And they ran on a campaign promise to end the war asap. Liars.:mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070522/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc

Oh! what a surprise!

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1363010&postcount=37

The one party system lives!

Yeah, what a surprize... Read The logical Republican... :)

Also the Pentagon plans a few decades long stay...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/21/iraq-decades/

Boy, the democrats sure are quiet tonite.:rolleyes:

I don't know why this surprises anyone. The democrats made their political play and it backfired on them. I read somewhere that they're going to try to tie a minimum wage increase to this bill, though...Anyone else hear that?

They're going to load all bills so full of pork they will squeal.:mad:

Right, and if Bush has any guts left, he'll veto it. But I don't think he will...

problem with sams linked post is that the Democrat Congress doesn't care about the actual well being of the US, just how the US looks to others.

I think they just care about scoring political points and getting reelected, which isn't too different from the Republicans...

Let's face it Sandy, you would be criticizing the Democrats no matter what they did. If they could end the war, I think they would. They don't have a supermajority to override Bush's veto. If there is any good news from this, this bill is only for two months, then they can reconsider the issue. By that time perhaps Republicans will be looking to improve their re-election chances by rethinking their positions. The situation in Iraq will have either changed, or become more obviously hopeless.

And they ran on a campaign promise to end the war asap. Liars.:mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070522/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc

they did everything in there power to end the war if you remember they bill they sent to bush that had a date to leave he withdraw he vetoed. did it occor to you that this bill is just to make sure the troops have money to do the things they need to do they are still going to try but hey are not going to do so in a way that would increase casulties.

They're going to load all bills so full of pork they will squeal.:mad:

most of the stuff in the bill that bush vetoed was not pork at least i don't consider raises for the troops and money for katrina victims pork maybe you do but i don't and all apprpreatians bills have pork in them. there are refered to asxmas tree bills with all the things attached to them so your arguement fails logically what a suprise

Oh, please. You can talk about withdrawal all you like, but don't try to pretend that initial bill offered by the Democrats wasn't pork laden. It very obviously was...

Let's face it Sandy, you would be criticizing the Democrats no matter what they did. If they could end the war, I think they would. They don't have a supermajority to override Bush's veto. If there is any good news from this, this bill is only for two months, then they can reconsider the issue. By that time perhaps Republicans will be looking to improve their re-election chances by rethinking their positions. The situation in Iraq will have either changed, or become more obviously hopeless.

Not true spidey. I give props when/where they're due. Edwards held the door open for a little old lady at church. I thought that was nice of him.;)

Quite true. If they forced Bush's hand and made the occupation end, you would be calling them traitors and aligned with terrorists, not admiring them for expressing the will of the people.

And they ran on a campaign promise to end the war asap. Liars

We all realize that the reason conservatives take up such outlooks is that they're afraid to be honest about themselves. They got what they fought for, made sure that they would not accept anything else, and the Democrats chose to fund the troops. In the end, conservatives don't want to admit that the one thing they will not be obliged to do by ethics, morals, or even law, is give a whit's worth of decent respect to our troops fighting abroad.

Anorexic arguments like Sandy's are about all they can muster. It's not so much that the American people are too stupid to see the light shining through the myriad gaps, but that they're still too stunned at the idea that anyone could be so horrible and dishonest. There are those conservatives who buy into "thinking" like Sandy's, but there are many conservatives who watch them, thinking, "This is not happening. This is not happening!"

Trouble is, even those folks are conservatives. They're paralyzed. Post-Victorian horror at the notion of throwing their hats in with liberals and common folk on such fundamental issues prevents them from doing the right thing.

This whole thing is about pride, and our military services are nothing more than pawns to be exploited and expended in order to achieve some obscure construction of pride that is the holy grail of conservative society: We're rich, we're righteous, and we're never wrong even when we are.

No wonder the best support they can give the troops is a big, fat F-bomb.

excellent post.

To be fair, many on the left reason that we shouldn't be in Iraq because Bush lied about the reasons for going there. However questionable the reasons, the issue of pullout should be considered separately. I would love to see the dream of a Democratic Iraq come to pass, I just don't see how it can be accomplished, especially under present management.

We should have taken care of Al Quida first, so they wouldn't interfere as they have in the new Iraq by acting to incite religious warfare.

Excellent post? I fail to see how any of Tiassa's rambling opinions relate to the topic of this thread, which a cursory glance tells me is: Democracts to fund Iraq war with no pullout date.

The Democrats failure to stick to their guns, or in this case, their failure to stomach cutting the funding for more "guns" shows that they are more about symbolism than substance. Either they didn't think Bush would veto their failed bill, a possibility that's difficult to fathom considering he told them he would numerous times, or this whole excercise was an elaborate jerk of intellectual masterbation, put together and carried out for no other reason than to try and "appease" the "far-left" and to give them enough leverage to insert $20 billion of non-military spending — that they know they couldn't otherwise pass — in their second shot at a war funding bill. I suspect both are at play here, though the second reason is probably the more important.

The Democrats don't want a national debate on more handouts to Katrina's never-ending parade of victims, nor do they want a national debate about raising the minimum wage because it would show them as the half-hearted, union-oriented, class-warriors that they are. Their solution? Wait and attach it to this piece of legislation, and thus, cleverly avoid scrutiny...

In other words, politics at its worst...

I'm sure that attitude is not representative of every Democrat in congress, but I fear you are correct.

There are always exceptions, but I think my analysis holds true for the rank and file...

Excellent post? I fail to see how any of Tiassa's rambling opinions relate to the topic of this thread, which a cursory glance tells me is: Democracts to fund Iraq war with no pullout date.

The Democrats failure to stick to their guns, or in this case, their failure to stomach cutting the funding for more "guns" shows that they are more about symbolism than substance. Either they didn't think Bush would veto their failed bill, a possibility that's difficult to fathom considering he told them he would numerous times, or this whole excercise was an elaborate jerk of intellectual masterbation, put together and carried out for no other reason than to try and "appease" the "far-left" and to give them enough leverage to insert $20 billion of non-military spending — that they know they couldn't otherwise pass — in their second shot at a war funding bill. I suspect both are at play here, though the second reason is probably the more important.

The Democrats don't want a national debate on more handouts to Katrina's never-ending parade of victims, nor do they want a national debate about raising the minimum wage because it would show them as the half-hearted, union-oriented, class-warriors that they are. Their solution? Wait and attach it to this piece of legislation, and thus, cleverly avoid scrutiny...

In other words, politics at its worst...

Good points.

This is a surprise? C'mon! You had to know that this was just "grandstanding" so that the Dems could go to the voters and say, "Look... we tried and that bastard vetoed us... we just couldn't let the troops stay there without funds... but we're working on it." Furthermore, this bill didn't pass without the pullout-date WITHOUT some "other" backroom deal giving the Dems something they greatly desired. I'm guessing that the current imigration bill and the minimum wage hike may have been trade offs for leaving the date out of the funding bill.

~String

To be fair, many on the left reason that we shouldn't be in Iraq because Bush lied about the reasons for going there. However questionable the reasons, the issue of pullout should be considered separately. I would love to see the dream of a Democratic Iraq come to pass, I just don't see how it can be accomplished, especially under present management.

We should have taken care of Al Quida first, so they wouldn't interfere as they have in the new Iraq by acting to incite religious warfare.

That's something I can agree with.

~String

If the Republicans traded the Democrats the immigration bill for pulling out the withdrawal date then that party has truly lost sight of its conservative principles.

The immigration bill is going to reshape the entire scope of this country. The war, by comparison, is small potatoes...

With your political antennae, I'm surprised you don't have more insight.

I can say with some security, there is NO WAY this bill wasn't sent from the hill without some backroom deal giving the Dems something in return.

~String

Oh, I had the insight, which is why I shared my prospective analysis...

I was hoping for some more meat and potatoes. But, the insight is always appreciated.

~String

I honestly can't say much else. I'm knee-deep in budget hearings right now. Otherwise I'd call my state's pair of Senators up and try to get some response with meaning out of them, a difficult task to be sure...

But at least they got booed at the state convention last weekend by their own party!

Dems? Republicans? I guess I could look it up. I never heard about this one. What happened?

~String

Excellent post? I fail to see how any of Tiassa's rambling opinions relate to the topic of this thread, which a cursory glance tells me is: Democracts to fund Iraq war with no pullout date.

Well, it's not like you're a journalist, right? So let's go over it simply:

(1) People vote for withdrawal platform, elect Democratic congress.
(2) Democrats propose bill to fund troops according to voters' demand.
(3) GOP says, "No," to Democrats, voters.
(4) Dems, GOP stand off regarding war funding.
(5) Dems cave, choosing to fund the troops and move to the next round.
(6) GOP gets its way.
(6a) GOP complains that Democrats did wrong thing in giving GOP its way.

Oh, and Countezero--again, recognizing that you're not a journalist, but then again, neither am I, so how come I'm aware of these tidbits of information when you're not?--maybe if the GOP had decided to actually do their jobs after losing the November, 2006 election instead of just leaving their administrative mess for the Dems to figure out, perhaps those funding issues and discussions you mentioned could have happened at their appropriate time.

Republicans are, like Democrats, politicians and will utilize ANY percieved weakness against them. The Republicans won this round.

~String

Well, I posted my analysis. You're free to disagree with it, though I do think positing that people voted for Democrats in 2006 to get a withdrawal date is somewhat misleading. People voted for Democrats for all sorts of reasons, not one lone issue that you've chosen to make supreme to all others. In my home state, the Democrats won several tough races simply because the Republican voters stayed home...

Regardless of your appreciation of events, I still don't know how anything the GOP may have done excuses the Democrats caving on the withdrawal date. If they think the withdrawal is so blasted important, as you seem to, then why won't they stand up to the big, bad GOP and fight for it?

Answer: Politics is more important to them than principles; the Democrats are willing to give up on what you think got them elected in order to get goodies in another appropriations bill.

Dems: Fight Over Iraq War Has Just Begun
May 25, 6:16 AM (ET)
By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats may have lost the first round with President Bush on ending the war in Iraq since taking over Congress in January, but they say their fight has just begun.

In the months ahead, lawmakers will vote repeatedly on whether U.S. troops should stay and whether Bush has the authority to continue the war. The Democratic strategy is intended to ratchet up pressure on the president, as well as on moderate Republicans who have grown tired of defending Bush administration policy in a deeply unpopular war.

"I feel a direction change in the air," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House panel that oversees military funding.

Democrats looked to the upcoming votes after losing a bruising battle with Bush on an emergency war spending bill. Lacking the two-thirds majority needed to overcome another presidential veto, Democrats dropped from the legislation a provision ordering troops home from Iraq beginning this fall.

Congress passed the revised $120 billion spending bill on Thursday, providing $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The House voted 280-142 to pass the bill, followed by a 80-14 vote in the Senate.

Democratic leaders said they hoped to ready the bill for Bush's signature by this Memorial Day weekend.

Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against the bill.

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Their votes continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

Thursday's legislative action capped weeks of negotiations with the White House, which agreed to accept some $17 billion more than Bush had requested as long as there were no restrictions on the military campaign.

Answer: Politics is more important to them than principles; the Democrats are willing to give up on what you think got them elected in order to get goodies in another appropriations bill.

Wow. Before the 2006 election, our American service personnel enjoyed a much higher esteem among conservatives. You've managed to reduce them to mere "politics".

News-flash, Clark Kent: They're human beings.

Now, I know this fact of life is very inconvenient to your most important campaign--the hatred of people who disagree with you--but when it comes down to it, the only difference between not plunging our armed services into deeper disarray and sending the active service the money it needs for its mission is apparently, as you have explained it, who is passing the resolution. If it's the GOP, they're being patriotic and doing their duty. If it's the Democrats withdrawing to fight another day, it's mere politics.

Stop exploiting our service personnel as political pawns. You and your ilk may believe them worth nothing more, but most of us who want them home simply want them home. In the meantime, there's no point in depleting the armed services further than the Bush administration has already accomplished through its dedicated, tireless efforts.

They're going to load all bills so full of pork they will squeal.:mad:


Right, because Republicans (who passed more pork in the past 6 years than any Congress ever) needed the help.

Number of "Earmarks" (Pork Projects) in Federal Spending Bills

2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439

(source "Downsizing the Federal Government", by Chris Edwards of the CATO Institute).

On the issue at hand I don't think the Democrats had much of a choice. They don't have the power to order the troops out of Iraq. Cutting funding would *not* have forced an immediate withdrawal, it would have led the Administration into letting the troops continue the mission without adequate materiel. It would have punished the troops for Bush's perceived misdeeds. That would have been unethical, and (more cynically) would have been most likely pinned on the Democrats, costing them centrist voters. Not ending the war may cost them some points with the extreme anti-war base, but at least the Democrats know that base is not going to walk off and vote Republican in protest. Centrist voters might.

That said, I don't think a precipitous withdrawal is a good idea anyway, but the problem is that alternative is Bush's "cross our fingers and hope for a miracle" strategy is the "disagreement point"—the solution that pertains when no alternate agreement can be reached.

Excellent article on So you thought they would end the war:

http://counterpunch.org/vest05252007.html

"Liberals have already spent six and a half years loathing Bush -- longer if they live in Texas, a state whose statutes are said to recognize two classes of persons: Fuckors and Fuckees.

(Republicans and Democrats, the big shots, belong to the former class. You and I belong to the latter.)"

You and your ilk may believe them worth nothing more, but most of us who want them home simply want them home.

And what about the innocent Iraqis that have been and will be killed when we leave them without any protection at all? I'll quote you: "News-flash, Clark Kent: They're human beings."

In case you didn't know it, Iraqi terrorists and insurgents are killing innocent Iraqis by the thousands ...yet you seem to disregard them altogether. Why?

Baron Max

Because they would rather blame us than the actual terrorists. That's how liberals think. They hate Bush/USA so much, they will say anything to make them look bad.

hey sandy. How do you like it that Bush wants to pull out the troops from Iraq. The traitor. You voted for that animal.

Tiassa, the only hatred I consistently see is yours, as you continue to seek me out in whatever thread I'm in and try to paint me as someone who doesn't care about human beings. That's just silly.

If you bother to look in other threads you will see that I am not a Republican and have attacked Bush for his handling of the war. I also just posted that if he pulls out in the months leading up to the 2008, then I think he's played politics with the troops as badly as the Democrats. So in other words, get your head out of your ass and quit trying to demonize the people who have the temerity to disagree with you.

And what about the innocent Iraqis that have been and will be killed when we leave them without any protection at all? I'll quote you: "News-flash, Clark Kent: They're human beings."

Yep. They are. And here's another headline, Lois ... er ... Jimmy ... er, never mind. Anyway, here's another McNugget you might have missed: Iraqis were already dying in droves before we invaded. Remember that one? How Saddam was killing his own people? You know, our second or third reason for invading (depending on what day of the week it is)?

As such, our withdrawal from the theater would indicate three things:

(1) Iraqis are still dying just like before, except by different hands.
(2) We've ruined the situation there, and all King George's horses, and all King George's men will not be be able to repair this egg again.
(3) Our choices at present are to leave now, which would leave Iraq in a worse state that we found it; or to leave later, which would leave Iraq in an even worse state than it already is (see #2 above if this somehow confuses you).

They're human beings. It's not so much that our solution isn't working, but rather that we never had one and our executive at least didn't care.

It's not a disregard for innocent Iraqis, Baron. I'm sure you could recognize that if I wasn't involved in the discussion. Rather, we must consider the American contribution to their condition. At this point, there are two primary groups of people in terms of human consideration: our service personnel, who need to be extracted from this disaster and brought home to hugs and loads of free drinks; and the Iraqi people, who deserve an apology and scads of American money.

The whole point of this war seems to have been to trigger a new, more dangerous version of the Cold War that would allow another fifty years of conservative complaints about tax-and-spend while the real debt is piled up by devising new and creative ways to destroy other human beings.

Maybe when the extraterrestrial hordes come to enslave and devour humanity, I will finally understand the purpose of nuclear weapons. Until then, I justify them by thinking of the killer comet.

I just don't see why we need to go through this again, except of course that the power players on the conservative side don't seem to have learned from the first one. We won. There's no reason to do this all over again. It's not entertaining. It's not macho. (In fact, as far as machismo is concerned, it suggests a lack of confidence in one's genderhood; I'll leave Freudian envy out of it for now, despite the missiles.)

Human beings, Max. What do they get out of this all?

Tiassa, the only hatred I consistently see is yours, as you continue to seek me out in whatever thread I'm in and try to paint me as someone who doesn't care about human beings. That's just silly.

If you bother to look in other threads you will see that I am not a Republican and have attacked Bush for his handling of the war. I also just posted that if he pulls out in the months leading up to the 2008, then I think he's played politics with the troops as badly as the Democrats. So in other words, get your head out of your ass and quit trying to demonize the people who have the temerity to disagree with you.

They do it to me too, count, so don't think you're the only one. At least you don't get vile PMs.:rolleyes:

they did everything in there power to end the war if you

No.
They could have stuck to their 'principles' and cut funding, thus forcing the president's hand to withdraw from the war.

However, the jingoistic anthem of 'God Bless Our Troops' has so altered the national consciousness that such an act is almost unthinkable. Never mind that it has been done a large number of times throughout American history.

History is lost and only the jingoism remains.

Tiassa, the only hatred I consistently see is yours, as you continue to seek me out in whatever thread I'm in and try to paint me as someone who doesn't care about human beings. That's just silly.

The image of hatred comes from the way you claim to be a journalist yet play the role of the idiot. Reading your posts, it seems you've missed the last twenty-five or so years of the news that has dominated my life as an American. And yet you bandy about divisive rhetoric with no apparent consideration of its human toll. This seems downright nasty: you're using human tragedy about which you either know or care little as leverage for taking part in the dirtier side of political rhetoric.

Additionally, given your blatant dishonesty, you might want to reconsider what you call silly. Consider this example:


Tiassa, the only hatred I consistently see is yours, as you continue to seek me out in whatever thread I'm in and try to paint me as someone who doesn't care about human beings.

Now let's just consider this. Sandy posts a topic (e.g. post #1), to which Tiassa replies (#18). Spuriousmonkey comments (#20; see note below). Countezero responds to Spuriousmonkey (#21), opening with a criticism of Tiassa. In post #33, Tiassa responds directly to the criticism in #21. Countezero responds (#35), which lends toward another lament, which I've addressed above. (Hint: Even if the Dems pass an immediate withdrawal, the President still has to sign it. You think they'll be able to override the veto? We at Sciforums and those in the Democratic leadership would greatly appreciate an explanation of this point, so that you can go down in history as the one who saved our troops.) Tiassa responds (#37), and Countezero makes the accusation (#43) documented in red above. Given that you opened the discussion with a criticism, how can you possibly complain that I sought you out?

Note on post #20 by Spuriousmonkey: I see by your profile, Countezero, that you're not long a member. Not that this is in any way a moral problem. However, those who have been here longer may find significance in Spurious' post. Spurious and I have been getting along lately, even sharing common perspectives. This is not exactly--how to put it?--what some expect of us. Our history includes some insanely nasty fights that may well have set the standard for a while. You'll see some great fights around here, and also some aspirant flame wars that just can't match the standards they aim to imitate. Spurious and I have fallen into both categories. Longer members may well have left his post alone for its significance inasmuch as Spurious and I aren't fighting, and that's broadly considered a good thing. It's a practical note, and should not be construed to bear any moral or ethical significance: The current discussion could have been avoided if you'd made your point and left Spurious' post (and thereby me) out of it.

Back to the moral and ethical: In light of the above, how can you possibly lament that I have sought you out?

As for the number of words I've wasted on this cheap aspect of the discussion? In the future, please don't go out of your way to cheapen things.

You can rationalize all you like, Tiassa, but the fact remains in nearly every single thread I've posted in recently, you've inserted little quips that make it appear as though I don't care about human beings, which apparently only you in your undying majesty of compassion seem to care about, you've put words into my mouth that I did not say and you've attacked my professionalism and insinuated I'm an idiot all because I don't reach the same conclusions you do about political issues. That's puerile, close-minded stuff.

Arguments and debates don't need to devolve in such a way. But it's very obvious, based on your behavior and based on the material you shared above, that nasty fights that end up in these sort of cheap attacks are nothing new to you and are an acceptable way of behaving.