What do you really think Bush would do if he didn't get his money?

Murtha, Webb, Biden and quite a few others - all of whom are seen as hawkish because of their support of troops even if not (or no longer) for the conflict itself have said in their own way that Bush was threatening to use our soldiers as cannon fodder to get his way.

I ask you all, in all seriousness, is that really what we want?

Do any of you REALLY think withholding funds from Bush will get even one soldier out of Iraq? Do you really think we have the votes to force Bush's hand?

I think we all know what Bush will do to the boots on the ground while Congress and the Pres take words at 20 paces. Soldiers will die. Soldiers will be disabled. Soldiers will pop a mental cork from the stress of being kept there longer and longer under worse and worse conditions. He'll make sure there are supply shortages of basics like food, water, equipment and medical supplies. He'll hold those due for leave hostage. Bush will smirk in front of the cameras every day pissing and moanign and blaming the Democrats for all the dead troops. But the one thing he WILL NOT DO, is secure their safety by bringing them home.

Not one soldier is coming home until we have enough Republicans in the Senate willing to drop kick Bush's evil ass over the goalpost. The Senate does not have enough votes to force Bush's hand because most of the R's are still carrying Bush's water.

Those of us with R senators should be nagging the hell out of them between now and Sept. I hope, fellow DUers, that instead of flouncing off to a third party, we see what the Dems are up against on this and do what we can to help them get more R support.

That's my 2 cents.

Damn you Democrats! I wanted to see that!

It disturbs those who want to believe that Congressional Democrats are far more powerful than they actually are.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

those are puke talking points doncha' know:sarcasm:

he'd have eventually signed the bill, but added a signing statement saying that the timetable would be dependent upon conditions on the ground - meaning, he could ignore any timetable. He'd have gotten the money anyway.

There was NO reason to cave on this. We should have hung tough, MADE him add the signing statement and MADE him defend it to the American people.

We have to put them on the defensive. You don't do that by capitulating.

who is dragging the majority of his party along with him. It's impossible to predict exactly what he'll do and how far he will go to get his way. Obviously it was a gamble they weren't willing to take.

I would probably have done it differently too, but then you don't see me running for Congress either.

What I'm really addressing here are what seems to be the consensus on DU that all funding for Iraq should be stopped. Period -- rather than a political strategy of how to continue to fund Iraq and make points for Dems at the same time.

:)

"use our soldiers as cannon fodder to get his way."

Already happening


"Soldiers will die. "

Already happening


"Soldiers will be disabled."


Already happening


" Soldiers will pop a mental cork from the stress of being kept there longer and longer under worse and worse conditions."

ALready happening


"He'll make sure there are supply shortages of basics like food, water, equipment and medical supplies."

Already happening


"He'll hold those due for leave hostage."

Already happening


"Bush will smirk in front of the cameras every day pissing and moanign and blaming the Democrats for all the dead troops."

Already happening


While I do believe Bush will intentionally harm the troops even more than he ALREADY is, let's not pretend those things aren't already happening. It's insulting to the truth when people do. It's insulting to military families like mine when people pretend those things aren't already happening.

In your post you say these things will happen if Bush doesn't (did not) get his way...when the fact is ...everything you named is ALREADY happening.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solly%20Mack/203
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solly%20Mack/236
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=415021
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solly%20Mack/217

come to grips with this and put some SERIOUS political pressure on Congress, especially the Republicans who are hanging tough. The problem here is that most Americans aren't sacrificing the way your family is, so their opposition to the war is tepid at best. While the polls show that most people want out, the politicians simply aren't feeling sufficient heat yet to effectively get us out.

It's all already happening.
Lee

I never, ever, intended to minimize what our soldiers are going through now. Ever. I believe you misunderstood my point.

and while I'm sure you did not intentionally mean to "minimize what our soldiers are going through now", that's precisely what you did.


You were trying to justify the way Congressional Dems voted by claiming this (death, disability, used as cannon fodder) will happen if Bush didn't get his way.

When the fact is, those things are already happening because Bush already DID get his way. (to invade Iraq)




I expected the Dems to vote exactly as they did. So I'm not talking about how they voted.
I understand the dying, that was politically expedient to start to begin with, won't stop until it's once again politically expedient for politicians to stop it.

I was pointing out how your argument was flawed.

The sad truth is Bush does not give a shit about the troops ans would have kept them in Iraq money or not.

then watch the MSM trumpet to Americans how our soldiers are suffering because of the DEMOCRAT'S action. Big difference because many Americans will believe it and will vote based upon those mistaken beliefs.

Course, they already are labeled anti-troop by the right.

If you read my post you saw, of course, where I said I expected them to vote exactly as they voted. Yes? I didn't expect anything else from them.


The dying that was politically expedient to start will stop when it is politically expedient to do so.

Right now,it isn't politically expedient to stop the dying.

As you seem to understand as well...

"Big difference because many Americans will believe it and will vote based upon those mistaken beliefs."

We can guess and guess until we run out of breath, but the truth is that we will never know what he might have done!


"Not one soldier is coming home until we have enough Republicans in the Senate willing to drop kick Bush's evil ass over the goalpost."

But the question is, where will we find these mysterious Senators who don't seem to exist? In reality we can't depend on the Republicans to do the right thing, which means that with any luck the Democrats have to take enough seats in the Senate to have the power to force the Republicans to do their job, which is to represent the people not bow down to Bush.


"The Senate does not have enough votes to force Bush's hand because most of the R's are still carrying Bush's water."

Yes they are still carrying his water, the same as last year before the Democrats "won"! So what has changed? It seems as if the Republicans are still setting the agenda, so what excatly did the Democrats win again?

that's a big deal.

*cynical snicker*

had to hide because they ran out of ammo, were hungry because they only got one meal yesterday....the whole nine yards! Shrub with Rover's help would go full court press to plame the Dems for all of it...even though little if any of it was true!

based on those things is unfit as a public servant.

I don't want the end result being a Puke victory in '08 because the MSM yells "The Dems don't want to fund the troops" constantly.

money in the pipeline for the troops through this period, prevents bush from using our service people as cannon fodder. Can you logically explain it to me?

but he can't use them as cannon fodder and turn around and blame the Democrats for not supporting them.

And the dems that helped provide the money are safe from blame.

and he or his cronies would in fact they've been doing it all along.

at any rate, personally I don't think that defunding would have done a whole lot to force Bush to end the war, and the Democrats easily could have ended up in an even worse position. What we need is for more Republicans to crack, the American people need to step up the political pressure to make this happen, this is really the only effective way to render Bush powerless.

a few people understand

What would stop bush from keeping out troops there even without funding, holding them hostage and then blaming it on the Dems in Congress? That's my main big fear.

And yes, Bush being the evil sack of shit that he is, could still go out of his way to make life as awful for soldiers as humanly possible -- worse and worse and worse than it already is. The man is already talking about a "bloody august". God knows he could "lose" another $12 Billion so that soldiers can't even get a decent meal.

Mostly my point is really a question in that I do not understand how withholding the money HELPS the troops.

either, the oil embargo did, but why point out an Achilles heel when you can blame the opposition party. They pukes would have as it has been pointed out gotten the money to fight else where

However, since we have a majority in the congress, we should start opposing them for real. The war is technically over. The Iraqis had hardly much at all to defend themselves with and it was over quickly. They had no airforce or navy or weapons that could do major damage. What we are fundng now is an occupation and our ability to put down resistance to this occupation. Congress has the sole power to declare war (in all matters relating to it) and the sole power of the purse. If the democrats all supported ending this occupation and remaining war against the insurgency, it could be ended and an orderly withdrawal done anytime they choose. Therefore, there are some democrats that support the bush administration position.

and continue to do whatever the hell he wants.

NEVER make deals with fascists.

He'd send his collection goons, BFEE-style

importantly the UNCHECKED POWER that has enabled him to not only GET where he is now, but to stay there is, is any better??? How exactly???

Do you honestly think the Dems or ANYONE else is going to have any more success in Sept????

I've nagged the hell out of my idiotic senators since 2001- and it has proven absolutely useless.

And why should i bother to nag them? We've been told here by people that the Dem's did the 'smart thing', because every one knew * was only going to veto the bill if it wasn't down to his standards.

Why bother to do what is right?
It hasn't gotten us to a very good place so far.

Why keep trying to end this blood-bath?
i worked to prevent it ever starting, and it's been what? 4yrs now?

Why believe that any action including voting would really change this f&^ked up country?
i've voted in every election (including local) since I was 18, and look where we are.


Why????

Because doing the right thing EVEN when it seems useless- futile- a lost cause- is still doing the RIGHT THING.

Perhaps as you claim- * would have abandoned the troops,- i don't believe the public would've sat still for that- this might just have been the straw that broke the camels back- Maybe the people would have removed him from office even if the legislators couldn't- but we'll never know now will we? Because those we entrusted to represent us in the american political arena, chose to give in under pressure.

And how many lives this is going to cost? we will likely never know.

The party of the big tent, made a big mistake- and pretending they didn't isn't going to make it not have happened. All it will do, is make it easier to do the same next time- with less and less outrage.

I much more committed to doing what i know to be 'just' than remaining "politically correct"- a true democracy dies if it's citizens value conformity over genuine justice.

peace,
blu

then yes, Bush will be rendered powerless, I believe that is what they're working for. The American people need to step up the pressure to get this to happen. The opposition is too tepid right now.

This part especially helped me begin to understand where people might be coming from. I am not sure if I agree or not - something I have to chew on first.

I can understand the idea that even if the carnage gets much much much worse in the short term then we still benefit in the long term if it means getting us out of Iraq when America finally revolts and forces Bush out. I REALLY appreciate you putting it terms that makes sense to me. Thanks again.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

he is already using them as cannon fodder... and as hostages