Every few years, the house passes a flag burning amendment, which the senate kills.
I’m fairly certain they do that only because they know the Senate will kill it.
You’re far more optimistic than me.
Cite? Analysis? Names? Anything?
OK, then: if you’re Congress, how do you pull the plug on funding for the war without Shrubby sticking you with the blame for leaving a bunch of troops in Iraq without any funding?
But at a more basic level, de-funding the war is a means, not an end: the end is to end our participation in the war.
The problem is that the Dems haven’t yet agreed among themselves that that is in fact their goal. And until they reach that conclusion, it’s silly to expect them to do things to achieve that goal.
Can a president veto a non-binding resolution? What would be the point?
You don’t. You suck it up and do the right thing.
I’m rather surprised that you would make this comment. You’ve been banging the drum loudly for a long time about how the war was wrong and we need to get out of there. You’ve been saying that things will change once the Democrats gain power. From your comments I can see that nothing is going to change, that the Democrats are more interested in covering their own asses than doing the right thing, and that the war issue was nothing more than pandering to the masses for votes. In other words, business as usual.
There is only one way out, and that’s sticking it to the man. Anything else is folly. That includes this sharply worded piece of toilet paper. President Bush can’t wait for this to get to him, because it’ll make a nice change from Charmin.
You want it to end? De-fund the war and take the hit. Or keep the soldiers there and watch them continue to die for nothing because you’re too afraid of losing power. To the Democrats, I say this: You wanted to be in charge? Now that you are, make some tough decisions.
Like I said above: Trapped by cowardice. I can now add Business as usual to that condemnation.
Exactly. The white house sure isn’t going to do it:
The Bush administration will request $100 billion in additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and another $145 billion for 2008, a senior administration official says.
Then you’ve probably noticed that I haven’t just been saying that we ought to put the troops on planes and ship them straight home. I’ve been quite clear that if there’s any limited objectives we can accomplish for the Iraqis on the way out the door, we should. In particular, I’d like to see us help the Iraqis nonviolently separate themselves out by sect and ethnicity, before they finish the job violently. I also believe we owe the prospect of safety to those Iraqis who have aided us in one way or another, and whose lives may well be forfeit once we go.
Hmmm…I can’t remember what I’ve said that you specifically have in mind, but I’m sure you can come up with relevant quotes.
I’ve said a lot that I remember about what I hoped the Dems would do, but as far as what I thought they would do, the main thing I expected was that it would no longer be the case that the moment Bush got a wild hair for a piece of bad legislation (e.g. the Military Commissions Act), it would immediately find its way to the floor of Congress. But that that alone would be huge.
I’m glad you can see things from my comments that I can’t.
I think the Dems’ hearts mostly are in the right place, but they’ve been so successfully battered for so long by the combination of the GOP, the right-wing noise machine, and the mainstream media itself, that they’ve long since lost the courage of their convictions.
But I don’t place my hopes in the Democrats. As my DKos signature reads, “We aren’t expecting the Democrats to save us. Rather, we’re working through the Democratic Party to save the country.” I have a lot of hope in the 50+ new Dems in Congress this year: they mostly seem to realize that the only way to deal with the Republican machine is to fight back, and fight back hard. But they’re still a minority of Dems in Congress, and it’ll take awhile to put a backbone in the rest of them.
But there’s no other game in town if we want to change things in a reasonable timeframe. Iraq can’t wait for us to grow a third party. Hell, global warming can’t wait that long.
I’m not exactly astounded that the millennium hasn’t arrived with Democratic control of Congress, and I think they’ve done fairly well, overall, in their first four weeks in control of one of the three branches of government.
Yeah, as long as “the man” means Bush and/or Cheney, and not some grunt in Iraq.
If the Democrats continue to fund this war, I will officially become an Independent. I don’t think it was the opinion of the people of this country that this war in Iraq continues. Congress should reject the Executive Branch’s request for more funds on their terms and instead bring forth a bill drastically reducing the funds of the war in Iraq and increasing funds slightly for Afghanistan.
Bush’s budget request for another quarter trillion dollars to tide him over until somebody else’s watch, right on top of this, sure looks like a direct double-dog dare to that upstart Congress, doesn’t it?
So you’ll neither name those names nor retract that silly crack, is that it? :rolleyes:
Yep. that’s it. Anyone who isn’t familiar with the many crackpots in the House isn’t paying attention.
By definition, this resolution is irrelevant. If Congress is willing, even under protest, to let Bush do what he wants and then complain about the failure, shame on them. They need to do something that will have an impact.
Is this reallly necessary? I’d start with Tom Tancredo and ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney, and perhaps move onto Charles “no, really, let’s bring back the draft” Rangel.
Remember, there’s a 4.35 factor required to compare per capita nuttiness. Does your list compare to Sens. Brownback, Bunning, Coburn, Inhofe, Lott, McConnell, Stevens?
IOW, yes, I do have you pegged.
Yup. Of course, house members don’t get as much press as their more esteemed brethren in the senate.
How are McConnell and Stevens nutty? They’re both corrupt, but I don’t know that any of their views are really outside the Republican mainstream.
I agree with Airman Doors. The Democrats are without a spine and will, I predict, not find one as long as Bush is president. Their fear of political consequences is much larger than their caring of the well being of either the nation of Iraq or the U.S. armed forces. They desperately don’t want to confirm the Republicans talking points about the Democrats wanting to cut and run. That would be devastating. So they’re gonna just watch as Bush does his thing until 2009…amazing.
Actually, I think it’d be pretty funny if they fully supported Bush’s war. Maybe they could turn the strereotype on its head: outhawk the hawks! Increase the troops! Bomb Iran! Bomb Syria! Let’s invade Iran! That would do interesting things in the meme world.
Stevens is corrupt, but his defenses of it sound nutty (okay, that’s a stretch). McConnell’s job (as he sees it) is to carry Bush’s water in the Senate, and to do it as enthusiastically as he does takes nuttiness of its own kind.
Personally, I’m planning on writing my congress critters and telling them to not only block the surge, but also to remove Shrub and send him to the Hague for a War Crimes tribunal. No shit. Shrub has shown that he is more than willing to ignore both US and international law as well as lie when it suits him. I don’t doubt that if Congress blocks the surge, he’ll circumvent their wishes if he can. Even if he doesn’t, by allowing him to continue to remain in office sends the message that you can lie and violate the law while you’re President and the worst that you can expect is low approval ratings. What happens if the next nutjob to hold the office decides to lob a nuke? After all, look at everything Shrub has gotten away with, why should they think that they’d be treated any different?
That’s assuming, of course, that Shrub doesn’t decide to lob one himself if his surge is blocked by Congress. The man is so obsessed with the US controlling Iraq, I can’t imagine him simply accepting Congress’s blocking of the surge and whenever something bad happens in Iraq saying, “See? If you’d have let me have those extra troops this never would have happened!” Optimistically, I can see him pulling a Gulf of Tonkin incident and using that as justification for attacking Iran. Which, of course, would cause a shitstorm of Biblical proportions.
No, I don’t expect my congress critters to actually impeach Shrub, but maybe, just maybe, it’ll embolden them to do something substantative to quash his actions, and perhaps he’ll finally get a clue.
That answers itself, doesn’t it? 