We surrender, we surrender

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Like I said from the beginning, I told you the Democrats would eventually give Bush what he wanted this time. What I also said though was that they were going to use this as a club to beat him over the head, and next time funding comes up in a few months... they will hit him even harder. Time is on the Democrats' side... because we all know Iraq stands very little chance of actually improving. (civilian deaths have actually increased since the surge started... oh unless you count like Bush does and ignore car bomb deaths)

Iraqi deaths count for nothing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I don't know why people are surprised. A direct victory for the dems here was never in the cards. However, they didn't play their cards well. They should have sent a bill to Bush that he would have vetoed so everyone can be on record with their support or opposition to the bill. That would provide fodder for the next election.

The house voted on a bill to set a withdrawal date minus any kind of funding, basically a yes or no vote on the war and it lost by over 50 votes.
Given the chance to ?go on the record? the Democrats decided to pass up that opportunity.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Like I said from the beginning, I told you the Democrats would eventually give Bush what he wanted this time. What I also said though was that they were going to use this as a club to beat him over the head, and next time funding comes up in a few months... they will hit him even harder. Time is on the Democrats' side... because we all know Iraq stands very little chance of actually improving. (civilian deaths have actually increased since the surge started... oh unless you count like Bush does and ignore car bomb deaths)

Where are you getting the numbers to prove that?
For the first two months of the surge the total death toll in Iraq was down. I have yet to see figures for April though.

If you have proof of what you claim can you post the link, thanks.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ya know? we have been debating this for two months now and many of you on the left have been adamant that the Democrats would win this battle while accusing those of us on the right of a whole list of things.
Well it looks like those of us on the right were correct and that the Democrats will fund the troops without any type of withdrawal.

We were right, you were wrong 😛

A simple counting of the votes should have told you this at the start. As of today the Democrats do not have enough votes to end the war. They could barely pass these bills to begin with. Only when Republicans start to jump ship in decent numbers will congress be able to force and end to this war. That could happen this fall or next spring. But as of now there are not enough votes to do anything.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ya know? we have been debating this for two months now and many of you on the left have been adamant that the Democrats would win this battle while accusing those of us on the right of a whole list of things.
Well it looks like those of us on the right were correct and that the Democrats will fund the troops without any type of withdrawal.

We were right, you were wrong 😛

A simple counting of the votes should have told you this at the start. As of today the Democrats do not have enough votes to end the war. They could barely pass these bills to begin with. Only when Republicans start to jump ship in decent numbers will congress be able to force and end to this war. That could happen this fall or next spring. But as of now there are not enough votes to do anything.

I never said we were going to be able to force Bush to give up the War on Low Gas Prices, not with him vetoing anything his friends in Big Business disagree with. Every step Congress makes to get Bush to stop fighting his own personal war is a step in the right direction, plain and simple.

 

[piasabird]

Bush should have signed the bill, pulled out the troops, and then blamed the failure in Iraq on Pelosi.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ya know? we have been debating this for two months now and many of you on the left have been adamant that the Democrats would win this battle while accusing those of us on the right of a whole list of things.
Well it looks like those of us on the right were correct and that the Democrats will fund the troops without any type of withdrawal.

We were right, you were wrong 😛

A simple counting of the votes should have told you this at the start. As of today the Democrats do not have enough votes to end the war. They could barely pass these bills to begin with. Only when Republicans start to jump ship in decent numbers will congress be able to force and end to this war. That could happen this fall or next spring. But as of now there are not enough votes to do anything.

The Democrats want to have as many votes on this as they can squeeze in before the election. They just need to show that they are trying to end this war and the GOP president and delegation are blocking them. There is nothing that better demonstrates a Democrat case for 2008 than a president vetoing this bill and the Republicans refusing to override the veto. The people who want this war over will know what to do in 2008.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Where are you getting the numbers to prove that?
For the first two months of the surge the total death toll in Iraq was down. I have yet to see figures for April though.

If you have proof of what you claim can you post the link, thanks.

I'll have to find them later as I have to leave for class now. Basically that was from the UN report indicting Iraq's government for deliberately hiding casualty reports, and some articles in the Guardian recently about how murders in Baghdad (which HAD decreased because of the surge, although they just moved elsewhere) were spiraling into the stratosphere again.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Bush should have signed the bill, pulled out the troops, and then blamed the failure in Iraq on Pelosi.

That is pretty much the only hope the Republicans have for 2008 is if Bush does that and gets the Democrats to own some of the Iraq mess.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya

"they played the game wrong and lost."

Instead of separating the two issues they let their fringe direct their efforts, efforts that went no where.

So now, Bush gets what he wants, the Democrats have no more leverage, and we are back to square one.

Well, this new Democrat led Congress is a do nothing Congress.

They haven't even gotten their promised 100 hour or 100 day, whatever it was, agenda passed. The press gives them a pass for that.

Gotta love it. Politicians first, Democrats second. Meaning, they server their supporters after protecting their political asses.

One the saddest, sickest posts in P&N yet.

How much are you getting paid to trash the U.S.?

Jesus...you really are just a shell script arent you.

I'm responding to a shell script. I feel stupid.

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Yeah.

The Dems can't override a Bush veto.

Seems like the Reps here forgot basic math. (yet more children left behind....)

Yep, the fact that the Dems can't do anything by the sheer fact of the numbers makes them "Caving" and me a "shell script".

Dave...youre a shell script?

Well I guess thats better than being a shill script 😉

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is pretty much the only hope the Republicans have for 2008 is if Bush does that and gets the Democrats to own some of the Iraq mess.

Many of the Democrats already "own" the mess. They voted to authorize War right alongside the Republicans.

Votes can be spun, but not changed.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya

"they played the game wrong and lost."

Instead of separating the two issues they let their fringe direct their efforts, efforts that went no where.

So now, Bush gets what he wants, the Democrats have no more leverage, and we are back to square one.

Well, this new Democrat led Congress is a do nothing Congress.

They haven't even gotten their promised 100 hour or 100 day, whatever it was, agenda passed. The press gives them a pass for that.

Gotta love it. Politicians first, Democrats second. Meaning, they server their supporters after protecting their political asses.

One the saddest, sickest posts in P&N yet.

How much are you getting paid to trash the U.S.?

Jesus...you really are just a shell script arent you.

I'm responding to a shell script. I feel stupid.

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Yeah.

The Dems can't override a Bush veto.

Seems like the Reps here forgot basic math. (yet more children left behind....)

Yep, the fact that the Dems can't do anything by the sheer fact of the numbers makes them "Caving" and me a "shell script".

Dave...youre a shell script?

Well I guess thats better than being a shill script 😉

Now your talking to a shell script. You should feel stupid too.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Yep, the fact that the Dems can't do anything by the sheer fact of the numbers makes them "Caving" and me a "shell script".

I don't understand why the Dems didn't wanna have an up or down vote to get individual polititions votes on the record.

Why not a seperate bill on a timetable etc? GWB would have had to go on record as vetoing it. And the Congressional Repubs would have had to go on the record again (aftter first vote on the bill) inthe veto override vote.

Can it be that some of the Dems don't wanna go on record themselves?

(attempt to provoke Dave into non-canned thoughtful response 😉 )

Fern

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Yep, the fact that the Dems can't do anything by the sheer fact of the numbers makes them "Caving" and me a "shell script".

I don't understand why the Dems didn't wanna have an up or down vote to get individual polititions votes on the record.

Why not a seperate bill on a timetable etc? GWB would have had to go on record as vetoing it. And the Congressional Repubs would have had to go on the record again (aftter first vote on the bill) inthe veto override vote.

Can it be that some of the Dems don't wanna go on record themselves?

(attempt to provoke Dave into non-canned thoughtful response 😉 )

Fern

<Dave Shell Script>
How much are you being paid by Dick Cheney and his criminal oil buddies??
</Dave Shell Script>

*Automated response by AutomatedDumbA$$?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is pretty much the only hope the Republicans have for 2008 is if Bush does that and gets the Democrats to own some of the Iraq mess.

Many of the Democrats already "own" the mess. They voted to authorize War right alongside the Republicans.

Votes can be spun, but not changed.

Didn't only 90 vote yes? compared to over 200 republicans?

 

[DealMonkey]

It's a lovely damned if they do - damned if they don't dilemma the Democrats are in.

Just imagine the level of criticism they'd get if they cut off funding for the war -- I mean just look at the criticism they get when they don't. Never mind the fact they can't form a veto-busting majority to back withdrawal without GOP support.

The will to end this charade exists on the Democrat side of the aisle, but not on the GOP side.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Its a little premature for Shivetya to crow--this is not just a case of counting chickens before they hatch, this is a case of counting chickens before the egg is even laid.

I am not crowing, I am pointing out that they had a solid chance of pinning him down on a withdrawal date but their stupidity kept linking it to the Troop Funding and that GAVE the whole battle to Bush.

they were STUPID. As such Bush can't be pinned down as keeping us in Iraq as Congress gave him the funds and still haven't forced him to deal with withdrawal. Until they do he can keep up the talk about how they approved of the war.

 

[Jhhnn]

The spin in this thread is desperate, almost comical.

Ya know? we have been debating this for two months now and many of you on the left have been adamant that the Democrats would win this battle while accusing those of us on the right of a whole list of things.
Well it looks like those of us on the right were correct and that the Democrats will fund the troops without any type of withdrawal.

The original bill, vetoed by Bush, didn't call for any troop withdrawals prior to Oct 2007-

Define what it is that you were right about, and what it is that Bush has won...

Look at it this way. Imagine a vise, with Dubya's stubbornness as the fixed jaw, growing public sentiment against the occupation as the moveable jaw, Dems turning the handle, various tenderbits of the Repubs' collective anatomy caught in between...

You think it'll be any more comfortable come September?

 

[fskimospy]

First of all ProfJohn I never ever said that the Democrats were going to win this one. In fact I said just the opposite. (I don't even think they ever really planned on winning)

You'll see guys. Wait a few months till the funding comes up again and things are still as bad as ever there. Then the debate will come back with twice the ferocity. Maybe they won't win then either, (although I bet they squeeze a lot of concessions out from him as more Republicans jump ship) They are playing the long game here, and to be honest it's the only one they have the votes to play.

Time is on their side. I believe Bush's only plan at the moment is to run out the clock on his presidency so that his successor will have to be the one to remove the troops so that the blame for Iraq's collapse won't be on his shoulders. You'll see every delay possible (in fact if the Democrats do cut off funding in some way I would expect a court battle just to run some more time off the clock)

 

[smack Down]

Political it is better for the democrats to let bush have his "victory" here. The democrats can now point to bush and the GOP as the sole reason we are still in Iraq come 2008 if Iraq is still as bad or worse then it is now. If Iraq turns out ok, democrats can take credit for it by claim it was the pressure they put on the new Iraqi government that stabilized Iraq.

Put up another big mission accomplished banner see where it gets you.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The spin in this thread is desperate, almost comical.

-snip-

The original bill, vetoed by Bush, didn't call for any troop withdrawals prior to Oct 2007-

I'm pretty sure Bush didn't veto, it never got to him (just being a little picky 😉 )

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First of all ProfJohn I never ever said that the Democrats were going to win this one. In fact I said just the opposite. (I don't even think they ever really planned on winning)

You'll see guys. Wait a few months till the funding comes up again and things are still as bad as ever there. Then the debate will come back with twice the ferocity. Maybe they won't win then either, (although I bet they squeeze a lot of concessions out from him as more Republicans jump ship) They are playing the long game here, and to be honest it's the only one they have the votes to play.

Time is on their side. I believe Bush's only plan at the moment is to run out the clock on his presidency so that his successor will have to be the one to remove the troops so that the blame for Iraq's collapse won't be on his shoulders. You'll see every delay possible (in fact if the Democrats do cut off funding in some way I would expect a court battle just to run some more time off the clock)

Hmmm.... Smells like somebody else fears things will go badly after a withdrawl.

Yeah, September outta be a b!tch. Although I expect Patreaus (sp?) will say something like "the situation is improving, but we need more time...."

That will just make a decision that harder, and we outta get a pretty good political show, what with all the posturing and campaigning. I expect it will be a much discussed topic in the Pres debates around that time.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Hmmm.... Smells like somebody else fears things will go badly after a withdrawl.

Yeah, September outta be a b!tch. Although I expect Patreaus (sp?) will say something like "the situation is improving, but we need more time...."

That will just make a decision that harder, and we outta get a pretty good political show, what with all the posturing and campaigning. I expect it will be a much discussed topic in the Pres debates around that time.

Fern

Oh definitely. I think it is very likely things will go badly after withdrawal (at least for awhile). I also believe that our troops have absolutely zero chance of stopping that from happening anyway. As I've always said, they are attempting to achieve an objective that is impossible... THAT is why they should leave.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Didn't only 90 vote yes? compared to over 200 republicans?

Nope, close though. House vote was 296-133 with 81 Democrats voting alongside 215 Republicans to authorize the resolution.

Senate was 77-23; 48 votes from Republican members, 29 from Democratic members.

Not that the numbers really matter. There are 110 names from the Democratic party that voted to authorize the war and cannot run from that, despite their best efforts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice dodge, Prof-

I'm pretty sure Bush didn't veto, it never got to him (just being a little picky )

This bill, this veto-

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html

and this request, again-

Define what it is that you were right about, and what it is that Bush has won...

The original vetoed bill had full funding with no strings thru September, anyway... This isn't much of a victory, if any, it's more like a temporary stay of execution...

With the attached spin being transparently lame...

 

[Jhhnn]

From Pabster-

Not that the numbers really matter. There are 110 names from the Democratic party that voted to authorize the war and cannot run from that, despite their best efforts.

Quite true. And the Admin can't run from the false information they gave to Congress to receive those votes, either...

Basically, they hornswaggled Dems and the voters on the eve of an election, after a year of fearmongering, intelligence cherry-picking, and agitprop about Osama lovers being the only people who'd oppose the invasion... 9/11! Terrar! Osama! Saddam! WMD's! Nukes! were all melded together into a single concept... The admin and their pundits couldn't string together more than a few words without including all those terms in a single sentence...