Are the Democrats going to cave?

[Jhhnn]

From Palehorse-

And trust me when I say this: If Congress refuses to fund the the troops, most of the country will see Congress as the ones responsible for hurting our troops, not Bush.

The election of a Democratic Congress puts the lie to that one- the public has already seen through it, and overwhelmingly supports a withdrawal deadline. Failure to recognize that is to inhabit an alternate reality based on denial...

Denial as to who led us into this morass, who continues to place our troops in harms' way for no constructive purpose, who has engaged in the most inept and delusional occupation strategy of the modern era, and who refuses to cut our losses. It's not a matter of national security, at all, but rather of damned fool arrogance and stubborn self-righteous pride.

When and if our young men and women start dying in increased numbers in support of that, the Public knows who to blame. It won't be the people trying to bring them home.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn


The election of a Democratic Congress puts the lie to that one- the public has already seen through it, and overwhelmingly supports a withdrawal deadline. Failure to recognize that is to inhabit an alternate reality based on denial...

You may be reading the results based on what you wanted.

The was little in the election about bringing the troops home. It was that Bush and the Republican rubberstamp was not working properly fo rthe government. You can include the prosecution of the war.

How many Democrats werre elected by stating "elect me and I will bring home the troops"

If was more like "elect me and I will not let Bush run the government as he has been doing".

 

[BMW540I6speed]

What the president vetoed was not time limits or deadlines or giving "our enemy" hope and comfort or any of that nonsense. This veto, like every single thing the Bush whitehouse does, was only about oversight. The entire Bush agenda can be summed up quite easily in that one little word. Oversight.

Bush believes there should be known. Not a jot, not a tit, not the slightest small miniscule portion of it. He should be beholden to no one, accountable to know one, free to redefine reality from moment to moment if he should need to do so.

The congress needs to overturn this veto. Any Republican hold outs who still think this is about emboldening "terrorists" to just sit tight until X day are either being determindedly stupid or else they simply don't care that the president wants to accrue so much personal power.

I keep hearing the President use words like "this bill wound bind our troops", or "this bill has rigid timelines".

Except for one thing: It's non-binding. It's a non-binding budget bill. This bill is the equivalent of me handing $1000 to my wife and saying "Hey, this is to go to pay for a laptop - but if you need it for something else, just tell me."

Then, when she turns around and spends it on the car, she says "I know you meant it for the laptop, but the car broke down."

"Oh," I'd say. "That's pretty important. Thanks for telling me."

This defense spending bill had time tables and goals and deadlines. And every single one is non-binding! The President can ignore all of them as long as he says he's going to do it.

So first, this means he's lying when he says he didn't get the money he wanted. He got it - he just doesn't want to be responsible for it and coming out and having to say "Well, uh, this isn't working. I need to rethink what I'm doing."

Secondly - why aren't the Democrats screaming this from the rooftops? Every time the word "time table" shows up, they should be screaming "Non-binding time table!" right back. It's not like they're going to take it back anyway! Is it that they're too scared to appear weak for saying "non-binding" a lot? That's the only thing I can figure is it.

Anyway, shame on Mr. Bush for vetoing a non-binding bill that would give him the money he wants and let him use it how he wants as long as he was man enough to say he wasn't going to spend it as planned, and shame on the Democrats for not being smart enough to say that the bill is non-binding over and over again to show Bush's arguments for the straw men they are.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The election of a Democratic Congress puts the lie to that one- the public has already seen through it, and overwhelmingly supports a withdrawal deadline. Failure to recognize that is to inhabit an alternate reality based on denial...

So when are they going to do this? Huh?

They aren't even trying now. They are playing the standard political game. Prance around for the press and their more idiotic supporters pretending to do what they said they would.

but that is far from the truth, is it not? Defeatocrats are doing what the Repuglicans do. They create an bill around a major issue and then load on amendment after amendment that allows their opponent an out. They do this because as politicians they expect the other side to show the same courtesy when it comes their time in the minority.

Biden has balls, the leadership of the Democratic party in Congress does not. They will not make the right decision and that is to have an up/down vote on the subject BY ITSELF.

Create a bill with no amendments, no riders, just a plain statement. WITHDRAW.

Until then the Democrats are just playing politics and playing their idiot supporters like any regular politician.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The election of a Democratic Congress puts the lie to that one- the public has already seen through it, and overwhelmingly supports a withdrawal deadline. Failure to recognize that is to inhabit an alternate reality based on denial...

So when are they going to do this? Huh?

They aren't even trying now. They are playing the standard political game. Prance around for the press and their more idiotic supporters pretending to do what they said they would.

but that is far from the truth, is it not? Defeatocrats are doing what the Repuglicans do. They create an bill around a major issue and then load on amendment after amendment that allows their opponent an out. They do this because as politicians they expect the other side to show the same courtesy when it comes their time in the minority.

Biden has balls, the leadership of the Democratic party in Congress does not. They will not make the right decision and that is to have an up/down vote on the subject BY ITSELF.

Create a bill with no amendments, no riders, just a plain statement. WITHDRAW.

Until then the Democrats are just playing politics and playing their idiot supporters like any regular politician.

"WITHDRAW" isn't a law, and if it were it would have no weight. That would be Congress ordering a President to surrender his CIC status.

As is normal, the reps and dems seem to be pointing at each other and saying "tag, you're it", figuring the other side will get stuck. Well kiddies, if you hurl crap at each other you are both going to stink no matter what you say. My impression is that the most Americans are sick of the war and of the games. In essence they all suck in DC.

My belief is the dems and reps will both be attempting to save face. The more vocal anti-war people will of necessity be reigned in since GWB is never going to give in on this. For their part, the Reps don't want to be tarred and feathered either. A compromise bill with the emphasis on Iraq benchmarks and without binding dates is what can be drafted and passed. That way Bush can say he is "staying the course" or whatever the current slogan is, and the Dems can claim they are having an impact on Iraq by putting the Iraqi govt on notice that things can't stay as they are.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: her209
Congress can go back and get a bill that where 2/3 of Congress will support. Bush can go f*ck himself.

/debate

Nice post, but there is almost NO chance to get a bill like that.
Highly unlikely you will ever get enough Republicans to jump to the other side and vote for a bill like the one we have now.

You are more likely to see moderate Democrats cross over and vote for a clean bill, but not sure if you would get to the 2/3 point, although you don't need to since that is what the President wants.

For all the anti-war talk about the will of the American people bear in mind that it only takes a couple of Senators and half a dozen Reps and you can pass a clean bill.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's so obvious what the Democrats are going to do. It's such a political loser for the Republicans, they want this debate every few months until the election. So they'll fund the war for a few more months, then do it all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The only thing that really matters though is the funding.
The Democrats might get away with passing one short term bill, but I don?t think Bush will let them fund the war in 2 month segments.

Sooner or later he stands up and makes the state that you can?t fund a way in that manner and that you must give the commanders the ability to make long term plans without having to worry if they shall have to abandon those plans a few weeks latter.

After the funding is passed the Democrats can debate the war all they want. Everyone will know that is it just political theater. I would suspect that the American public will eventually grow tired of it and we might see a backlash. Especially if Democrats continue on the legislative path they are on now, 4 months and not one bill passed.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's so obvious what the Democrats are going to do. It's such a political loser for the Republicans, they want this debate every few months until the election. So they'll fund the war for a few more months, then do it all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The only thing that really matters though is the funding.
The Democrats might get away with passing one short term bill, but I don?t think Bush will let them fund the war in 2 month segments.

He has to ask for supplementals every few months because the costs are always higher than the estimates, so in effect this is exactly what has been done since we invaded.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Shivetya said:

Until then the Democrats are just playing politics and playing their idiot supporters like any regular politician.

Heh...

"Again", the timelines in the curent bill are "non-binding", so this is all just semantics.

Bush playing politics

These timelines are non-binding goals as suggested by the Iraq Study Group. No one is tying anyone's hands. Rather, these goals provide a framework for success that shows Americans and the Iraqi people that this war is not open-ended and there is a plan.

The President has repeatedly made it clear that he has little concern for what the majority of Americans want.

The president said the bill contained a "rigid" deadline.

The bill itself set a "non-binding goal," which the president could have easily disregarded.

Hardly the kind of thing that would have tied his hands.

The complete lack of direction and purpose in the Bush administration's handling of Iraq is astounding. Clearly the only intention is to keep the situation in limbo until the next president has to deal with it.

At this point the only objectives seem to be keep the cash faucet pouring money over its croney contractors and, most importantly, securing a sweet deal on those oil fields for the big oil companies.

Everything else (support the troops, fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, spread democracy) is just smoke and mirrors.

The Democrats need to articulate a clear plan and a clear direction for cleaning up this mess. It shouldn't be some murky, meaningless rhetoric coming from the presidential candidates.

A clear, well thought out plan. Democratic leaders should be reaching out to allies and neighboring states of Iraq now (much as Pelosi did in Syria).

The best way to deal with George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rice, and the rest of this failed administration is to marginalize them as much as posible. Move forward as much as constitutionally possible in a new direction now.

Reduce George Bush to what he really is a venal mouthpiece spouting dishonest slogans.

Concrete ideas well articulated backed up by as much action as possible would throw the Bush administration, the extreme elements of the Republican Party and Fox News on the trash heap of irrelevancy. But the public needs something concrete, not just posturing from the Democrats.

It's ridiculous that Congress has to fight with the President - four years into a war - to get him to agree that there is a plan for the war.

I want to see those feeble images of Bush on TV whining about congressional leaders taking trips to meet with foreign dignitaries.

Like minded members of congress should begin rebuilding damaged relations with our allies and open constructive dialog with our adversaries.

Bush and company had six years to show they can lead and all they continue to do is recite worn sound bites.

The US, actually the world, has some real problems and it is time to cut our losses with this bumbling Bush bunch. The goal should be to keep them tied in knots with investigations so they remain busy explaining their hypocrisy.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's so obvious what the Democrats are going to do. It's such a political loser for the Republicans, they want this debate every few months until the election. So they'll fund the war for a few more months, then do it all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The only thing that really matters though is the funding.
The Democrats might get away with passing one short term bill, but I don?t think Bush will let them fund the war in 2 month segments.

Sooner or later he stands up and makes the state that you can?t fund a way in that manner and that you must give the commanders the ability to make long term plans without having to worry if they shall have to abandon those plans a few weeks latter.

After the funding is passed the Democrats can debate the war all they want. Everyone will know that is it just political theater. I would suspect that the American public will eventually grow tired of it and we might see a backlash. Especially if Democrats continue on the legislative path they are on now, 4 months and not one bill passed.

I think this backlash is mostly imagined. In fact most opinion polls I've seen show majority support for withdrawal from Iraq and I believe I even saw one that showed support for the Democrats current tactic (don't quote me on that though). Either way I haven't seen any majority support AGAINST them so this argument that somehow the American people are going to be pissed off is really baseless.

Bush will have to take 2-month segments. He simply does not have the political clout to do otherwise. How is he going to be able to stand up and say he won't take a clean funding bill, after he was bitching about it for months? If he wants to complain about the length of funding I think he's going to hear an American populace that says "take what you can get."

 

[Fern]

Are the Democrats going to cave?

It's not about caving.

It's not about funding, and yes the Dems could force troop withdrawl by simply failing to pass a funding bill.

It's not about a 2/3 majority or veto override (won't happen due to smart politics).

It's not about etc, etc etc.

It IS about who takes responibility for what occurs after a withdrawl and the '08 Prresidential election.

The Dems won't force a withdrawl because of the risk of what may happen in the region afterward. If things got much worse as many expect, it may cause them to lose the '08 election.

No need to take that risk when the Presidency is considered theirs to lose.

This is a long slow political dance that will come to it's inevitable conclusion, unless one side blows it big time or events change radically (neither of which is likely).

Fern

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern

Are the Democrats going to cave?

It's not about caving.

It's not about funding, and yes the Dems could force troop withdrawl by simply failing to pass a funding bill.

It's not about a 2/3 majority or veto override (won't happen due to smart politics).

It's not about etc, etc etc.

It IS about who takes responibility for what occurs after a withdrawl and the '08 Prresidential election.

The Dems won't force a withdrawl because of the risk of what may happen in the region afterward. If things got much worse as many expect, it may cause them to lose the '08 election.

No need to take that risk when the Presidency is considered theirs to lose.

This is a long slow political dance that will come to it's inevitable conclusion, unless one side blows it big time or events change radically (neither of which is likely).

Fern

absolutely couldn't agree more. All of this political grandstanding is regarding 08 and beyond. It is fun watching the media outlets spin all over each other!

 

[Lemon law]

To believe the democrats are prolonging the Iraq war for cynical political gain is naive, craven, and wrong. The problem is and remains how to get Bush off stuck on stupid without being counter productive and damaging the country worse than GWB&co. has done so already. The blame for the Iraq war will forever be stuck on the GWB---GWB&co and the collective GOP started the Iraq war and now can't finish it. The only remaining question is when will the collective GOP get on the bandwagon and seek to dump all the blame on lame duck GWB&co.

And you see some political posturing now. The congress now seeks to over ride the Presidential veto. And now places both the President and the GOP on the horns of a dilemma. If the GOP stays solid---clearly the two thirds vote needed will not materialize---but it then makes it much harder for the GOP to distance itself from GWB&co. as 08 approaches. On the other hand if some GOP members defect---meaning they will increase their individual chances of winning re-election in 08---it fires a shot across the bow of GWB&co. and tells Georgie boy his support within the GOP is waning. Either way, its unlikely that the veto will be over ridden.

And then the squabble simply moves on to round two with the democrats the clear winner of round one. And then its somewhat back to the drawing board---and the next funding bill is likely going to put GWB&co. in an even worse position. Because the democrats control the purse and get to choose the battleground that puts GWB&co. at maximum disadvantage. No matter how GWB&co. screams and flails---GWB&co. is still like a bug impaled on a pin stuck to a board. And the only way to unstick themselves is to turn Iraq around---which is flat out not going to happen given their tactics and IQ. Meanwhile the scandals of their own making will poison GWB&co. as they roll out in increasing numbers---and soon turn criminal.

And one day GWB&co. will be exactly like the 50 foot statue of Saddam in Iraq---it will be time to attach that chain and pull it down. And if the GOP wants to survive the election of 08, they will be seen front and center helping pull GWB&co. down.

 

[ayabe]

Listen to this idiot:

"Imagine my beloved St. Louis Cardinals are playing the much despised Chicago Cubs. The Cardinals are are up by five, finishing the top of the ninth. Is this a cause for celebration? Is this a cause for victory? No. Unbelievable as it may seem, the Cubbies score five runs in the bottom of the ninth to throw the games into extra innings. There the score remains until 1:00 AM, five innings later. However, at the top of the 15th, the Cardinals fail to field a batter. The entire team has left the stadium. It seems that they are more worried about next day?s 1:00 PM game at home than finishing the game at hand. Who wins? We know it?s the team that stays on the field. Arbitrary deadlines and a date certain accept defeat before the conclusion of the contest. It is our national security interest that continue to take the field and support a moderate Arab state. Leaving prior assures a loss for us and victory for our opponents which will lead to another extremist Islamic state."

Rep. John Shimkus R-IL


Now tell me who is grandstanding. I guess he assumes that all of his constituents are complete morons.

It's hard to believe that after everything, people like this guy can't see the writing on the wall.

The best part is, come September, after the surge has had a chance and still fails how many of these robotic smacktards are going to flip flop and demand that we get out.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Ayabe said:

Listen to this idiot:

"Imagine my beloved St. Louis Cardinals are playing the much despised Chicago Cubs. The Cardinals are are up by five, finishing the top of the ninth. Is this a cause for celebration? Is this a cause for victory? No. Unbelievable as it may seem, the Cubbies score five runs in the bottom of the ninth to throw the games into extra innings. There the score remains until 1:00 AM, five innings later. However, at the top of the 15th, the Cardinals fail to field a batter. The entire team has left the stadium. It seems that they are more worried about next days 1:00 PM game at home than finishing the game at hand. Who wins? We know its the team that stays on the field. Arbitrary deadlines and a date certain accept defeat before the conclusion of the contest. It is our national security interest that continue to take the field and support a moderate Arab state. Leaving prior assures a loss for us and victory for our opponents which will lead to another extremist Islamic state."

Rep. John Shimkus R-IL

Now tell me who is grandstanding. I guess he assumes that all of his constituents are complete morons.

It's hard to believe that after everything, people like this guy can't see the writing on the wall.

The best part is, come September, after the surge has had a chance and still fails how many of these robotic smacktards are going to flip flop and demand that we get out.

Shimkus bizarre "grandstanding" is helpful in showing these so called conservitives idiocey, however, in highlighting part of the problem with how "some" conservatives view this war. They see winners and losers.

They see us and an enemy. Its some kind of bilateral conflict.

In fact, it shapes their rhetoric, too. If we withdraw, itll be a defeat.

If we redeploy, its akin to surrender. Its what makes Shimkus baseball illustrative he sees this as us vs. them.

All of this is wrong. Lets say we withdraw from Iraq over the next year. Who has defeated us? Sunnis? Shia? Neither.

This isnt a failed war; its a failed occupation. To whom have we surrendered? These so called conservitives would have us believe its al Qaeda, but we know better; the network is a small part of the Iraqi civil war.

No wonder war supporters rhetoric is so incoherent. Even as the war enters its fifth year, they dont understand the nature of the conflict.

Also, it is interesting the only 2 vetos this president uses, both had the support of the majority of the country.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To believe the democrats are prolonging the Iraq war for cynical political gain is naive, craven, and wrong.

I don't accuse them of prolonging it. I accuse them of refusing to stop it for fear of the consequences and perhaps being forced to take responsibility for the aftermath of a withdrawl.


The blame for the Iraq war will forever be stuck on the GWB---GWB&co and the collective GOP started the Iraq war and now can't finish it.

Oh, I think we can finish it (if by "it" you refer to Iraq), just not as quickly as people would like. If "it" means the Western world's battle with radical Islam, that's gonna be a loong loong time.

The only remaining question is when will the collective GOP get on the bandwagon and seek to dump all the blame on lame duck GWB&co.

Yeah right, and hand the Dem party a big fat juicy victory.

Plus voluntarily take on responsiblitity for any withdrawl aftermath? (and Letting the Dems off the hook?)

Better send Karl Rove the memo on this winning political strategy


And you see some political posturing now. The congress now seeks to over ride the Presidential veto. And now places both the President and the GOP on the horns of a dilemma.

The "dilema" remains Iraq. Stay or go? Neither is appealing. But our citizenry is impatient and lacks the will to win or finish.

And half-finished wars are always a bad idea. I suspect that's a lesson we'll be re-learning sometime soon.

Oh, Bush isn't a dilema, he's just a lame duck.


If the GOP stays solid---clearly the two thirds vote needed will not materialize---but it then makes it much harder for the GOP to distance itself from GWB&co. as 08 approaches. On the other hand if some GOP members defect---meaning they will increase their individual chances of winning re-election in 08---it fires a shot across the bow of GWB&co. and tells Georgie boy his support within the GOP is waning. Either way, its unlikely that the veto will be over ridden.

Agree, no ovrride

And then the squabble simply moves on to round two with the democrats the clear winner of round one.

They'll only win by defeat. If they win, meaning force a withdrawl, I think in they'll lose.

The only thing they can win is hoping to placate their far-left constiuency by acting as though they are fighting hard for withdrawl (and privately hoping like h@ll they don't get it unless the Repubs hand it to them.)

And then its somewhat back to the drawing board---and the next funding bill is likely going to put GWB&co. in an even worse position. Because the democrats control the purse and get to choose the battleground that puts GWB&co. at maximum disadvantage. No matter how GWB&co. screams and flails---GWB&co. is still like a bug impaled on a pin stuck to a board. And the only way to unstick themselves is to turn Iraq around---which is flat out not going to happen given their tactics and IQ. Meanwhile the scandals of their own making will poison GWB&co. as they roll out in increasing numbers---and soon turn criminal.

If the next funding bill puts GWB in worse position, why bother to waste time with this current one?

And one day GWB&co. will be exactly like the 50 foot statue of Saddam in Iraq---it will be time to attach that chain and pull it down. And if the GOP wants to survive the election of 08, they will be seen front and center helping pull GWB&co. down.

Yeah, that's always worked out well in the past :disgust:

After the Repubs joined with the Dems to "pull down" Nixon we got that famous Repub, no err, Dem president known as Jimmie. (insert big toothy grin icon)

 

[ProfJohn]

Lemon, if the Democrats wanted too they could end the war today by refusing to vote for any funding bill at all.

Why don?t they do that?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Also, it is interesting the only 2 vetos this president uses, both had the support of the majority of the country.

The majority of the country supports a viable exit strategy for Iraq that will bring our troops home safely, but also ensure that the region doesn't erupt into war and ultimately draw us into an even wider conflict.

The bill that Bush vetoed would not accomplish this.

However, I do not agree with Bush's strategy of "staying the course" either.

 

[Lemon law]

To Non Prof John---who asks---Lemon, if the Democrats wanted too they could end the war today by refusing to vote for any funding bill at all.

Why don?t they do that?

You are asking me when I don't control this?---if I was in control---I wouldn't be playing around---I would be working towards impeachment and really playing hard ball with the scandals.

But I also don't believe the democrats as a whole believe that withdrawal is the best strategy for Iraq either---only GWB&co. seeks to frame it that way---and currently the dems seem bent on working within the system and trying to force GWB&co. to try other options. And this bill is just a popular feel good way to do it.---and now at least, and before all the unused ink in his veto pen runs dry---GWB is offering to talk to congress---which could be a good sign or more political spin.---but the debate over Iraq will not go away--unless you are crazy enough to think GWB&co. will even start showing progress.

Cheer up---the dems will get smarter next time and GWB&co. will still be stuck on stupid.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You are asking me when I don't control this?---if I was in control---I wouldn't be playing around---I would be working towards impeachment and really playing hard ball with the scandals.

The Democrats will not follow this course of action because playing hard ball on any alleged Bush Administration scandals would also expose their own rank and file to similar scrutiny. If the Dems try to take Bush down through impeachment, they will suffer attrition as well...Feinstein, and others, being potential examples.

Cheer up---the dems will get smarter next time and GWB&co. will still be stuck on stupid.

Actually, the Dems are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place now...they went for the emotional impact of sending Bush an Iraqi exit date bill on the 3 year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished." Given the media coverage of their tactic, I don't think the bill resonated with the American people to the extent that they expected.

Now they are facing a scenario of not being able to override Bush's veto, and forced to compromise with their Republican peers and the White House on a solution.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Just found this, people like you might want to take note:

?I think it?s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.?

George W. Bush, 6/5/99 on Kosovo

He actually said this? :Q

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: ayabe
Just found this, people like you might want to take note:

?I think it?s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.?

George W. Bush, 6/5/99 on Kosovo

He actually said this? :Q

Yes, and he said the Iraq timetable is "as long as it takes", and they will be withdrawn when "we win".

 

[Jhhnn]

Shilling for the Bushies, Shivetya? The attachments to the bill aren't an issue, other than as diversion from the central issues. Dubya never claimed they were. You, and he, just want to have your cake and eat it, too. Get the money without any conditions, veto the "clean" withdrawal bill later. He'll veto any bill that sets a withdrawal date, regardless of whatever else said bill contains. Neocons have no intention of leaving Iraq, ever. Never did. Very straightforward, utterly transparent.

Rather shortly, we'll experience a new kind of hostage situation, with Dubya holding our troops hostage in Iraq, threatening to let even more of them be killed if Congress doesn't pay the ransom...

Anybody who thinks that characterization is too strong needs to think about it just a little bit more to appreciate the desperation and depravity of the Neocon Whitehouse...

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Lemon, if the Democrats wanted too they could end the war today by refusing to vote for any funding bill at all.

Why don?t they do that?

Because that will put the troops at more risk.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lemon, if the Democrats wanted too they could end the war today by refusing to vote for any funding bill at all.

Why don?t they do that?

First of all, because Dems are fundamentally reasonable people, and want to achieve an orderly exit if possible. A timetable also allows for a whole range of diplomatic initiatives to help achieve that, along the lines of the Baker Commission recommendations.

It also allows the President everything he's asked for, other than unlimited time. When confronted with the question of what to do to improve the Iraqi occupation situation and move towards closure, Bush disregarded all other options to pursue this "Surge". Congress has granted him that, and could extend deadlines or do a lot of things if it proves successful...

Repubs are acting as if they don't believe it will work, anyway, particularly the Admin- it's why they're fighting so hard for an open-ended deal. They have no confidence in their own plan. Or maybe it wasn't really a victory plan at all, just a delaying tactic, trying to push the inevitable withdrawal off onto the next Admin, figure out some way to blame them for the whole debacle...

Fat chance, but it's their only chance...