NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3388358

It seems the democrats might have a spine after all. After so many republicans have voiced their concerns about the war, forcing a debate and vote about it was a great tactic. I just hope it works.

Come on guys, I want to believe in you, I really do!

Oh, it'll fail, but at least it will keep the GOP from beleiving it can fillibuster with impunity.

How on earth is leaving the Iraqis to blow themselves up going to help anyone?

It's good to see the Democrats are getting their act together on trying to fulfill the wishes of the American people and to withdraw from a lost war. This shows that all the Republicans represent now is Bush, they certainly don't represent their constituencies.

How on earth is leaving the Iraqis to blow themselves up going to help anyone?

How on earth is staying and getting blown up with them helping anyone? The Dems don't support ignoring Iraq, they just don't beleive that a military solution is doing any good at all.

How on earth is staying and getting blown up with them helping anyone? The Dems don't support ignoring Iraq, they just don't beleive that a military solution is doing any good at all.

The only 'solution' to Iraq would be to break it up. As this is never going to happen, the only way to keep it together is with military force; the great irony is that in removing Saddam, the Americans will now have to take his place.

The only 'solution' to Iraq would be to break it up. As this is never going to happen, the only way to keep it together is with military force; the great irony is that in removing Saddam, the Americans will now have to take his place.

No, not really. We need to finish training the Iraqi Army and make an attempt at building a coalition interested in the survival of the Iraqi state, and then leave. Our job was to give them a fighting chance, not to babysit them.

How on earth is staying and getting blown up with them helping anyone? The Dems don't support ignoring Iraq, they just don't beleive that a military solution is doing any good at all.
Keeps a prescence there to at least show that people would have to put some effort in to go around shooting each other up with AK47s, and because our troops have decent armour and medics, probably having them as a common enemy for the Iraqi people for them to waste their bullets on keeps deaths caused on the genearl public down.

On the other hand, we're shooting up a LOT of Iraqis, which isn't helping that much either.

Keeps a prescence there to at least show that people would have to put some effort in to go around shooting each other up with AK47s, and because our troops have decent armour and medics, probably having them as a common enemy for the Iraqi people for them to waste their bullets on keeps deaths caused on the genearl public down.

On the other hand, we're shooting up a LOT of Iraqis, which isn't helping that much either.

Ah. So it's our job to play meatshield in someone else's civil war? Fuck that.

Ah. So it's our job to play meatshield in someone else's civil war? Fuck that.
Our soldiers are paid to shoot and get shot at, and were paid to invade Iraq which has triggered this war. They're much better equipped than the average Iraqi.

Their civilians are just victims.

Fairly easy choice in my mind on who the burden should fall, really.

Just leave an partition it, it's the only solution really.

Our soldiers are paid to shoot and get shot at, and were paid to invade Iraq which has triggered this war. They're much better equipped than the average Iraqi.

Their civilians are just victims.

Fairly easy choice in my mind on who the burden should fall, really.

We need to tell the leaders of Iraq that it is their turn to hold their nation together. If we do not ever ask them to stand on their own, they will always be dependant. We should draw back until we have a group of 20,000 or so to train the Iraqi Army and handle small anti-Al Quaeda ops, and send a surge of negotiators and diplomats to help solve the tension, rather than making it worse.

People don't seem to understand this, but the Iraqis are using the US military presence to sustain their own sectarian fights in Baghdad in particular. Without the US buffer the partisans will have no justification to continue their sectarian wars, their reason for existence will evaporate. Look at Algeria for evidence of this.

We need to tell the leaders of Iraq that it is their turn to hold their nation together. If we do not ever ask them to stand on their own, they will always be dependant. We should draw back until we have a group of 20,000 or so to train the Iraqi Army and handle small anti-Al Quaeda ops, and send a surge of negotiators and diplomats to help solve the tension, rather than making it worse.
The leaders of Iraq are a bunch of morons with little to no actual public support. This is a huge problem.

The actually leaders of Iraq are people like Al Sadr, rich men with private armies. The government has nothing but undertrained troops with very little morale, that can't even control the capital itself.

Things aren't going to get fixed for a very, very long time and if we pull out, the whole house of cards is going to collapse.
People don't seem to understand this, but the Iraqis are using the US military presence to sustain their own sectarian fights in Baghdad in particular. Without the US buffer the partisans will have no justification to continue their sectarian wars, their reason for existence will evaporate. Look at Algeria for evidence of this.
What, the French left and they had a civil war that cost 200,000 lives. Yeah. Awesome.

The leaders of Iraq are a bunch of morons with little to no actual public support. This is a huge problem.

The actually leaders of Iraq are people like Al Sadr, rich men with private armies. The government has nothing but undertrained troops with very little morale, that can't even control the capital itself.

Things aren't going to get fixed for a very, very long time and if we pull out, the whole house of cards is going to collapse.

What, the French left and they had a civil war that cost 200,000 lives. Yeah. Awesome.

Yes well that's going to happen and is happening now regardless of US involvement, we took out the only thing holding the place together (Saddam and Baathists) and it's inevitably going to happen. The only difference is, if the US leaves now the insurgents groups' meaning for existence is destroyed and the government will slowly maintain control, but if we stay the insurgents can supply themselves with fresh suicide bombers and fighters indefinitely because of the foreign occupation. Yes people will die, but Iraqis are dying in droves now so it can't get much worst, just look at casualty estimates on wiki etc. People need to get off the mindset that if the US keeps pouring troops and resources in it will eventually get better, in fact it's getting worst, has done since the beginning of the occupation.

Once the moral justification for the insurgency is gone, it will wither in support eventually. The insurgents can never win against an organized modern army and take over the country, especially considering they attack each other more often than the government. So this idea that the insurgents 'will take over' is ludicrous in the extreme, the only reason can exist with the population is because of the occupation. Don't believe GOP scaremongering, they are merely prolonging the resolution of the conflict.

How on earth is leaving the Iraqis to blow themselves up going to help anyone?

How do you propose we stop that? Triple our troop numbers and keep them there indefinitely?

Yes well that's going to happen and is happening now regardless of US involvement, we took out the only thing holding the place together (Saddam and Baathists) and it's inevitably going to happen. The only difference is, if the US leaves now the insurgents groups' meaning for existence is destroyed and the government will slowly maintain control, but if we stay the insurgents can supply themselves with fresh suicide bombers and fighters indefinitely because of the foreign occupation. Yes people will die, but Iraqis are dying in droves now so it can't get much worst, just look at casualty estimates on wiki etc. People need to get off the mindset that if the US keeps pouring troops and resources in it will eventually get better, in fact it's getting worst, has done since the beginning of the occupation.

Once the moral justification for the insurgency is gone, it will wither in support eventually. The insurgents can never win against an organized modern army and take over the country, especially considering they attack each other more often than the government. So this idea that the insurgents 'will take over' is ludicrous in the extreme, the only reason can exist with the population is because of the occupation. Don't believe GOP scaremongering, they are merely prolonging the resolution of the conflict.
... see the various breakaways regions of Russia (which is similar to Iraq in a number of ways) to see how this exactly doesn't happen.

Government forces become the new targets for being friends of the invading parties, and you get a whole load of batshit crazy regimes with Sharia Law and all that crap, and groups armed with fairly modern captured equipment just to make things that little bit worse.

How do you propose we stop that? Triple our troop numbers and keep them there indefinitely?

You keep them there until the job they went into to do is done. Perhaps that will be a long time, but if you go there in the first place you have to see it through to the end. America assumed a responsibility over Iraq, and to run away now because it's not going to plan would result in even more of a bloody mess than there is already.

You keep them there until the job they went into to do is done. Perhaps that will be a long time, but if you go there in the first place you have to see it through to the end. America assumed a responsibility over Iraq, and to run away now because it's not going to plan would result in even more of a bloody mess than there is already.

I think the point being made is that the occupation itself is fueling the insurgency, that the only reason it exists is because of the insurgency, throwing around random phrases like 'stay the course' doesn't help.

I think the point being made is that the occupation itself is fueling the insurgency, that the only reason it exists is because of the insurgency, throwing around random phrases like 'stay the course' doesn't help.

Forgive me if I think that the idea that American troops leaving would lead to Iraq suddenly becoming a shining beacon of peace, tranquility and democracy is the more absurd suggestion.

I have a great idea: We put Saddam back in power. Tada, our problem is solved. Maybe not their problem, but well... They don't seem to like our help that much.

I have a great idea: We put Saddam back in power. Tada, our problem is solved. Maybe not their problem, but well... They don't seem to like our help that much.

You're going to need a lot of string and sticky tape to keep him upright in the chair.

Forgive me if I think that the idea that American troops leaving would lead to Iraq suddenly becoming a shining beacon of peace, tranquility and democracy is the more absurd suggestion.

No, it never will be, it isn't now, but withdrawal is the most damaging thing anyone could do to the insurgents now, the occupation is their only reason for existence.

No, it never will be, it isn't now, but withdrawal is the most damaging thing anyone could do to the insurgents now, the occupation is their only reason for existence.

And if the 'occupation' ends they will find a new reason for their existence. These are nasty people, who will will use any excuse they can find to kill.

You are grossly underestimating the extent of sectarian division, reducing a hugely complicated situation to 'they just don't like the Americans'.

Just leave an partition it, it's the only solution really.
For once I agree - though how do you reckon it ought to be partitioned?

Forgive me if I think that the idea that American troops leaving would lead to Iraq suddenly becoming a shining beacon of peace, tranquility and democracy is the more absurd suggestion.

Something tells me Andaras wasn't proposing an if/then conditional, Philosopy. If I read him and Bush's own intelligence estimates right, then no matter what we do, Iraq is up shit creek without a paddle. The difference is that in one case, we wreck our military, we kill a lot more of our soldiers, we spend a lot more money we don't have, we act in direct opposition to the stated wishes of the Iraqi Prime Minister (the leader of this land wants us gone, in case you haven't noticed Philosopy), and we allow Bush to pin the blame for losing the war on his successor, all for no material gain. In the other, we lose just the same, but we don't spend so much to lose. Seems to me that this isn't a question of whether we are or aren't a nation of can-do altruists; it's a question of whether we are or aren't dumbasses.

But that is neither here nor there, because the question is whether Democrats have a spine. I would say that by and large this little stunt isn't going to do anything to refute the notion that there are bowls of spaghetti with more backbone than the Democratic Party. The real test will come in September with the Petraeus report. If we can fail all the benchmarks of success at our last-ditch efforts to save Iraq from defeat, and Congress still can't do anything to stop the war, then I for one am seriously considering never voting for a Democrat again.

Something tells me Andaras wasn't proposing an if/then conditional, Philosopy.

Something tells me Andaras was proposing exactly that, Xenophobialand. He did not say that Iraq was in a bad way regardless, he said that it is the American presence that is fueling the insurgency and that it is the soul reason for the insurgents existence.

Please don't pretend that they said something else in order to change the meaning of what I was responding to.

Something tells me Andaras wasn't proposing an if/then conditional, Philosopy. If I read him and Bush's own intelligence estimates right, then no matter what we do, Iraq is up shit creek without a paddle. The difference is that in one case, we wreck our military, we kill a lot more of our soldiers, we spend a lot more money we don't have, we act in direct opposition to the stated wishes of the Iraqi Prime Minister (the leader of this land wants us gone, in case you haven't noticed Philosopy), and we allow Bush to pin the blame for losing the war on his successor, all for no material gain. In the other, we lose just the same, but we don't spend so much to lose. Seems to me that this isn't a question of whether we are or aren't a nation of can-do altruists; it's a question of whether we are or aren't dumbasses.

BINGO!

I have a great idea: We put Saddam back in power. Tada, our problem is solved. Maybe not their problem, but well... They don't seem to like our help that much.

Necrocracy :P .

How on earth is leaving the Iraqis to blow themselves up going to help anyone?

Shhhh. The Democrats don't give a flying fuck about what happens to the Iraqis. They only care about recent polls.

If the American people (80% of whom can't identify Iraq on a map) don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqi people, then neither do the Democrats.

It's called leading from polls.

Necrocracy :P .

A zombie couldn't do worse!

For once I agree - though how do you reckon it ought to be partitioned?

Well France and Britain could take a section each (let us call the sections A and B Zones for simplicity) and obligated (or mandated) to run the area. Yes, I realise that ME mandates were given by the league of nations and that only Britain was mandated (what is now) the Iraq region
;)

Does anyone see the irony of the Iraqi congress taking August off and the US congress actually staying up all night to blow hot air for something that looks like a purpose.

You keep them there until the job they went into to do is done.
Define it.

Conan told me there would be a North vs. South Pillow fight, and then around 7:00 or so, everyone would agree to an 18% pay raise.

Based on the abilities of our senate, I have no reason to doubt him.

No one has pillow fights any more... it's all NERF wars.

Congress can debate all it wants to. Unless they get to override a presidental veto, they are doing nothing more than a political smokescreen.

The only 'solution' to Iraq would be to break it up. As this is never going to happen, the only way to keep it together is with military force; the great irony is that in removing Saddam, the Americans will now have to take his place.
The "irony" that you speak of was indeed planned......that is why the US is building 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq.

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)

After all, the US wants to protect her "assets".

No one has pillow fights any more... it's all NERF wars.

What happened to the good old days of waterguns :)

Shhhh. The Democrats don't give a flying fuck about what happens to the Iraqis. They only care about recent polls.

If the American people (80% of whom can't identify Iraq on a map) don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqi people, then neither do the Democrats.

It's called leading from polls.
Considering that you would like to wipe out all Muslims, I find your response quite laughable and sad all at the same time!!

What happened to the good old days of waterguns :)
Not as cool, and they get water everywhere.

SENATE VOTES, 52-47, TO AGAIN BLOCK DEMOCRATS' BID TO PASS IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL LEGISLATION

I thought that Democrats could at least get 51 votes... must be some Democrats who like voting Republican for fun.

And if the 'occupation' ends they will find a new reason for their existence. These are nasty people, who will will use any excuse they can find to kill.

You are grossly underestimating the extent of sectarian division, reducing a hugely complicated situation to 'they just don't like the Americans'.
You reduced them to basically serial killers in your first statement and then said not to reduce them in your second.
Shhhh. The Democrats don't give a flying fuck about what happens to the Iraqis. They only care about recent polls.

If the American people (80% of whom can't identify Iraq on a map) don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqi people, then neither do the Democrats.

It's called leading from polls.
Are we pretending that you give a rats ass about the Iraqis now? Because that might be hard to do...

SENATE VOTES, 52-47, TO AGAIN BLOCK DEMOCRATS' BID TO PASS IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL LEGISLATION

I thought that Democrats could at least get 51 votes... must be some Democrats who like voting Republican for fun.
You do know that it was a vote to end a filibuster, and that needed 60 votes-so that the 52 are in favor of ending the filibuster but it's not enough...no, you don't know that...it must be that willful ignorance-

Well, check for yourself (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00252), you'll find that only Ried from Nevada voted no on the Democrat side (and 'independent' Lieberman), while Smith (R) of Oregon, Hagel (R) of Nebraska, and Collins and Snowe (R-ME) all 'voted Democrat for fun.'

SENATE VOTES, 52-47, TO AGAIN BLOCK DEMOCRATS' BID TO PASS IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL LEGISLATION

I thought that Democrats could at least get 51 votes... must be some Democrats who like voting Republican for fun.

You do know that it was a vote to end a filibuster, and that needed 60 votes-so that the 52 are in favor of ending the filibuster but it's not enough...no, you don't know that...it must be that willful ignorance-

Well, check for yourself (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00252), you'll find that only Ried from Nevada voted no on the Democrat side (and 'independent' Lieberman), while Smith (R) of Oregon, Hagel (R) of Nebraska, and Collins and Snowe (R-ME) all 'voted Democrat for fun.'
Good job!! Once again RO gets owned. :D

How on earth is staying and getting blown up with them helping anyone? The Dems don't support ignoring Iraq, they just don't beleive that a military solution is doing any good at all.

It's better to try and clean this shit up. Besides, there is only a finite level of resistance, there is no grounds to say that it is impossible to stabilise the country.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3388358

It seems the democrats might have a spine after all. After so many republicans have voiced their concerns about the war, forcing a debate and vote about it was a great tactic. I just hope it works.

Come on guys, I want to believe in you, I really do!

It will probably end in some non-binding resolution they'll tought as a vicotry like the wamby pamby jackasses they are. The Republicans, who abhored the filibuster not so long ago have put it to use. Both parties are diseased and paid for by multinational corporations who will never have your best interest in mind. Why do you think the MSM organization report campiagn contributions all the time? It takes money to promote your message and the money comes from...?

How on earth is leaving the Iraqis to blow themselves up going to help anyone?

True indeed, but how is supervising them while they do this and losing your life helping either? The difference is only the loss of American life because the sectarian violence hasn't stopped because we've been there so far right?

It's better to try and clean this shit up. Besides, there is only a finite level of resistance, there is no grounds to say that it is impossible to stabilise the country.

Cool. I'm so glad that our failed surge, which has increased violence levels and wasted American lives, is your way foward. You can go fight that yourself. We need to stop focussing on guns, and start focussing on building consensus in Iraq. Guns aren't helping. Why is that Conservatives can only think about issues with the solution "Go blow it up"?

With regards to the democrats... I really have doubts about their intentions because they do have the votes and have received instructions about how to go about removing our presence in Iraq (over-ride veto, cloture votes, filibustering etc.). So, in reality I think the dems are really just going on public opinion, which, ultimately I can't blame them for because they are politicians and they are SUPPOSED to represent the American people who elected them (70% of Americans want to pull out). In any case, with regard to the debate itself, I really don't want the US to be in Iraq any longer and I don't believe we had a credible evidence and/or integrity in going in the first place: no declaration of war, supported by UN resolutions, no WMDs, no Alqada UNTIL we got there, and ultimately if you read the reports by Bush's treasury secretary, Hussein was top on the to-do list ten days after his inauguration. Clearly, we are there for oil and the support of the US dollar, not humanitarian efforts (N Korea, Cuba, Central Africa anyone [they are not sitting atop oil]). With regard to staying there any longer... UH NO! For one, lets remember that this is costing us approximately one trillion dollars a year (mostly borrowed from China mind you) and the American taxpayer is being raped and we really have no more money to run our EMPIRE. Also, lets remember Vietnam and the predictions there (we are now trading partners with them) and also that those who are saying that terrible things are going to happen are mostly those who said that it was going to be a breeze to invade. Lets also remember that Alqada's recruitment has gone UP from this, Osama has not been caught (even with all this talk of 9/11 changing everything... right) and we are not even actively pursuing him as he is, with very little doubt, hiding in Pakistan, a country that we are subsidizing, is a dictatorship, and has nukes. So, it is costing lives, is for the purpose of oil, it is making us bankrupt, and those who are suggesting we stay for the purpose of safety are not taking the blame for TAKING us there in the first place and we are listening to them, and lets not forget that yes, we are inspiring sectarian violence AND we are also making Alqada recruits go UP. So... we continue to stay.

With regards to the democrats... I really have doubts about their intentions because they do have the votes and have received instructions about how to go about removing our presence in Iraq (over-ride veto, cloture votes, filibustering etc.). So, in reality I think the dems are really just going on public opinion, which, ultimately I can't blame them for because they are politicians and they are SUPPOSED to represent the American people who elected them (70% of Americans want to pull out). In any case, with regard to the debate itself, I really don't want the US to be in Iraq any longer and I don't believe we had a credible evidence and/or integrity in going in the first place: no declaration of war, supported by UN resolutions, no WMDs, no Alqada UNTIL we got there, and ultimately if you read the reports by Bush's treasury secretary, Hussein was top on the to-do list ten days after his inauguration. Clearly, we are there for oil and the support of the US dollar, not humanitarian efforts (N Korea, Cuba, Central Africa anyone [they are not sitting atop oil]). With regard to staying there any longer... UH NO! For one, lets remember that this is costing us approximately one trillion dollars a year (mostly borrowed from China mind you) and the American taxpayer is being raped and we really have no more money to run our EMPIRE. Also, lets remember Vietnam and the predictions there (we are now trading partners with them) and also that those who are saying that terrible things are going to happen are mostly those who said that it was going to be a breeze to invade. Lets also remember that Alqada's recruitment has gone UP from this, Osama has not been caught (even with all this talk of 9/11 changing everything... right) and we are not even actively pursuing him as he is, with very little doubt, hiding in Pakistan, a country that we are subsidizing, is a dictatorship, and has nukes. So, it is costing lives, is for the purpose of oil, it is making us bankrupt, and those who are suggesting we stay for the purpose of safety are not taking the blame for TAKING us there in the first place and we are listening to them, and lets not forget that yes, we are inspiring sectarian violence AND we are also making Alqada recruits go UP. So... we continue to stay.

Show us on the doll where the bad paragraph touched you.. They're not all evil!

With regards to the democrats... I really have doubts about their intentions because they do have the votes and have received instructions about how to go about removing our presence in Iraq (over-ride veto, cloture votes, filibustering etc.).

No they don't. You need 60 votes in the Senate to override a Fillibuster, and the Dems managed 52 in the last vote this morning. Beyond that, they'll need 67 to override the President's Veto.

No they don't. You need 60 votes in the Senate to override a Fillibuster, and the Dems managed 52 in the last vote this morning. Beyond that, they'll need 67 to override the President's Veto.
Yep, it pretty well looks like this is another dead-end vote. Republican office-holders just don't seem to be afraid that their constituents will abandon them. I guess that means the public opinion against the war isn't as one-sided as the polls would have us believe.

*Cough*PublicityStunt*Cough*

Show us on the doll where the bad paragraph touched you.. They're not all evil!

lol

*Cough*PublicityStunt*Cough*

Okay, "Iceman" (seriously, how long ago was Top Gun and people are still doing 'cough' tags? Let it go, folks, let it go) but what of it?

This is the power that they have. They don't have the 67 votes to override a veto or the 60 votes to override the filibuster, the only thing that they can do is put the senators on record. There has been talk and manuvering, and without the vote there was a 'cake and eat it too,' to speak publicly against the war but straddle that pro-war vote as well. Democracy is theater, its no mistake that both things came out of the same people. Even if you're not going to get the votes you need, sometimes you need to push the vote anyway.

You don't win a chess match in one move.

Yep, it pretty well looks like this is another dead-end vote. Republican office-holders just don't seem to be afraid that their constituents will abandon them. I guess that means the public opinion against the war isn't as one-sided as the polls would have us believe.

Not really. Republicans are just being good soldiers for the Pretzlenit, becaiuse they're out of touch. That's what happens to a party that is growing increasingly irrelevant.

I think that the Dems should keep the 'pugs in the Senate until they break. 30 hour sessions every day, until the Republicans see reality.

Not really. Republicans are just being good soldiers for the Pretzlenit, becaiuse they're out of touch. That's what happens to a party that is growing increasingly irrelevant.

I think that the Dems should keep the 'pugs in the Senate until they break. 30 hour sessions every day, until the Republicans see reality.
I don't think that's true. Used to be, but I don't think so right now. Look at the vote on the immigration amnesty bill. The Republicans really responded to their constituency and kept the bill from passing. This was something that Bush wanted badly. And it failed.

I just don't think the Republicans are getting messages that are that intense about ending the war in Iraq. They, like my Senators, may be getting calls and letters about how it is necessary to continue to support democracy in the SWA.

SENATE VOTES, 52-47, TO AGAIN BLOCK DEMOCRATS' BID TO PASS IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL LEGISLATION

I thought that Democrats could at least get 51 votes... must be some Democrats who like voting Republican for fun.Lieberman and who else?

I don't think that's true. Used to be, but I don't think so right now. Look at the vote on the immigration amnesty bill. The Republicans really responded to their constituency and kept the bill from passing. This was something that Bush wanted badly. And it failed.

I just don't think the Republicans are getting messages that are that intense about ending the war in Iraq. They, like my Senators, may be getting calls and letters about how it is necessary to continue to support democracy in the SWA.

Oh, I assure you that they're getting letters from constituents that it is time to shape up and ship our troops home. Last night's letter writing campaign managed to get 600 letters opposing the war on average to each Senator. The Rethugs got their asses kicked in 2006, and they're on their way to doing it again in 2007. It's just that they've invested themselves in continuing to get Americans killed in Iraq.

Alright, do democrats have a spine or not?democrats have a spine.. But.. if you are asking about the current leadership:
The answer is No.
Nancy Pelosi, Reid, Hilary,etc do NOT have a spine.

Oh, I assure you that they're getting letters from constituents that it is time to shape up and ship our troops home. Last night's letter writing campaign managed to get 600 letters opposing the war on average to each Senator. The Rethugs got their asses kicked in 2006, and they're on their way to doing it again in 2007. It's just that they've invested themselves in continuing to get Americans killed in Iraq.
That really doesn't impress me. Senators were getting tens of thousands of calls and emails over the immigration amnesty bill. In fact, the calls and emails were so heavy that the switchboad shut down and the servers backed up. Seriously, if senators were getting the volume of traffic on the war that they received on amnesty for illegal residents, the war would be over. Finished. But the population isn't as committed to surrender in Iraq as you believe.

But the population isn't as committed to surrender in Iraq as you believe.

Surrender to whom?

Surrender to whom?
Events? Maybe "defeat" is a better word.

That really doesn't impress me. Senators were getting tens of thousands of calls and emails over the immigration amnesty bill. In fact, the calls and emails were so heavy that the switchboad shut down and the servers backed up. Seriously, if senators were getting the volume of traffic on the war that they received on amnesty for illegal residents, the war would be over. Finished. But the population isn't as committed to surrender in Iraq as you believe.

Surrender? Only in the backwards and strategically inept mind of a Conservative is the Dem plan surrender. The Dem plan is to train the Iraqi Army, take part in limmited, anti-Al Quaeda operations, and to focus on working on getting Iraq's parliament and national leaders to cooperate. That's only surrender if you're a knuckleheaded arch-Conservative.

And, yeah, I'd say that being voted into office on an issue is not nearly as powerful as being bombarded with telephone calls for a day by the racist minority in America.

This would be a lot more respectable if not for the fact that this bill is going to be vetoed anyway and there are nowhere near enough votes to override it.

If the Democrats can't get 60 votes to override a filibuster, no way can they get 67 votes to override a Presidential veto, and that's a guaranteed result.

And it isn't as if Bush hasn't vetoed the bill before. Troop withdrawal? Timetable? Bush won't hear of it. Therefore, this filibuster is all for show. The GOP is blocking the bill from coming to a vote just so they can avoid having Bush veto it. Either way, the result is the same.

And the Democrats continue to push for a withdrawal or a timetable when Bush vetoes every bill that has one in it? And they know they don't have the votes for an override. A wise man once said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. It seems that this is standard Democratic politics.