strategy" on both "sides" is to have a scenario in which the other "side" will be blamed for "losing" an obviously lost war.

They are all fully cognizant that the American people want the war ended but don't want to "losers". It's really a rehash of Nixon's successful "Peace with Honor" ploy that got him into the White House and cost thousands of lives unnecessarily.

It's electoral politics at it's ugliest.

For those that have family members over there, this is unacceptable.

there seems to be no shame at all among those who perpetuate this deliberately. They know that there's nothing more those troops can do in Iraq except for whatever political benefit they can manage from their staying or leaving.

Give 'em a plane ticket home, and take care of them when they get here.

I've got the fare

for much less than 180 billion. they'll have to fly coach, tho.

isn't going to solve the problem, nor is it even connected to making our troops safer.

Dems could challenge the waste and corruption in Iraq and use troop safety as an issue.

There are any number of ways to hold these goons accountable and stop the robbery of the Treasury in the name of Iraq and troop safety. Dem leaders don't seem to have the imagination or creativity to figure it out.

I still maintain none of this is necessary and Dems don't have to pay a price for it.

it's an obvious failure of the leadership to choose a course, get enough members to support it and put enough effort behind it to make an impact.

and the few others in the House who voted no....Jesus H Christ the others are playing games while people DIE - I am so disgusted I could PUKE

Thank you Russ and thank you Wisconsin.

Let it eat them.

Unless Bush comes up with something else this weekend. So much for this being the month to change the course ~ instead September 2007 will go down as the month the Democratic Party rolled over and died.

The dogs of war are loosed upon the world.

it feels like we're just waiting for the alibi and the kiss off. I hope not. A lot of folks are counting on at least a fight to whatever end.

Before the war started it was 'we've just been attacked, now is not the time to question.'

Then, when the war started, 'if you question the war now, you're demoralizing the troops, now is not the time to question.'

When the '04 election occurred 'you can't change horses in mid-stream, now is not the time to question.'

Last year, 'we're waiting for the Iraq study group to make it's assessments, now is not the time to question.'

When they recommended we start withdrawal and enter negotiations with Iraq's neighbors, Dear Leader did the opposite, started a surge, and said, 'see how the surge works in six months, but now in not the time to question.'

Present-six months up, bogus assessment given, more money, more lives on both sides up in flames.

See a pattern here?