Largest rebuke of Bush's war to pass Congress and all some can do is whine and complain

Already, there are complaints from the (Democratic) opponents of the legislation that the bill doesn't go far enough to end Bush's occupation. There are even those who are carping because the bill "won't stop the war."

The amazing thing is, most of these Democratic critics stood with those who turned their backs on the compromise bill and voted 'no'. If the majority had followed their lead today and merely registered a 'no' vote on Bush's supplemental, their action would have directed Bush to do NOTHING. All of the disaster and killing which is continuing behind Congress' action today would still be occurring behind a 'no' vote. Bush would then, not only be able to continue on, but *he'd then be able to blame Congress' withholding of funds for every mistake and shortfall that he, himself, is responsible for.

Criticism of the leadership's decision to provide their own funding bill and scrap Bush's is even more curious in the face of the 'progressive' approach by Rep. Lee and others which would provide their own 'funds' to effect the withdrawal envisioned in their plan.


Addressing some of the points of contention . . .


1. The waivers in the legislation are points of administration accountability, not loopholes for Bush to continue his occupation. This administration already asserts some right they imagine to do what they want in the name of national security with each bill Bush signs. The provision in the Act requires Bush to come back to Congress and explain, on a unit-by-unit basis, why he needs to extend their tour of duty beyond the military standards already in place; instead of the automatic escalation Bush is taking advantage of now.

here's the provision:

( SEC. 1902. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the extension of a unit's deployment in Iraq beyond the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

SEC. 1903. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the redeployment of a unit to Iraq in advance of the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's redeployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1591:

The standard in the legislation for extending their tours is whether 'national security' is at stake. It should be easy enough for Congress to make that determination whether national security is threatened by limiting these soldiers' tours to the military standard. At that point Congress will be challenged to either 'waive' Bush by, or act to restrain him. This isn't the republican rubber-stamp majority. I expect those members who have objected to this provision to step up and demand congressional action to confront Bush at the point where he attempts to bypass the bill's restrictions.


2. This is a political process which has just allowed the rebuke of Bush's occupation to pass the first hurdle on the way to Bush's desk, but it is not just a symbolic act. There is a dual process in the Senate, led by Sen. Robert Byrd who led the opposition to the original IWR and coined the phrase, blank-check to describe the effect of the resolution. Byrd's bill will be reconciled with the House legislation if it manages to pass out of the Senate. That's the point where we will determine what's going to be left in the final bill and what gets chucked. This bill is a down-payment toward that Senate effort. It is a beginning, not an end to the process.

3. The notion, by some of the bill's continuing critics, that the Democrats who lobbied and voted for the legislation were any less courageous than the ones who stood against the bill should have been laid to rest as our Democratic leadership stood toe to toe against the insults of the republican opposition. Bush and his enablers certainly don't see this bill as a license to continue their occupation.

here's the provision that some claim is a loophole allowing Bush to continue his occupation indefinitely:

(f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.
(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Nothing in the provision gives Bush the sole power to determine any of these. Congress will still be in place to challenge any assertion that troops are needed to address these concerns. This provision spells that out for the skeptical:

It is the sense of Congress that, because the commanders of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq have the training, experience, and first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground--

(1) the commanders should be allowed to conduct the war and manage the movements of the troops; and
(2) Congress should remain focused on executing its oversight role.


Republicans were directly rebuffed today by the passage of this Iraq withdrawal bill and were left to complain about money appropriated for American farmers, veterans, and children. Democrats stood tall in the debate as they outlined the assistance the bill provided the troops who have been neglected and over-burdened by the indifference of Bush's congressional enablers.

from Murtha:

"The emergency supplemental appropriations bill provides more than was requested by the President for our troops and veterans. Significant increases are added to address military readiness and force protection equipment shortfalls, and service members’ health and housing needs. The bill provides an additional $1.2 billion to re-focus our efforts in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping.

The bill also includes money that the President did not request for the health and well-being of our war fighter. This includes: $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to offset the Administration’s insurance premium increase to our troops and their families; $62 million for amputee care for our returning war fighters; $14.8 million for burn care; and provides funding for the creation of a new program that will provide support for those who are taking care of our severely wounded in military hospitals around the world."

“As Americans, we have a responsibility to ensure that our men and women in uniform, who have sacrificed so much in this time of war, receive the care they rightfully deserve,” added Murtha.

No one should now doubt that this Congress intends to come together to hold Bush accountable for continuing his occupation. This Congress has clearly demanded an end to the occupation by a date certain. The members who stood with the leadership and provided the votes for passage of this Iraq withdrawal bill will go down in history as the first wave of the assault on Bush's militarism. This is the first meaningful step toward ending the Iraq occupation that has advanced since the initial invasion. This Congress deserves our thanks and praise for their dogged determination and success in moving this substantial rebuke of Bush's occupation forward.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

but this bill is really DOA. Nice thought, but it is DOA, due to a veto and certain signing statement added on to whatever 'compromise' is to follow. So, forgive the realists who don't want to join the tea party on the deck of the Titanic.

Though the Democratic Party doesn't hold the votes to overturn a veto, it does have enought to repeatly tell the President that if you want the money, here are the stipulations. If he starts screaming that the Democrats are withholding the money the reply is "No, you vetoed it."

The bill is a token to show the public it is trying and doesn't want ownership of the war, but that is the extent of the import of this bill. The bill in its present form will be vetoed and in the form that it will hit his desk, he will sign it then neuter it with a signing statement. Until the Dems grow a pair on these signing statements, every piece of Democratic legislation that hits his desk and passes is gonna be essentially only a shell of what was written.

This Congress is going to quickly be accused of playing politics with troop funding as Bush begins to complain that he is running out of resources with which to protect the troops, and our vulnerable Dems are gonna go running for the hills. I wish I shared your optimism of the never ending energy level of the Dems continuing to submit to the president essentially the same bill, but the time will quickly come when the administration begins to complain that it doesn't have the resources it needs to protect the troops, and the media will begin to harass the Dems about being stubborn and to stop submitting the same bill if the result is predetermined and if they 'really want to help the troops, they would give them the tools they need to finish the job'. Then, some wolves in sheep's clothing will begin to clamor for a 'compromise' (read capitulation).

I have seen this movie before, I'm afraid. Hope I'm surprised by the ending this time. Hope I'm wrong.

However, I will bet ANY taker here on DU $100 that we will still be in Iraq (above 50,000 troops) on Election Day 08. I just don't see Bush pulling troops out no matter what the law, threat, or outcry says. It just isn't in him, and his whole cabal thrives on thumbing its nose at the rule of law, and our majority is WAY too thin (thanks LIEberman) for us to do ANYTHING with real teeth because LIEberman and the other pro-war Dems will block it.

not the Democrats who supported the bill.

Of course, the only real protection comes after a withdrawal.

How much more unaccountable to reason can you be?

He can be moved politically, and if we are going to move to any more drastic measure, like impeachment, we will need the public debate to go our way. It won't be as simple as assuming everyone will be on board with some drastic action against him later just because they register their displeasure with him today.

Again, this is an effort which is mostly political, and our party is positioning themselves just right to draw the administration into account, on many levels. I'm just not as cynical as you appear about the effect of the progress of this rebuke of Bush through the first hurdle.

it will be reconciled with a Senate effort changed in conference, but its next stop isn't Bush's desk. I don't know why he pretends it is by threatening a veto.

He is gonna put a signing statement on everything we pass until we outlaw Signing Statements with a criminal penalty including mandatory jail time for ALL involved.

the remedy in the Constitution is impeachment.

it is off the table.

There was no sense in allowing their every action to be viewed as a pretext for removing Bush. If a committee has evidence of a crime or determines that the administration is spurning the legislative will of Congress, they will act to hold them accountable, including recommending impeachment. At that point, I don't believe the leadership would stand in the way.

of it. And then they vote again. They're representing us, even if the rethugs don't realize it. There's the added bonus of 08 elections; some of the rethugs will be turning soon to save their own skins.
Read the last paragraph of this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x270556

Wonder what hold Rove has over them?

And yes all we can do is keep bringing up the war issue.
But Bush still does not have to listen.
This seems to me the classic case of a need to impeach.
But that will not happen either.

We already know that the House was against the war per that oh so effective non-binding resolution a couple of weeks back.

All that will happen with this bill is that it will be shot down by Bush. And being as that the Dem leadership has already stated(even before they were seated) that they wouldn't defund the war, all that will happen is that in a week or two another supplemental funding bill, minus the timeline to leave Iraq, will be duly introduced, duly passed, and duly signed. And thus the war will continue to grind on and on and thousands continue to die.

Yet it continues to remain within the Dems power to bring this war to an end. Defund it, simply bury each and every war funding bill deep in committee. That will bring the war to an end much quicker than simply passing meaningless legislation like this.

this time, however, his rubber-stamp republicans don't hold power. It's not an excuse to do nothing just because Bush will veto it.

Directing Bush by denying funds is just an encouragement for Bush to rob the rest of our armed forces to continue. There's nothing in that act which would direct Bush to do anything, so I don't know how those who cast a no vote could claim they are doing anything to restrain Bush. This bill directs the funds where they are needed. If Bush strayed from that he would be confronted and rebuked again by the normal legislative process.

In the end, it may well be that Bush intends to ignore Congress as he has all along. The point where he rejects the legislation will be the point where Congress is challenged (again) to hold him to account. Just pointing out that there are political ways for Bush to wiggle around doesn't make this an 'exercise in futility', any more than merely voting 'no' and expecting Bush to take notice and back away from his occupation.

and the congress does knuckle under and send a funding bill without restrictions then indeed this is an exercise in futility. However, the other alternative is to stand their ground and refuse to send a bill without a deadline. If Bush won't relent, then this is tantamount to a back-door defunding with Bush sharing blame. Politically this is a far superior position to be in going into 08.

If democratic gains in 06 are undone in 08, due to poor legislative strategy now, the result would be far more disastrous not only in terms of the war but on a host of other legislative issues (health care, taxes, the deficit, education, global warming policy etc..). We need to keep an eye on the presidency in 08, and defeating vulnerable senators to increase our majority. The results of such a victory would be a sea change in foreign and domestic policy with enormous consequences (think a new middle east peace process, renewed Kyoto efforts).

How much of that future should we stake on a symbolic failure?

How much are we willing to stake on that uncertain future?

..then it would settle Iraq before the next election. That's why this is such a smart bill. If we win, we win, if we lose (i.e. Bush vetoes) we win. But it only works if we hold firm and unified behind a withdrawal date.

Without running the risk of another Constitutional crisis. Do you really think he would want to do that, is that crazy, especially while already dealing with one right now?

I say defunding is the easiest, surest way of ending this war quickly. Anything else is simply symbolic posing, meaningless gestures that accomplish nothing.

that's why the Guard and other support units are stretched to the breaking point.

There is no position more symbolic than merely voting no on a supplemental. It directs Bush to do nothing. It takes absolutely no responsibility for the effects of the denial of funds. It would be irresponsible for Democrats to refuse to craft their own funding bill in the face of the shortages which have been allowed to fester under republican rule of Congress.

Denying funds intends to direct Bush by straining the military until they break or bend. That effort pressures troops more than it would pressure or restrain Bush from continuing.

To a president with loopholes big enough for him to drive his troops and their equipment through.

You know, those loopholes like pulling the troops out by Sept. '08 unless they are training Iraqi forces or fighting Al-Qaeda.

Gee, isn't that what we're nominally doing over there right now? So how does this bill really change anything? Oh, yeah, it gives Bushboy another 100 billion to keep this war grinding on, indefinitely.

Completely, totally defunding the war is the only sure way the Dems have of stopping this war. Bury the war funding bills in committee, that's the only surefire way. Makes a hell of a lot more sense that continuing to ship him funding bills with compromised provisions:shrug:

And no, while he can move men and material around at his pleasure, he cannot not move the money around without risking a Constitutional crisis.

when and if he makes them.

The provisions aren't anymore compromised as standing back and expecting him to take the hint from a 'no' vote on a supplemental.

Bush does have the ability to direct the money where he needs it, whether that authority is imagined by him or not. He's been doing that all along. How much do you think they can get by delaying one of their aircraft orders, for instance?

It makes no sense to expect him to immediately react to the strain in our forces in Iraq as he's ignored them for four years in their distress as he's pressed forward.

It isn't one big pot that the President can dole out as he sees fit. The military budget, the one that is voted on annualy with the rest of the US budget, is indeed earmarked and appropriated for very specific areas. Payroll, equipment, transportation, food, etc. etc. He cannot and has not been dipping into that in order to fund the war. That is what these ongoing supplemental war funding bills are about, to give him the necessary cash to continue the war. If he started trying to fund the war out of the regular military budget, Congress could and would hang him out to dry.

And yes, those provisions are highly compromised. Gee, he can leave troops in Iraq to "fight Al-Qaeda" and "train Iraqi Security Forces" is just begging for him to interpret it quite liberaly. And don't let that little provision saying "of limited duration and scope" fool you. More weasel words that are open for a broad interpretation. And God knows, Bushboy likes to interpret broadly.

Defund the war, starve the beast and it will force him to bring the troops home. Anything else just allows the machine to grind on and on.

The emergency or supplemental spending bills are not subject to the same level of congressional scrutiny as the regular budget. Bush has already taken advantage of money in secret accounts to further his occupation.

Kucinich: Congress appropriated $70 billion in so-called bridge funds for the Iraq war. Those funds began to be spent as of October 1st, 2006. Those funds will last until at least the end of June 2007.

Keep in mind all of last year when the war was sharply escalated, the Department of Defense spent $117 billion in Iraq. They’re coming in with a request for close to $130 billion in the spring for a supplemental appropriation. Now that means in a single year the costs of the war could go up to $200 billion, but they’re not saying what the money is used for specifically.... When you read the Gordon England memo very carefully you see that it basically expands the definition of what this $130 billion can be used for.

This ought to be of concern to everyone because this could be used for continuing the war, expanding the war in Iraq. When you look at the England memo you see that they’re talking about costs to accelerate specific force capabilities necessary to prosecute the war. But because it is not specific—and think about a $130-billion appropriation that is not specific!— this could be used to fund a potential attack on Iran. This $130 billion could also be part of a slush fund for an expansion of military spending and essentially taking it off budget.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-warcosts29nov29,0,3254027.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

funding for his war. It's a stragetic plan. It was a salvo over Bush's bow!

I hope that Bush DOES veto this bill.

Then I hope that the Democrats in Congress follow the brave leads of Kucinich, Woolsey, and Lee.

And vote to END THE WAR NOW!

The biggest issue is not that the troops are not trained or equipped sufficiently, but that this war and occupation is illegal and must end. Not in a year and a half, but with a very quick withdrawal.

Some Democratic leaders are saying that US combat troops must remain in Iraq far into 2009 and beyond. It is not "whining" to protest such a morally bankrupt position.

. . . and the position of those Democrats in opposition had/ has not gained enough support within Congress to do anything but continue to complain as Bush pushed our forces forward without the resources they need to keep them safe and secure.

I agree that they need to come out now, but even the alternate Democratic proposals envisioned a lag time in their withdrawal plans. This act provides that the troops be redeployed before the end date if Congress determines that Iraqis aren't stepping up. It also puts pressure on the Maliki government just by registering Congress' intent to pull out by a date certain. I predict we will begin to see the Iraqi regime respond to this as they, themselves, are conflicted about the heavy hand of the U.S. occupation.

sufficient support. I think that is worthy of protest.

I have no idea why some think there should be pressure on the Iraqi people. The Iraqis ARE stepping up. Why do you think Veteran's hospitals are overflowing with wounded? The pressure should be on the aggressors in this conflict. Clearly the US and British.

And it's just not realistic, and perhaps not responsible for Congress, that they would reject the overall Defense budget to get at the Iraq portion. But, the Senate has indicated they will attack those requests in the overall Defense budget that involve Iraq, as a next step after the Byrd effort.

It's not our soldiers' job to police Iraqis' streets or manage their civil war. The aggressor is the one who put our troops in harm's way and is directing them to re-occupy the Iraqi neighborhoods. Bush is the object of the legislation, but Iraqi regime should have notice that the present commitment made by Bush is ending and this legislation gives them the opportunity to either adjust to that reality now with our help, or live without it.

In the next 4 months it should get very interesting to see what else they will uncover.

thanks!

What basis from the past makes it certain? What guarantees the democrats are going to win in 08? What exactly has been stopped and where are they appearing to comply or backing down from their positions? I hope it works and all but stop the democratic party civil war of words.

There is only the present balance of power, and, now, there is this legislative rebuke - complete with its own responsible plan to effect the withdraw our troops from Iraq. It represents as much of a proactive response as can be expected from the House. It's a direct rebuke to Bush which intends to land on his desk in some form, effective with Senate success in passing their own bill.

And, I haven't heard of any of the supporters of this legislation camping out in front of any progressives' office in protest of their position. From what I've seen, the opponents of the compromise effort by the leadership on the left have mostly been the aggressors, and those who are in the leadership and support the leadership position have been defending their efforts against those protests.

of the those that have no power to effect the legislation? They have the votes on their side. No need to protest. Don't worry, if the legislation works it sure is better than what has gone on in the past. But some do not see it as a slam dunk to end the war. Some see no reason for the war to continue as the future may not provide the opportunity to stop or end it soon as war is unpredictable (and so are elections). Why not be a good winner? Why not drop the repuke like speech? Can "liberals" really be driven out of the party and the party still win elections?

Who said anything about 'winning'? Didn't some of the 'progressives' vote for the bill?

I really don't see this as a loss for anyone in our party. It is not a slam dunk to end the war, but it is not insignificant or so wrongheaded as to render it a failure, or enabling of Bush as some on the left claim.

I happen to think it will be to our advantage to have moved our rebuke of Bush forward as the occupation deteriorates on its own. It is a platform for the Senate action. It will be seen by everyone except its most strident critics on the left as a direct rebuke of Bush's occupation.

Maybe you could point out where any of what I have said matches your complaints?

were called traitors here. I believe I was called "purist", traitor, anti-war left, etc (sounds like repuke speech to me except for purist). All I did was defend the points of kucinich, Lee and others. I did not speak negatively of the people or their effort or intentions of those that got this passed.

Our party is operating as it should with their cooperation and grace.

Kucinich, Lee, and others actually made the bill more effectively a demand for withdrawal with their efforts, even in opposition.

You're a good and loyal democrat. I know the more vocal anti-war dems get on peoples nerves also and say things they shouldn't either. I believe most of us whether we feel the legislation is enough or not are basically shooting for the same goals.

Not what are the choices in the ideal world where everyone is pure and does the 'right' thing, but what are the choices here and now?

-Do nothing. Go along with everything the president wants. Say 'hey, it's your war, you're right. Now why don't you own it?' People die. Massive debt from war expenditure continues. War probably expands into Iran. Come '08, dems are portrayed as having voted for the war anyway. Frustration among voters that expected dems to do something different boils over.

-Defund war. The opposite tack. There's a reason the pubs are taunting dems about not being honest and why don't you just defund the war already. They know that good honest heartland folk who believe in God, country and NASCAR are going to see red when they here the dems are defunding the war. Nuance is not their forte. Many Independents and probably a lot of dems will fall for it too. Maybe a massive education campaign can be undertaken to show what defunding really means, but the president has the bully pulpit. War ends. Dems probably lose in '08.

-Go in steps. Let the president make the moves. Paint him into a corner as much as possible while not bringing on public ire. Make it clear that this is his war. If we can rachet pressure, a timetable may be possible. War continues, for some time.

Look, there aren't any easy answers. The dems aren't like the pubs that have a Stalin-like approach to demanding obedience. There's just too many moderates that aren't going to defund. Also, there's really never been a president like this, one that disregards his own comission recomendations. Why Sean Hannity isn't blasting that every night, I don't know. They're making it seems like we're nuts.

By the way, I believe Senator Kerry's bill would have called for the first stage of troop withdrawl to happen right about now.

but, there doesn't seem to be enough support to pass anything along those lines. There are no prefect choices, but I believe that Bush needs to be confronted with a binding measure from our majority directing him to leave Iraq. This House action fits that bill.

Voting against the supplemental would direct Bush to do nothing, and I'm not convinced that Bush would bend just because the money was tight. It's tight now and he's not relenting. I'm not convinced he'd even take notice of a rejection of a supplemental.

Anyway, I think the defunding route is moot, for now. There doesn't seem to be enough members in either body willing to go that way.

...just like the bush cabal wants it, just like the capitalist corporations want it, just like the plutocrats want it--except with MORE money than they were asking for.

That will translate to another 1000 dead Americans and another 150,000 dead Iraqis (or thereabouts) at current rates for this illegal occupation.

Not to mention the additional hundreds of billions of our desperately needed dollars (in supplemental and regular warmongering money) flushed down the Iraq-corporate-crony shithole.

But yes, it's a GREAT POLITICAL VICTORY!



Hoo-fucking-ray. Rah rah rah for "our" side.

This will never make it through the Senate.

but, until SOMEONE can effect that I will cheer any and every move which advances that intends to confront him.

I don't really have any use for cynicism. Cynicism propels itself, it doesn't need my help in spreading it around. I will continue to be optimistic about our democracy. I'm heartened that our majority in Congress was able to pass this rebuke and I look forward, with optimism, to the Senate action. If they are successful, their product will go to conference to reconcile with this bill. Along the way, Bush's isolation will deepen and there will be even more defections from his republican enablers.

I don't need reminding of the suffering and sacrifices in Iraq. Those would be occurring right now no matter what course our majority had chosen, with or without this legislation. I will, however, take some strength in the fact that, for the first time, a rebuke of Bush's militarism passed out of one of the houses of Congress; deliberately through the unity of our majority legislators.

I don't know why folks expect for all of the different notions and proposals concerning Iraq to be reconciled immediately. These are political institutions and this is a political process. There is no mechanism for our slim majority to dictate anything concerning Iraq in that body. I'm more than pleased to see our democracy working again. I look forward to the next action from the Senate and beyond.

will take comfort in your lack of cynicism

business as usual is, well, usual

"Cynicism is a luxury we can't afford," Helen Thomas says. "I think there's more goodness in life than bad. I see goodness all around me."

"It isn't that I'm... not facing life," she explains. "But I think too many of us overlook all the good things. We should count our blessings."

http://www.agingresearch.org/living_longer/fall01/legend.html


"Today, we are bombarded constantly with the magnitude and complexity of our problems, with the foibles of our problem-solvers, with the message that things may not be able to get better. Too many people today are gripped by doubt when we need confidence. They are gripped by cynicism when we need hope and faith and conviction.

My fellow Americans, on this 4th of July look at these two men standing here, making world history. Cynicism is a luxury the American people cannot afford. (Applause.) Of course, there is much to question and to worry about. But I ask you to remember here today, this nation has endured and triumphed over a bloody civil war, two world wars, the Great Depression, the civil rights struggle, riots in our streets, economic problems and social discord at home and great challenges abroad. And we are still here, still leading the way, still looking toward tomorrow. Cynicism is a luxury we cannot afford. It defeats us before we begin, and it is our job to carry on this great tradition. -- Bill Clinton, Independence Hall Steps, Philadephia, Pennsylvania July 4, 1993

it has nothing to do with pointing out that the vote was:

1. to continue the illegal occupation of Iraq for at least another 18 months

and

2. to fund it at a level greater than the level asked for by the bush cabal


Pointing out those facts is NOT cynicism; it is observation.

The cynicism is the political manouvering through which most congressional democrats traded lives and money for presumed pre-2008 political advantage.

the occupation.

It sounds good, but doesn't measure up with reality. You can't equate providing medical care for our soldiers or emergency assistance for our nation's farmers with anything Bush was doing. The increase in money reflects those additional priorities.

This is a withdrawal plan. It may allow the occupation to remain in place for 18 months, but it also provides that the occupation end earlier if the Iraqis aren't carrying their own weight by the benchmarks in the bill.

It's not as if the other withdrawal plans wouldn't continue the occupation for a matter of months also. Even sitting on their hands and rejecting the supplemental would still allow Bush to continue under the original false mandate he's assumed from the original resolution until he supposedly would bend as the troop's provisions were depleted.

it's knowledgable and well reasoned and there's no frothing going on. I wish I could recommend it repeatedly. Thanks.

The bill that passed was aimed at the elections of 2008. It does nothing to end the war.

It represents the only legislative rebuke of Bush's militarism to pass out of Congress since the initial invasion.

edit: I think the notion of bypassing the process and the sitting on of hands is more geared toward 2008. This is an effort to directly confront Bush with legislation requiring the end of the Iraq occupation by a date certain. The idea that the Senators and Representatives are just posturing rather than sincere in their goal of ending Bush's occupation presumes that only we, on the outside, can care enough about the killing, suffering, and sacrifices in Iraq. I don't believe that.

for one point of view