There may be no end to the Iraq war in sight, but Americans can hope for an end to the frustrating fight over Iraq war funding. Republicans’ faith in the surge seems undermined by the dismal daily news out of Iraq, including Monday’s pullout from the Iraq cabinet by followers of powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Meanwhile, Democrats aren’t convincing in their micromanaging efforts to seem anti-war but not anti-troops. “My feeling is at a certain point we’re going to have a ‘come-to-Jesus’ moment in the caucus and talk about whether you fund (the war) or not,” said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.
If a showdown with the president is inevitable, let’s get on with it.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Tully on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
34 Comments
If the Democrats do NOT tie conditions to the funding of Bush’s war the Republicans will claim that they support staying the same course. That was the big mistake they made over 4 years ago; they abdicated decision-making to the “decider” and now are told that they wanted the war.
If a showdown with the president is inevitable, let’s get on with it.
AMEN!! The Democrats were elected because the majority of people are not supportive of the war, or BUSH. I truly do not understand why they won’t put a bill through and LET Bush veto it. I understand that we do not have enough votes to override a veto, but I think it will put Bush in the hotseat. He will have to explain why it is that he vetoed a bill that had funding for the troops in it, in essence, a bill supporting our troops but not the war, which is what most Americans want.
“I truly do not understand why they won’t put a bill through…”
That would require courage of their convictions, of which the Libs have little.
fleettwood, TDT – they will; possibly by the end of the week.
fight about when they come home not about what they need to fight. give them the means to safety and health and give them suport not making their job harder.
I read a comment today from Sec. of Defense Gates that said that the debate on a timetable is motivating the Iraqis. And that the American committment is not open-ended. The problem with dem’s as fleetwood pointed out is that they rarely come to a consensus on anything. They need to stand up to this prez. If they cave it will only embolden the enemy. Oh sorry the administration.
Why is Congress considering Bush’ threatened veto when debating whether they should pass a bill.
They (both Repubs and Democrats) need to focus on their jobs and pass the legislation they think is right. If the prez wants to veto anything, it is his right and power, but Congress should make him excercise that power rather than vetoing it for him.
Let them propose a clean spending bill with a time limit, and let the debate begin. No bribes attached, just an up or down vote on funding and timetables for troop removal. Perhaps even separate bills. In fact, i think that would be best. fund the troops, then introduce legislation that the authorization that Congress gave ends at a certain date. Let it be bare knuckle discussion if need be, and reach a concensus or at least a constitutional resolution.
Let them propose a clean spending bill with a time limit, and let the debate begin. No bribes attached, just an up or down vote on funding and timetables for troop removal. Perhaps even separate bills. In fact, i think that would be best. fund the troops, then introduce legislation that the authorization that Congress gave ends at a certain date. Let it be bare knuckle discussion if need be, and reach a concensus or at least a constitutional resolution.
sorry for the double post. My bad
l-j – the ‘captcha check’?
Wow LittlejohnSounds like something of a compromise. The GOP will take your card for that. Remember the “cut and run” “stay the course” talking points? Don’t stray or there will be consequences.
Ben–yeah, gets me sometimes, don’t really know why.
Mike–I am tired of “talking points” on both sides. Both sides talk, but actually say little. Stupidly, we as a peple just jump on board and get carried along while the movers and shakers of both parties privately laugh at our sheep like behavior
They can have my card if they want it. I want resolution, not smoke and mirrors. And Pelosi just as bad. Or she would never have added all the “goodies” to get it to pass. Let people have the courage of their convictions and vote up or down. If you disagree, tell them they are wrong, don;t jsut call them names. Vote the bastards out of office, whichever side you think the “bastards” are
Sad but very true littlejohn. The way they manipulate the media is terrible. And the media never checks them on it. I hope that we can get candidates from both sides with fresh views. It is truly why I register independent and come to sites like this to get a perspective from both sides. Unfortunately, the GOP rarely strays from the “talking points” to validate their side. Very frustrating.
Well, my advice didn;t last long did it. Same post, different message. No it’s not, Yes it is. SHut UP! NO, I don;t have to!Gad, that voice in my head just will not shut up! LOL!
I am sure that if you go look back at the previous war spending bills they are not “clean” either. Both sides have their “pet” projects that get lumped in with important pieces of legislation. But now with the dem’s in controll its an issue.
I would suggest the media is too damn lazy for the most part and that it is not only the GOP that does the “talking points” thing. We need to hold these people accountable. all of them. I no longer listen to Rush, but I used to like in his early days when he would pull up clips that directly contradicted what a politician was saying to a different crowd than he spoke to this week. man, sometimes we are so dang gullible.And sometimes so intent on proving the other side wrong or dangerous that we forget to examine our own positions.
I suspect yor are right about the other spending bills. I don;t condone it whichever side does it. I HATE attachments and amendments that have nothing to do with the primary bill. The Dems are in control, they offered something different. Do it. Drop the politics and the election issues and have a head on discussion and vote. They won’t, either side. Too busy posturing. Too bad
“Meanwhile, Democrats aren’t convincing in their micromanaging efforts to seem anti-war but not anti-troops.”
What?
Oh yeah, I guess I did see Harry Reid saying just the other day how much he truly hated the troops because they were prolonging the war:|
Sheesh, what a joke. But thanks for buying into RW propaganda, Holman. I guess I’ll never understand how trying to extricate troops from a disastrous, extremely dangerous, and unnecessary war is “anti-troops” – one would think that trying to preserve their lives would make one the epitome of “pro-troops.” Must be my addled liberal brain acting up again:)
LJ is right. First, let’s fund the troops while they’re there. Both sides agree that has to be done.Then debate, separately, ending that Congressional spending authorization.
The first will pass, as it should. The second . . . we’ll see. But don’t tie them together.
Sounds like compromise GMC70…..I have not be able to read all your posts and understand all of your views. But the GOP doesn’t like that word. Like I told Littlejohn….they will take your card for that.
I have to disagree GMC. That “compromise” would give Bush 100% of what he wants with no strings. Then Bush vetoes the performance requirements and we have “stay the course” all over again.
Keep them linked!
BenAt least at that point everyone would be on record to where they stand. The prez is going to get his money. This I promise. The point that GMC and Littlejohn make is a valid one. Seperate the two make all the lawmakers give an up or down vote. Then you will bolster the dem’s in 08 with the right wingers down vote on a timetable. Should the dem’s decide to cave then that will give the right more fuel for their “they are weak on national defense” speech. You need to bring moderate republicans into the fold. Therefore you must stand strong with the troops.
fleettwood, TDT – they will; possibly by the end of the week.
Posted by: Ben Huie | April 17, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Ben – I hope they do, and I hope it IS by the end of the week. I want Bush to have to explain why he would veto a bill that gives the money the troops NEED.
And separating the 2 bills would not be a compromise, it would be Bush getting his way, and keeping with the status quo, which the MAJORITY of people do not want. A compromise would be Bush giving us some kind of plan for our exit strategy, or some kind of plan period. That’s what I would like, to know what our goals are, how we can measure accomplishments, and how we know when it IS time to pull out. And I also want to be assured that we are not going to still be at war with Iraq when I get to retirement age in another 30 some years!!
“That’s what I would like, to know what our goals are, how we can measure accomplishments, and how we know when it IS time to pull out.”
I would like to know the same things, but holding funding for troops already engaged as hostage is not the answer
TDTWe will always have some type of presence in Iraq. As much as I would like to hear “The Iraq situation is over” that is not going to happen anytime soon. What we can hope for at this point is put lawmakers on record and vote ourselves accordingly. Dem’s have to realize that they must unify and provide a bill that the right can’t spin into something its not. And put them on record. So the public knows without a doubt where they stand.
How about a timetable for the several hundred thousand ARI to take over combat roles? They outnumber the “dead-enders in their last throes” by 100-to-1. They should be able to get by with only air and logistics support from US forces.
“…keeping with the status quo, which the MAJORITY of people do not want.”
If this statement was really true, the dems would have sent it to the prez already. If the dems thought they could put the heat on the prez, they would. They can’t, they won’t, the statement is false.
It started out with both sides, because of faulty intelligence, voting for war. When the intelligence turned out to be bush bs, the liberals started attempts to get us out of there.
Immediately, the neo-cons started using the “you libs support terrorism-cut and run” bs. I have neither heard nor read any democrats who say they support terrorism, or not support the troops. Fringe elements may say they do not support the troops, but they can hardly be considered either liberals or democrats.
pouring more money into this war will neither win us the war, nor will it end it. This whole fiasco needs to end or our grandchildren will still be fighting it in 30 years.
Can we win this war? I don’t think so. We do not fully understand who we are fighting, nor will continuing the war help us in that endeavor.
Tie a firm pull out date and stick to it. We screwed this one up big time, just as the politicians blew Viet Nam big time. Vote the war hawks out and get in people who know the value of diplomacy.
Well said JM Walker…..well said.
I secretly hope Bush gets his way on this. Give him billions and billions more. Give it in the name of ‘the troops.’Let his admin have a pass on accountability for the mess in Iraq.
In 2008, that will secure a strong-handed defeat of the neo-conservatives in the Republican party and hopefully keep idiots like Bush out of power for a while.
In the mid-east they are accustomed to long wars, we’re not quite as accepting. They can wait us out, even if it takes centuries.