NationStates Jolt Archive

The question is not whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid flinched in their negotiations with the Bush administration over the continuation of the Iraq occupation.

They did. Despite some happy talk about benchmarks that have been attached to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that is expected to be considered by Congress this week, the willingness of Pelosi and Reid to advance a measure that does not include a withdrawal timeline allows Bush to conduct the war as he chooses for much if not all of the remainder of his presidency. This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war will haunt Pelosi, Reid and their party -- not to mention the United States and the battered shell that is Iraq.

This "compromise" legislation is such an embarrassing example of what happens when raw politics overwhelms principle -- and political common sense -- that House Democrats have divided the $12O billion measure into two sections. That will allow Republicans and sold-out Democrats to vote for the president's Iraq funding, while anti-war Democrats and their handful of Republican allies can vote "no." Then both Democratic camps can vote separately for the second section -- including a federal minimum-wage increase and more than $8 billion in funding for domestic programs -- while Republicans oppose this section.

Presuming that both parts pass the House, they will then be sent to the Senate as a single bill for members of that chamber to accept or reject. The end result of this confusing set of legislative maneuvers will be twofold: Lots of House members will be able to avoid accountability for their votes, while Bush will get his blank check. Even Pelosi says she'll vote against the Iraq funding section of the House bill because it lacks "a goal or a timetable" for extracting U.S. troops from the conflict. But, no matter how she votes, Pelosi will have facilitated a process that gives the president more war funding than he had initially requested

But the real story now is not the refusal of the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to hold steady in the face of the president's cynical claim that refusing him a blank check to maintain his war through the end of his presidency somehow threatens U.S. troops. That has happened and no matter what games are played with voting procedures, the reality is that the Democratic leadership has failed to lead at the most critical juncture.
...
Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has led the fight to get Congress to use the power of the purse to bring the troops home, immediately announced that he would not follow Reid into the abyss of surrender to a White House that is getting everything that it wants.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=198331
Its time to renew the whole Leadership..
http://www.nfib.com/docs/IO/18384/manual02ON04.jpg

I still see no reason to fold.

Fuck being nice. Why the hell would you give in when you're holding all the cards?

She should have said "Either sign the bill that we passed, or don't sign any bill at all."

*applauds the compromise*

BTW: There is a thread on the compromise already.

I still see no reason to fold.

Fuck being nice. Why the hell would you give in when you're holding all the cards?

She should have said "Either sign the bill that we passed, or don't sign any bill at all."

Then both wars would have ended. Afghanistan was the right war and even though I totally disagree with the Iraq war, we are there now and we need to keep a lid on things before things get even more out of hand.

I still see no reason to fold.

Fuck being nice. Why the hell would you give in when you're holding all the cards?

She should have said "Either sign the bill that we passed, or don't sign any bill at all."Next time a Bush-loving Republican tells me "I hate Reid" or "I hate Pelosi"... I am going to reply.. "Guess what? me too.. I cant wait to kick them out "

Then both wars would have ended. Afghanistan was the right war and even though I totally disagree with the Iraq war, we are there now and we need to keep a lid on things before things get even more out of hand.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Still, I think it was a gamble they should have made. Or just make separate bills for Afghanistan and Iraq.

applaudsyeah, I did the -applauds- thing too.. when my team bulldozed the opposition (7-1) @ a championship game.

There is a thread on the compromise already.this is not about compromise.. or even about your definition of "Compromise"

this is about Politicians accountability to their base.

You Americans have opposition parties which are too loyal, I remember once in my country if the conservatives did something Labor didn't like, they staged industrial shutdowns all over the country, staged pickets and riots and generally protested. You have gone all soft, I mean these days we rarely do that kind of thing, but at least our opposition doesn't give any respect to our head of government, not a bit.

And just who are you going to replace them with?

And just who are you going to replace them with?At this point in time, I dont care.

http://ftp4.josh.com/satanssideshow.com/images/catalog/TShirts/lil/TS_DontGiveFuck-lil.gif
I am wearing this T-shirt rite now. ;)

Just for OD:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527902

Oh and then there is this:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll424.xml

At this point in time, I dont care.

http://ftp4.josh.com/satanssideshow.com/images/catalog/TShirts/lil/TS_DontGiveFuck-lil.gif
I am wearing this T-shirt rite now. ;)

To be blunt, that's an idiotic way to think.

So you would not care if congress was replaced by anyone. Okay, to go with that logic, you'd be just peachy with them being replaced by the Phelps family.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Still, I think it was a gamble they should have made. Or just make separate bills for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now there is that.

I still see no reason to fold.

Fuck being nice. Why the hell would you give in when you're holding all the cards?

She should have said "Either sign the bill that we passed, or don't sign any bill at all."

It's a serious problem for the Democrats. If they back down, they're being cowards. If they don't back down, they don't support the troops in a tough position. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Just for OD:Thanks.

It's a serious problem for the Democrats. If they back down, they're being cowards. If they don't back down, they don't support the troops in a tough position. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Now there, I can not argue.

So you would not care if congress was replaced by anyone.I dont want to replace congress. :confused:

I say we need to replace the surrender monkeys AKA current Dem Leadership.. I say we need to replace them with other democrats more likely to vote with their base.

I dont want to replace congress. :confused:

I say we need to replace the surrender monkeys AKA current Dem Leadership.. I say we need to replace them with other democrats more likely to vote with their base.

So you don't like the moderates?

I dont want to replace congress. :confused:

I say we need to replace the surrender monkeys AKA current Dem Leadership.. I say we need to replace them with other democrats more likely to vote with their base.

In case you did not read the links, Many of the dems in the House DID vote their base on the bill. Read roll call vote number 425. Notice how many dems voted no on it, Pelosi among them.

I dont want to replace congress. :confused:

I say we need to replace the surrender monkeys AKA current Dem Leadership.. I say we need to replace them with other democrats more likely to vote with their base.

Which Democrats are those? You're not being terribly practical here. American politics is all about the lesser of two evils, and today, the lesser evil has the majority. And the bill wouldn't have passed by Bush anyway. So what's the point? This isn't even much of a victory for the President. He's still all screwed up with his (lack of) strategy in Iraq. Why is everyone pissing themselves about this?

Isn't it ironic that if the American Revolution never happened, and the americans had have been patient and waited for democratic federation and independence from Britain, much as Canada and Australia did, you would have a much more firmly entrenched unwritten constitution that evolved into democracy over a thousand years, not a document written so quickly and then regularly abused.

Which Democrats are those? You're not being terribly practical here. American politics is all about the lesser of two evils, and today, the lesser evil has the majority. And the bill wouldn't have passed by Bush anyway. So what's the point? This isn't even much of a victory for the President. He's still all screwed up with his (lack of) strategy in Iraq. Why is everyone pissing themselves about this?

Because there is zero timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq and that more money is going to Iraq. That is why they are not happy about it.

In case you did not read the links, Many of the dems in the House DID vote their base on the bill. Read roll call vote number 425. Notice how many dems voted no on it, Pelosi among them.Pelosi and the rest of the Leadership enabled this political maneuver. She voted against but still enabled the political sell-out.

And the bill wouldn't have passed by Bush anyway. I dont give a damn If Bush uses his veto ad nauseum.

Because there is zero timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq and that more money is going to Iraq. That is why they are not happy about it.

Any government timetable for a pullout wouldn't even make much of a difference; the US military is stretched out and extremely fatigued as it is. Honestly, the Dems didn't even have to propose such a thing, they could just let it play out, because the troops are coming home soon for good no matter what happens on the Hill.

Democratic voters are just upset because they expected the world from the new Congress. I'm a lot less optimistic than that, so maybe that's why I feel this way. Not to mention that taking off from Iraq with a timetable pretty much gives the country over to total chaos (as if that hasn't already happened.) Bleh.

Isn't it ironic that if the American Revolution never happened, and the americans had have been patient and waited for democratic federation and independence from Britain, much as Canada and Australia did, you would have a much more firmly entrenched unwritten constitution that evolved into democracy over a thousand years, not a document written so quickly and then regularly abused.

1786: Five states met in Annapolis to discuss changing the Articles of confederation.

1787: Invitations sent to the states to revise Articles. That was in Feburary.

Eight months later, it was approved. September 17, 1787. That is not a short amount of time in reality.

It did not take effect until 2 years later in 1789.

Written so quickly? No. Ratified quickly? No. Implemented quickly? No.

Pelosi and the rest of the Leadership enabled this political maneuver. She voted against but still enabled the political sell-out.

Because she got what she wanted. That is how you compromise. You get something in return for giving something up.

So did she sell out? Yes and no. If she totally sold out, she would have voted yea in that second vote but did not.

1786: Five states met in Annapolis to discuss changing the Articles of confederation.

1787: Invitations sent to the states to revise Articles. That was in Feburary.

Eight months later, it was approved. September 17, 1787. That is not a short amount of time in reality.

It did not take effect until 2 years later in 1789.

Written so quickly? No. Ratified quickly? No. Implemented quickly? No.

In comparison with Britain's evolution toward the democracy they have today? That's extremely quick.

Because she got what she wanted.in your opinion.. What did she want?

Any government timetable for a pullout wouldn't even make much of a difference; the US military is stretched out and extremely fatigued as it is. Honestly, the Dems didn't even have to propose such a thing, they could just let it play out, because the troops are coming home soon for good no matter what happens on the Hill.

Home for good? How?

Democratic voters are just upset because they expected the world from the new Congress.

You are correct and now they are realizing just what politics is all about. To bad the average voter these days do not understand what is going on up on the hill.

I'm a lot less optimistic than that, so maybe that's why I feel this way. Not to mention that taking off from Iraq with a timetable pretty much gives the country over to total chaos (as if that hasn't already happened.) Bleh.

Hehe. The price we pay for being realists eh?

In comparison with Britain's evolution toward the democracy they have today? That's extremely quick.

In political time, you are correct. It is fast. I will grant you that but I was not actually talking about political time. *shrugs*

Home for good? How?


Okay, not home for good, but out of Iraq. This final push by General Petraeus really might be a FINAL push. Once these last extended tours end for the soldiers, the Pentagon won't be able to maintain high troop numbers in Iraq, making any further operations totally ineffective. That's just how it seems to me.


You are correct and now they are realizing just what politics is all about. To bad the average voter these days do not understand what is going on up on the hill.

Hehe. The price we pay for being realists eh?

Oh man. I have ideals and everything, but politics doesn't allow for much of that stuff. Too bad.

Okay, not home for good, but out of Iraq. This final push by General Petraeus really might be a FINAL push. Once these last extended tours end for the soldiers, the Pentagon won't be able to maintain high troop numbers in Iraq, making any further operations totally ineffective. That's just how it seems to me.

We will just have to wait and see will we not?

Oh man. I have ideals and everything, but politics doesn't allow for much of that stuff. Too bad.

HAHA!!! How can I argue that....oh wait...AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!!!!:D

In political time, you are correct. It is fast. I will grant you that but I was not actually talking about political time. *shrugs*

Well ignoring the fact that the Articles were a failure, ignoring a thousand years of constiutional and democratic development in favor of a grand written document which doesn't practically work is kinda lame, even if I am going a bit off-topic here. I am not trying to be nationalist or xenophobic here, but from what I have read etc the constitution developed by Britain was made mainly through common law precedents and various legislation over a long time, and the fact that it lasted so long is testament that it has been tried and tested over the times, and is in fact a long development, and is alot more practical than simply writing upon a grand document that barely lasted a decade without being literally broken.

Well ignoring the fact that the Articles were a failure, ignoring a thousand years of constiutional and democratic development in favor of a grand written document which doesn't practically work is kinda lame, even if I am going a bit off-topic here.

And we see several upheavals in British history prior to and including the Glorious Revolution. Let us also look at the British Civil War. It was not until the British Civil War did parliment gain control.

I am not trying to be nationalist or xenophobic here, but from what I have read etc the constitution developed by Britain was made mainly through common law precedents and various legislation over a long time, and the fact that it lasted so long is testament that it has been tried and tested over the times, and is in fact a long development, and is alot more practical than simply writing upon a grand document that barely lasted a decade without being literally broken.

And the US constitution has been amended only 27 times throughout its entire history. Not to mention we do have a common law system in the judiciary.

And just who are you going to replace them with?

A completely new crew of small-r-epublicans

It's a serious problem for the Democrats. If they back down, they're being cowards. If they don't back down, they don't support the troops in a tough position. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Except they weren't, because people saw through that stupid ruse and were siding with congress in their showdown against the president. But now they've gone and fucked it up. :headbang:

Hey, let's get a list of all the dems that voted yes on this bill. That way we can know who won't be getting reelected.

It's good to know Pelosi didn't go along with this.

Its time to renew the whole Leadership..
http://www.nfib.com/docs/IO/18384/manual02ON04.jpg

Yup. Let's face it, both Democrats and Republicans are spineless idiots, far-too worried about their image and ratings, which completely contradict the people's will.

Hey, let's get a list of all the dems that voted yes on this bill. That way we can know who won't be getting reelected.

It's good to know Pelosi didn't go along with this.


http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=424
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=425
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

Edit:Dems: Fight over Iraq war has just begun (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/mail/ts/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)

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.

...

The Senate will go first when it considers a defense policy bill authorizing more than $600 billion in military spending. Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, plans to offer an amendment that would order troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days

Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., said he would press to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing combat in Iraq.

...

The most critical votes on the war are likely to be cast in September when the House and Senate debate war funding for 2008. The House plans to consider one measure that would end combat by July 2008 and another intended to repeal Bush's authority to wage war in Iraq.

The September votes likely will come after Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus tells Congress whether Bush's troop buildup plan is working. Also due by September is an independent assessment of progress made by the Iraqi government.

"Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again until this war has ended," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

So it looks like these people are not backing down at all. So to say they have to go is rather dumb as this was only a round.

..far-too worried about their image and ratings, which completely contradict the people's will.image and ratings ? that is determined by the people.

image and ratings ? that is determined by the people.

Based on what their reps. do in office so yes, members of Congress control their own ratings and image.

I think the question needs to be asked: Was the entire thing just a stunt all along?

The democrats made a lot of noise about opposing the war, but in the end gave George exactly what he wanted, right on time, no losses made. In effect, they've done nothing but created a large media storm about how "anti-war" they are, then done nothing about it.

They're probably as much in the pockets, as the republicans, of the "create us a new cold war kthx" lobbyists, and corporations benefitting by the billions for the war in Iraq.

I'm starting to doubt they ever intended to pull out. It'll be interesting if anything other than loud "end the war!" noise happens over the next few years.

Either way, their "end the war!" cries in their primary debates are starting to make them look as rediculously populist as the "i don't believe in evolution!" republican candidates.

Third party time again, I think!

I think the question needs to be asked: Was the entire thing just a stunt all along?

The democrats made a lot of noise about opposing the war, but in the end gave George exactly what he wanted, right on time, no losses made. In effect, they've done nothing but created a large media storm about how "anti-war" they are, then done nothing about it.

They're probably as much in the pockets, as the republicans, of the "create us a new cold war kthx" lobbyists, and corporations benefitting by the billions for the war in Iraq.

I'm starting to doubt they ever intended to pull out. It'll be interesting if anything other than loud "end the war!" noise happens over the next few years.

Either way, their "end the war!" cries in their primary debates are starting to make them look as rediculously populist as the "i don't believe in evolution!" republican candidates.

Third party time again, I think!

The AP article I quoted to erlier in this thread disagrees with you.

dp

The AP article I quoted to erlier in this thread disagrees with you.

Hardly. You mean the article that says they're gonna do the same thing again? Wow, such conviction. Yeah, I'm filled with hope, really.

In the sense I hope they actually stick by them. If it turns out exactly like this, where they make noise, then back down saying they'll do it later, I won't be surprised.

That AP article is insulting my intelligence.

Why? Because it proves you wrong that they have not surrendered?

The AP article I quoted to erlier in this thread ... That AP article is insulting my intelligence .

Why? Because it proves you wrong that they have not surrendered?they have bended-over.. and opened wide.

But if you want to keep Pelosi and the others.. all you have to do is register as a democrat, and vote for them.. and try to convince several thousand of your friends to do the same.

good luck. ;)

they have bender and opened wide.

No they just recognized that their plans were going nowhere and thus negotiated something that was a bit more agreeable. That is what we call politics. Besides, most Democrats voted against the proposal in the House. I believe about 80 democrats said yes to it in the House.

That is what we call politics. Besides, most Democrats voted against the proposal in the House.
Thats because most Democrats are decent.
Thats because Most Democrats respect the Democrat voters.

A completely new crew of small-r-epublicans

Which will get us out of Iraq? That would probably keep us there longer.

Thats because most Democrats are decent.
Thats because Most Democrats respect the Democrat voters.

A decent politician? Those are rare. Is Murtha decent? Not after the way he tried to screw over another representative. Dems even killed an ethics probe into his dealings. That is not being decent OcceanDrive.

A decent politician? Those are rare.they are not so rare, some sell out like whores.. some dont.
some surrender like pussies.. some dont ;)

Its time to renew the whole Leadership..
http://www.nfib.com/docs/IO/18384/manual02ON04.jpg

they have to go? And what, have the repubs back? No thanks.

they have to go?Yes they have to go..
.

And what.We elect a leadership more likely to vote with the base.
.

And what, have the repubs back? No thanks.Keeping Pelosi and the rest of the current Leadership makes it more likely for a Repub comeback.

Its time to renew the whole Leadership..
http://www.nfib.com/docs/IO/18384/manual02ON04.jpg

Serious?

There aren't enough democrats to overcome a veto, are there?

They made their point. If they don't want soldiers on the frontline to be put at risk, they have to change tack... at least until more bodies from the 'other side of the aisle' decide to back them. Which they are moving towards - because it is clearly the kiss of death to hopes for 2008 elections to be tied to Bush or his war policy.

Serious?100%,
Wednesday Daily show best sums up my feeling, and I am 100% Serious
.

There aren't enough democrats to overcome a veto, are there?We dont need to overcome a veto.
We need to replace the Leadership.

100%,
Wednesday Daily show best sums up my feeling, and I am 100% Serious

I think you missed the sarcasm.

We dont need to overcome a veto.

Actually, yes you did need to overcome a veto. If you did not, then there would not have been a compromise. It was the veto that forced the compromise.

We need to replace the Leadership.

Except for the fact that most of the leadership voted AGAINST the bill or did you not read roll call vote 425 from yesterday?

We dont need to overcome a veto.
We need to replace the Leadership.

Oust Bush?

Except for the fact that most of the leadership voted AGAINST the bill or did you not read roll call vote 425 from yesterday?"most" was not good enough.

"most" was not good enough.

Look up the Democratic Leadership in the House and see how they voted in roll call vote number 425.

Look up the Democratic Leadership in the House and see how they voted in roll call vote number 425.Like I said:

"most" was not good enough.

Like I said:

"most" was not good enough.

Ok...I am not going to do your homework for you. Look up the dems leadership. Now look up roll call 425. Compare the list of names on their leadership to the way they voted.

I will await your answer on the number of yes votes.

I will await your answer on the number of yes votes.I hope you are comfortable, because you are going to wait until the end times. ;)


*hint* Most =/= All.

Oust Bush?

Leadership, as in the structure of the Democratic Caucus in the House and Senate. I'd be happy to see Reid replaced with Feingold. In fact, I'd be extatic. There really isn't such a good choice in the House (Frank, maybe?), but the point OD is making is that the leadership of the Democratic party fucked up big time, and the progressive caucus should take this opportunity to oust them for it, and prevent it from happening again in September.

I hope you are comfortable, because you are going to wait until the end times. ;)


*hint* Most =/= All.

You still have not answered my question and I doubt you will because you do not want to know the answer.

You still have not answered my question and I doubt you will because you do not want to know the answer.

I beleive the point he is making is that it doesn't matter a whit what they voted, they created this bill, they presented it. It's their fault. If they didn't want it passed, they should have never voted on it.

Oust Bush?

Even if the democrats wanted to do that, which they don't they'd still need a two thirds majority in the senate, and for that they would need a significant number of republicans to vote for him to be impeached, which they will defenetley not do.