We surrender, we surrender

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't think they need to run though. 100% more voted for it in the republican party, plus they didn't have the same info as the president, plus, they haven't been running the war. Republicans in the administration have. 90% of the blame is with the administration, 10% of the congress.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't think they need to run though. 100% more voted for it in the republican party, plus they didn't have the same info as the president, plus, they haven't been running the war. Republicans in the administration have. 90% of the blame is with the administration, 10% of the congress.

You seem to be suggesting that Congress failed to do its job.

How can you allocate nearly the entire "blame" to the Administration when it was enabled by Congress? If you are seriously trying the old "they didn't have the information" routine, don't bother. If they didn't have all the information, they should have gotten it first, before voting. That is their job. Their votes are on the record and forever sealed. The hogwash liberal charter about Congress being "misled" or "fooled" by GWB went out a long time ago.

 

[Jhhnn]

Like I pointed out, above, Pabster, the authorization to use force was a magnificent job of bullying and misinformation, which you seek to perpetuate...

Congress should have gotten the information first? From where, the Bush Admin? What other sources did they have, pray tell? Divine inspiration? Ouija board? Farmers' Almanac? British Intelligence?

Your argument, such as it is, is completely circular and desperately delusional...

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't think they need to run though. 100% more voted for it in the republican party, plus they didn't have the same info as the president, plus, they haven't been running the war. Republicans in the administration have. 90% of the blame is with the administration, 10% of the congress.

You seem to be suggesting that Congress failed to do its job.

How can you allocate nearly the entire "blame" to the Administration when it was enabled by Congress? If you are seriously trying the old "they didn't have the information" routine, don't bother. If they didn't have all the information, they should have gotten it first, before voting. That is their job. Their votes are on the record and forever sealed. The hogwash liberal charter about Congress being "misled" or "fooled" by GWB went out a long time ago.

They got the cherry picked information. You may dismiss the idea but the rest of the thinking world knows it is true.

 

[Aisengard]

Sigh, instead of bashing Bush for being a complete moron and sticking to his "tough it out" plan for Iraq - which has been proven again and again ad ininitum to not work, in any sense of the word, people blame Democrats for 'backing off' a bill that would never get passed. Instead of recognizing that the Democrats are instead deciding to fund the troops, and hope down the line Bush will see reason, or at least get a human-sized brain installed (a futile hope, I know), instead of depriving them of equipment and money, they decide to bash them for something they can't, in any way, control.

Unless they're saying Democrats should impeach the President, and it would be a wise thing to do. But I don't see Republican posters here proposing that situation. Ah, politics. Brings out the worst in all of us. Or it just continues to bring out crap from the ultra-right.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Like I pointed out, above, Pabster, the authorization to use force was a magnificent job of bullying and misinformation, which you seek to perpetuate...

Congress should have gotten the information first? From where, the Bush Admin? What other sources did they have, pray tell? Divine inspiration? Ouija board? Farmers' Almanac? British Intelligence?

Your argument, such as it is, is completely circular and desperately delusional...

What was it? Greeted as liberators with flowers. Loans provided to the Iraqi government which would be paid back with Iraqi oil revenue. What was the original cost estimate of the war?

 

[noto12ious]

Haha. Democrats chickening out again. Looks like you can't trust either party.

 

[theeedude]

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.

That's not how the average voter will see it, because your average voter probably supported going in at the beginning too, but has since then changed his mind based on this little thing called reality. Come 2008, the voter may be interested to know why we are STILL in Iraq, not who voted to authorize it 6 years before.

 

[tomywishbone]

Why would the greasy millionaires rock the boat, when they can capitulate and pocket millions?

Every single politician in this country above the rank of small-town-mayor sucks.

 

[First]

Too bad you can't ban for stupidity.

 

[judasmachine]

geez they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. geez, compromising is what they are paid to do. you people only want zealots in office, what's wrong with you people?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

That's not how the average voter will see it, because your average voter probably supported going in at the beginning too, but has since then changed his mind based on this little thing called reality. Come 2008, the voter may be interested to know why we are STILL in Iraq, not who voted to authorize it 6 years before.

True - and they will be wondering why with the Dems "put in charge" in 2006, the Iraqi situation was not resolved.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

That's not how the average voter will see it, because your average voter probably supported going in at the beginning too, but has since then changed his mind based on this little thing called reality. Come 2008, the voter may be interested to know why we are STILL in Iraq, not who voted to authorize it 6 years before.

True - and they will be wondering why with the Dems "put in charge" in 2006, the Iraqi situation was not resolved.

Which is why, IMHO, the Dems will lose the majority in 2008.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

The question now is how many Democrats will vote for the new war funding bill minus the withdraw date.

It is one thing to claim that you tried to end the war; it is another to then turn around and fund it for another 4 months.
Maybe we will see some Democrats not vote on the bill at all and therefore let it win via just the Republican members votes.

One thing I expect to see after this is more anti-war types going after the Democrats for not stopping the war.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

That's not how the average voter will see it, because your average voter probably supported going in at the beginning too, but has since then changed his mind based on this little thing called reality. Come 2008, the voter may be interested to know why we are STILL in Iraq, not who voted to authorize it 6 years before.

True - and they will be wondering why with the Dems "put in charge" in 2006, the Iraqi situation was not resolved.

Which is why, IMHO, the Dems will lose the majority in 2008.

Having a slight majority in the house does NOT mean 'put in charge', particularly when you have a band of thugs in the White house who absolutely REFUSE to listen to the American people.

2/3 of the country disapprove of the administration
2/3 of the country disapprove of the handling of Iraq

Bush and his cronies don't give a crap about anyone except themselves, their plans, and their buddies.

It would be good if in '08, we get a Democrat president and a more moderate Republican congress. Maybe some balance could be restored at last. The past few years have been laughable.

Oh, and the Democrat-majority congress has only held office for a few months, yet some people expect them to move heaven and earth, without the veto-override numbers necessary? That's being intellectually dishonest, that's just being plain ignorant. Just like the OP.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Having a slight majority in the house does NOT mean 'put in charge', particularly when you have a band of thugs in the White house who absolutely REFUSE to listen to the American people.

2/3 of the country disapprove of the administration
2/3 of the country disapprove of the handling of Iraq
2/3 of the country disapprove of congress

Fixed, as they like to say.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Having a slight majority in the house does NOT mean 'put in charge', particularly when you have a band of thugs in the White house who absolutely REFUSE to listen to the American people.

2/3 of the country disapprove of the administration
2/3 of the country disapprove of the handling of Iraq
2/3 of the country disapprove of congress

Fixed, as they like to say.

Yeah but I bet those in congress that they disaprove of doesn't include their own representitive.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

That's not how the average voter will see it, because your average voter probably supported going in at the beginning too, but has since then changed his mind based on this little thing called reality. Come 2008, the voter may be interested to know why we are STILL in Iraq, not who voted to authorize it 6 years before.

True - and they will be wondering why with the Dems "put in charge" in 2006, the Iraqi situation was not resolved.

Which is why, IMHO, the Dems will lose the majority in 2008.

Having a slight majority in the house does NOT mean 'put in charge', particularly when you have a band of thugs in the White house who absolutely REFUSE to listen to the American people.

2/3 of the country disapprove of the administration
2/3 of the country disapprove of the handling of Iraq

Bush and his cronies don't give a crap about anyone except themselves, their plans, and their buddies.

It would be good if in '08, we get a Democrat president and a more moderate Republican congress. Maybe some balance could be restored at last. The past few years have been laughable.

Oh, and the Democrat-majority congress has only held office for a few months, yet some people expect them to move heaven and earth, without the veto-override numbers necessary? That's being intellectually dishonest, that's just being plain ignorant. Just like the OP.

I agree mostly. As I've said in previous posts, balance is a good thing. History shows a GOP pres with a majority in Congress is a bad thing. Same goes for Dems. Neither party should be able to run amok.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Like I pointed out, above, Pabster, the authorization to use force was a magnificent job of bullying and misinformation, which you seek to perpetuate...

Congress should have gotten the information first? From where, the Bush Admin? What other sources did they have, pray tell? Divine inspiration? Ouija board? Farmers' Almanac? British Intelligence?

Your argument, such as it is, is completely circular and desperately delusional...

Your post would sound pretty good had I not been around in 2002 & 2003 etc, watching every politition on Capital Hill running to the microphone trying to sound "tougher" than all the rest of the polititions there.

Go back read some of the speeches. HRC's is a good example. I think it was linked here yesterday. I noticed that she didn't cite any info from the Bush Admin as reason to say Saddam had to be removed, etc.

Fern

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
...
Yeah but I bet those in congress that they disaprove of doesn't include their own representitive.

Sad but true. Most americans are totally transparent of what thier OWN congressman are voting for/against. Its the celebrity mentality in America, everyone pay attention to a few people, scrutinize the crap out of them, and the other few hundred of politicians in DC are running around with a free pass.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Scrambling to send President Bush an emergency war spending bill he will sign, Democratic leaders have decided to drop their insistence on a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

when push comes to shove, giving up is the order of the day for Democrats.

Democratic lawmakers are under pressure to send the president an emergency spending bill before the Memorial Day break or risk being blamed for withholding critical funding for U.S. troops.

Read, 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 sever their supporters after protecting their political asses.

This is a stupid post. Using an analysis with the same crappy quality as yours I could easily claim that the democrats are the ones who are willing to put the well-being of our troops ahead of politics. Find the flaw in that conclusion and you'll discover the flaw in yours as well.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, Fern, Clinton and the rest only acted on the information supplied to them, and it all came from the Admin- they have no other access to intelligence of any kind. So when Clinton talks about "intelligence reports", it's in reference to materials supplied by the executive branch. Like this-

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

She didn't learn that stuff from anybody other than the Bush admin, who had obviously doctored the intelligence to suit their purposes.

And this-

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Take the president at his word... that's the last time it'll happen, for sure, because he lied, plain and simple.

Here's the whole text of her speech, and I'd encourage people to actually read it, rather than accept the rightwing spin applied to it-

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Later, on the eve of the invasion, the UN inspectors indicated that their work was proceeding as required, and that they'd be finished in a matter of months... Dubya ordered them out, and invaded...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6

All against the backdrop of conflating Iraq and 9/11- a surprising number of people still believe Iraq was involved in that, even though it's not true, and that's no accident, either...

 

[DealMonkey]

If I were the Dems right now, I'd have dropped timeline restrictions only if I had a plan "B." Which very well could be the termination of Congress's authorization for war in Iraq. Force an up or down vote on the issue without any pork or riders.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
She didn't learn that stuff from anybody other than the Bush admin, who had obviously doctored the intelligence to suit their purposes.

Can you provide ANY proof of the ?doctoring??
Can you provide ANY politician claiming that their vote was based on ?doctored intelligence??

Next go back to 1998 and read what Bill Clinton was saying about Saddam. He was saying nearly the SAME thing. Now was Bill Clinton doctoring the intelligence as well?

As someone said in another thread Bush and Cheney weren?t sitting in a room making up lies and passing it off as intelligence. ?Doctoring? intelligence would have required a conspiracy involving at least a dozen people or more. All it would take is one whistle blower and the whole thing would crash down around them.

Most likely what they are guilty of doing is ?sexing up? the reports, as the British have claimed.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Scrambling to send President Bush an emergency war spending bill he will sign, Democratic leaders have decided to drop their insistence on a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

when push comes to shove, giving up is the order of the day for Democrats.

Democratic lawmakers are under pressure to send the president an emergency spending bill before the Memorial Day break or risk being blamed for withholding critical funding for U.S. troops.

Read, 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 sever their supporters after protecting their political asses.

I have to agree with Shiveta on this one. The Dems wussed out and let down the troops and the voters. We need a true liberal party in the US.