Senate blocks vote on Iraq redeployment bill.
By on Nov 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Senate blocks vote on Iraq redeployment bill.
An Iraq redeployment proposal adopted by the House earlier this week received a 53-45 vote in the Senate today, falling short of the 60 needed to advance. The vote “came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Many talk the the talk, but very few walk the walk.
Kiss my @$$!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:17 amJust remember: it’s entirely within the power of the Dems to just stop all funding, by ensuring no additional funding bills go forward. You don’t need a “veto-proof majority” to do that, either.
Every time the Dems don’t put the brakes on the funding bills, they reveal themselves as willing accomplices to this administration’s crimes.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:20 amLet Bush veto this bill. Then bring up another one, and another one……..
November 16th, 2007 at 11:21 amThe vote “came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.â€
——————————————————-
I suppose I should take comfort in the Dems no longer obediently funding the war with no strings attached. But with this bill blocked, we are back to the stalemate we had earlier this year. Let’s hope the Dems don’t cave first like last time. (I can dream, can’t I?)
November 16th, 2007 at 11:21 amBut…but….Mukasey got appointed with less than 60 votes.
Is anyone but me getting tired of the “60 vote” excuse? Why don’t the Dems make the Reps come up with 60 votes when they want something?
If these Dems won’t get a backbone, let’s vote ‘em out and get some who will. I’m tired of the Democratic party being Republican Liteâ„¢
November 16th, 2007 at 11:24 amthe end of the fight is a tombstone white
with the name of the late deceased
the epitath drear
a fool lies here
who tried to hustle the east
Rudyard Kipling
November 16th, 2007 at 11:26 amDon’t back down Harry.
from MSNBC article this morning…
“There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
As a result, he said he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.”
Then Daryll will get laid off and all hell will break loose!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:29 amDaryll gives office massages to Marines? Do tell.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:31 amIf it’s the chymp way or the highway, let’s take the highway and bring the troops home.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:31 amDaryll gives office massages to Marines? Do tell.
Comment by nanlichi — November 16, 2007 @ 11:31 am
In the “Oral”, I mean “Oval” Office? Yeah, THAT’S what I meant to say… the OVAL office… OVAL…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:33 amFridays are always used by Senate to vote on bills most Americans are concerned about, so Senators figure that citizenry is too tired from working all week to notice and are thinking about weekend activities.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:34 amBy Mondays they hope most people have forgotten what they did.
I just hope the dems don’t roll over like last time. If oyu are just going to give Bush what he wants anyway, just go ahead and do it and forget the show. If not, then be prepared to stand your ground when he brings out the veto pen.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:35 amThe veto pen won’t be coming on this one, as it’s not leaving the Senate.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:37 amGood job repukes. Good luck a year from now.
I suppose I should take comfort in the Dems no longer obediently funding the war with no strings attached. But with this bill blocked, we are back to the stalemate we had earlier this year. Let’s hope the Dems don’t cave first like last time. (I can dream, can’t I?)
Comment by missmolly — November 16, 2007 @ 11:21 am
I’ll tell ya, I don’t think this is smart politics if your goal is to get the troops out of Iraq.
First of all, on its face, a goal of all troops out by December 2008 is not something any of the major Democratic Presidential nominees have embraced, so I think it reasonable to assume that they themselves would veto this bill were they President.
Second, and more important, this reopens an old battle when a new line of attack would be much smarter. It is a line that has been advanced here often: “If AQI is destroyed, violence is down and the surge has worked, it is time to leave, right?” Now the admin can come back with “they’re not QUITE dead”, but how long can they do that? By adopting this old strategy, the Dems are giving Bush a tried and true defense of endless occupation: “You don’t support the troops”.
Last, the dynamic of the 08 election for the Repubs demands troop levels come down . They have GOT to do it if they don’t want to be totally annihilated at the polls and I think they know that. The only way it won’t happen is if the Dems gift them with a strawman argument to use instead, which is basically what this “you must be out by 12/08″ thing is.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:38 amThe military budget is 650 billion a year. Time for that fiscal responsibility republicans crow about.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:41 amTraitor Joe Lieberman voted with the GOPers as usual and John McCain did not even bother to show up to vote as usual. Has anyone bothered to ask why McCain should collect his Senate salary for doing nothing?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:41 amThey have GOT to do it if they don’t want to be totally annihilated at the polls and I think they know that. The only way it won’t happen is if the Dems gift them with a strawman argument to use instead, which is basically what this “you must be out by 12/08″ thing is.
Comment by Keltoi — November 16, 2007 @ 11:38 am
nice try, beautiful straw man. Troops out NOW is the biggest winner of all. Unjustified war, lost a soon as it was “won”, end it NOW. Dems can take the credit for putting the pressure on, will win in a major landslide.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:43 amHas anyone bothered to ask why McCain should collect his Senate salary for doing nothing?
Comment by Jay Randal — November 16, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Perhaps it’s best this way, Jay. We’re only paying him a base salary of $165K/yr. That’s pretty cheap to keep him doing NOTHING. Think how much damage he could do if he went back into private life and had to work a real job?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:44 amDems can take the credit for putting the pressure on, will win in a major landslide.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 16, 2007 @ 11:43 am
I love the way “Keltoi” is trying to be friendly and reasonable, like we’re just all chums discussing politics here.
Sorry, that pig don’t fly.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:46 amum… anybody know why DODD voted NO…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:49 amthe only dem to do so???
…
the “you don’t support the troops” is a hollow and false argument. The audience and the candidates in lastnights debate showed so well the support of troops by the applause for the Marine before he even spoke.
The whole idea of the “surge” was to give breathing room for the Iraqi govt. so they can make advances. This hasn’t happened. In fact, there are new calls for their parliment to be disbanded. The republicans and Bush have offered nothing in the way of guidance for the lack of Iraqi govt. advances. “Turning the corner” and “6 more months” is not a plan.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:51 amwhat happened to forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster
November 16th, 2007 at 11:55 amI love the way “Keltoi†is trying to be friendly and reasonable, like we’re just all chums discussing politics here.
Sorry, that pig don’t fly.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 16, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Why? Why won’t it fly? I am being completely sincere – it is possible to not agree on everything and still discuss politics, isn’t it? Even to deeply disagree on things and discuss them? Isn’t that central to successful democracy?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:56 amBetter idea, lay off 200,000 civilians. There are 160,000 mercenaries in Iraq that get paid three times what a US soldier gets paid. You could lay off all of them and have enough cash left over that you could higher more US soldiers.
But, that makes sense, so fu*k it.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:56 amkaty > I did not notice that Dodd voted No on the list. I guess he wants to go down in flames with Lieberman. They are both CT fools.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:56 amNot once you have decided to be a friggin’ troll. Troll.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:57 amGood. So the Republicans are fillibustering the Iraq war spending bill. Make ‘em fillibuster til the cows come home. When they stop, pass it and send it for its veto. In the mean time, the President can’t say that it is the Democrats standing in the way; it’s his own damn party.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:59 amDodd not bothering to vote to stop Mukasey as AG and now voting with GOPers means the end of his campaign for President. He needs to formally announce ending his bid and announce his retirement from the Senate as well.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pmDemocratic Senators do not realize that we are keeping a score card on them, so keeping track of their betrayals, so Dodd is a dead dog.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:06 pmWhy? Why won’t it fly? I am being completely sincere – it is possible to not agree on everything and still discuss politics, isn’t it?
Not once you have decided to be a friggin’ troll. Troll.
Comment by Spudge Boy — November 16, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Okay, Spudge, RoS, just pretend someone else raised the point, someone not named Keltoi so the thread doesn’t devolve to another “who’s a troll” debate and Bartlebee starts calling me a troll every third post.
Can you see the validity of what I am saying vis the substance of the thread? I want us to get out of Iraq too, y’know, and I don’t think this move by Reid et al is going to help.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pm#2
Ok, I’m de-lurking after months of watching this debate from the shadows because this line of reasoning, while entirely true, would, in my opinion, be disastrous for the Democratic party, and, by extension, the country if applied. Simply not bringing up funding measures might end the war, but it will also end any hopes for a continued democratic majority and/or a retake of the White House in ‘08.
I know that record numbers of Americans are fed-up with the war and ardently wish that it were over, but that doesn’t mean that all those Americans will still feel that way after a months-long Republican attack campaign featuring wounded vets looking straight into the camera and blaming Democrats for cutting off their bullets and beans. Is this “playing politics” with the war, as the Repukes always cry? Yes, actually, it is, but that’s the price we pay for the horridly-broken, two-party corporate McDemocracy ™ we’ve created for ourselves.
I hate this war, and I’m no Johnny-come-lately to that position, as I was one of the roughly 200,000 patriotic Americans who traveled thousands of miles to march outside the White House on the eve of the invasion, and I’ve worked hard on the state and local levels to move my party towards the anti-war position. Chimpy and Cheney have done great damage to our country through this war and a dastardly laundry list of other failed (and sickeningly successful) policies, and the only way we can undo that damage is with a broader democratic majority in Congress and a dem in the Oval Office, none of which will happen if we open ourselves up to the “democrats hung the troops out to dry” attacks. It’s a narrative, however untrue, that is too powerful, too damning, and too deeply ingrained in the collective conscious of the average American to ignore.
Just my 2
November 16th, 2007 at 12:09 pmRemind me again who the “obstructionists” are?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pmThis bill only has withdrawal starting in a month and completing in a year, not immediate, total withdrawal.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pmBush is being obstinant, and his repukes are lockstepping.
53-45 sounds like a majority to me.
Someone please explain why 60 votes are needed?
Sahu,
November 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pmFor every shot of a wounded vet looking into the camera blaming Democrats for cutting off their bullets and beans, there is another shot of a child being surprised by his dad at school who has come home from the war. Talk about family values!!
60 votes are needed for cloture, to eliminate a potential fillibuster.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:24 pmI am happy that the Dems FINALLY have grown a pair!!
Let the Pentagon suffer until Bu$h Co. agrees to negotiate with the Congressional Democrats.
We, the American public, voted in the opposition for a REASON!!!!
November 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pmLOL Beefeater > I will call LIEberman whatever I desire, so go get a life you damn dumb Bush loving fruitcake.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pmAnd it continues… …the republicans want a vote, it takes 50 to pass. Democrats want a vote, it takes 60 to pass.
And the Dems let ‘em get away with it, damn near every time. I say make them actually fillibuster, every time, for days.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pmArt,
Very moving, very true, and very likely not to be attributed to “brave democrats stopping the war”. The narrative is the key, not the actual facts. The facts say that republicans are greedy, cheating, philandering, lying, occasionally wide-stanced f!ckwits, but the narrative they’ve constructed says that they’re the party of good, christian values and that’s (still, despite all the contrary evidence) how the average american thinks of them. Most americans don’t take the time to know the facts, so broad-brush binary narratives are how they interpret events in the world around them, and you don’t change a “dems don’t support the troops” narrative by cutting off funding to the troops. Until we can change that frame of reference, this is a losing strategy.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pmSo… Let them fillibuster!!
November 16th, 2007 at 12:35 pmDodd not bothering to vote to stop Mukasey as AG and now voting with GOPers means the end of his campaign for President. He needs to formally announce ending his bid and announce his retirement from the Senate as well.
Comment by Jay Randal
From Dodd:
Senator Dodd voted against cloture on an Iraq funding measure this morning. He was the only candidate to do so.
Dodd has pledged to not vote for any more funds for the war in Iraq unless it’s tied to ending the war in Iraq. Here’s Senator Dodd’s statement on his vote:
“My position has been clear for months – the only way to end the war is with a firm deadline that is enforceable through funding. While I commend my colleagues in taking a step in that direction, this president’s actions and continued rhetoric give me little conifidence that setting a “goal” date for redeployment will force his hand.”
“I will continue to fight for a firm and enforceable deadline tied to funding to end the war and restore American security. ”
http://chrisdodd.com/blog/dodd-voting-%2526quot%3Bno%2526quot%3B-iraq-funding
November 16th, 2007 at 12:35 pmSahu,
I think you sell most Americans short.
I really believe most of them get it.
I do agree that the constant hammering can get into your head though, but the cacophony can go both ways.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pmMcE > so you are claiming that Dodd did an honorable thing in voting the way he did today? So all the rest of the Senate Democrats were acting stupid? He voted with 44 Republicans, so his vote looks bad.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:41 pmComment by Spudge Boy — November 16, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Good thing you would like 200,000 DoD employees to be put out of work and w/o income for your “anti-war” cheap poltics. I hope you don’t collect any military retired pay.
BTW, you come off as being an arrogant Col. Fitts sound-a-like.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:42 pmSahu is telling us what the Democratic Party leadership is afraid to say. They want to keep the occupation of Iraq going at all costs in the hope it will help them get more power in Washington. But why be in power if you don’t do what’s best for the country?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pmComment by Jay Randal — November 16, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Of course Senate Dems look stupid. They voted for war, and they refuse to take responsibility for that vote.
And before you bring up the “duped intelligence”, those Dem. senators were suppose to have been the intelligence. They failed in their responsibility to critically examine all information.
Dems accuse Republicans of “exploiting 9/11″ in getting us to Iraq, yet they used the very same massacre to issue their reactionary vote to put us there.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 16, 2007 @ 11:46 am
All the proof you need that Democrats will never be happy with anything. “Civil Discourse? Nah, he’s just feigning interest!”
Twist and turn, twist and turn.
Cynics.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pmUsual Leftist > Senate Democrats are just as culpable for allowing the Iraq fiasco to transpire as the Republicans. They were willing to authorize the invasion of Iraq. I will not defend them for doing that. My defense of them today is for those who are trying to end the occupation now.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pmArt,
Sell them short? Maybe I do, but I have my reasons. I’ve done my fair share of campaign work, and you don’t know how many times I’ve had variations of this conversation with registered voters:
——————–
Me: Would you mind if I asked which party you consider yourself a part of?
Voter: We’re good republicans
Me: Really? What do you support most about the republican party?
Voter: They’re good, christian folks who support hard work.
Me: (insert tiny fraction of the laundry list of just how un-christian, elitist, and hippocritical the repukes are) That’s the party you support?
Voter: F!ck off, you damn hippy pinko scum (actual response I got from a “values voter” while canvasing)
———
Yep. They definitely get it.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pmComment by Usual leftist— November 16, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
I am still waiting for you to define victory in Iraq. It’s been almost a week, that’s enough time, even for a slow thinker to come up with an answer.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pmI have a new question too, why did Bush cut and run from Afghanistan
in 2003?
Usual Leftist sez:
That’s not their job, idiot. Are you seriously maintaining that it’s the responsibility of every member of Congress to fact-check every piece of intelligence doctored up by this administration? Are you actually trying to shift the blame for the lies away from the liars, and to the victims of the lies? Really?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pm#48
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying not to just pull the funding plug because that would get us killed and allow the Repugs to keep the war going indefinitely. Put pressure on moderate republicans in their home states and districts and build enough of a bi-partisan majority to push through a meaningful solution. That way we do what the country wants and needs (bringing the troops home) and we show that we are not bound by the same divisive rhetoric of the past.
Is it a quick fix? No. Is it sure to work? No. But it does, in my opinion, give us the best hope for both ending the war and changing the disastrous direction in which our country is headed.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pmMcE > so you are claiming that Dodd did an honorable thing in voting the way he did today? So all the rest of the Senate Democrats were acting stupid? He voted with 44 Republicans, so his vote looks bad.
Comment by Jay Randal
I actually posted it without an agenda :-) Just wanted to make sure his rationale was known before we start chucking rocks at him.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:05 pmMake them actually filibuster, for gods sake. Stop allowing them to intimidate us. If they want to filibuster, then make them filibuster.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:10 pmThat’s not their job, idiot. Are you seriously maintaining that it’s the responsibility of every member of Congress to fact-check every piece of intelligence doctored up by this administration? Are you actually trying to shift the blame for the lies away from the liars, and to the victims of the lies? Really?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
That’s almost EXACTLY their job. It’s called “checks and balances” not “blank check and no oversight”.
And its not shifting the blame. The Reps are guilty of lying, the Dems are guilty of not doing their jobs and letting them get away with it. It’s not blaming the victim, its blaming the guard who was asleep while on duty.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:11 pmAnd its not shifting the blame. The Reps are guilty of lying, the Dems are guilty of not doing their jobs and letting them get away with it. It’s not blaming the victim, its blaming the guard who was asleep while on duty.
Comment by McE — November 16, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
bullshit. Lying to congress is a crime, you idiot. Why? So that the congress can do its work, and not have to double check the intelligence it receives on faith that Americans don’t lie to each other about those matters. You are a complete moron.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:12 pmIf these Dems won’t get a backbone, let’s vote ‘em out and get some who will. I’m tired of the Democratic party being Republican Lite™
Comment by McE
This problem with this concept is that most Democratic incumbents won’t have a challenger in the primaries, and that’s the only way we can vote them out, unless we want to vote for a Republican to get them out, which would be cutting off your head in spite of your face.
Until we get big money out of politics, this is the way it will be. There aren’t a lot of people out there with the big bucks it takes to challenge an incumbent.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:13 pmMcE sez:
So…let me get this straight. You’re likening the intelligence community of the United States to an enemy soldier that a guard must be alert to?
Your military analogy is fatally flawed. Here…let me help.
It’s not blaming the guard that was asleep on duty…it’s blaming the soldier who got his throat slit in his own tent by a fellow soldier…someone he thought was on his side.
No charge for the analogy repair.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:15 pmbilbo,
They don’t have to filibuster if they have the votes to defeat a cloture vote (ie, as long as the Dems don’t have the 60 votes needed to win a cloture vote, there’s no reason to filibuster) When we were the minority, we had to filibuster because we aren’t such a lock-step group and some of our members were (for whatever reasons) willing to vote to cut off debate (invoke cloture) even when they new that the Rethugs had the votes needed for a simple majority.
Just a little civics/parliamentary procedure refresher.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:17 pmFirst of all, on its face, a goal of all troops out by December 2008 is not something any of the major Democratic Presidential nominees have embraced, so I think it reasonable to assume that they themselves would veto this bill were they President.
Comment by Keltoi
Nice parsing of your words Keltoi. You are right, none of the Democrats have said they would “a goal of all troops out by December 2008″, but they have said they would have most COMBAT troops out by then and only leave some troops to guard Americans. So, it is not a given that any of the Democratic candidates would veto this bill.
I don’t care what anyone else on this site thinks about you, I think you are nothing more than a Republican tool.
All the Democrats need to do is to say “no more defense spending bills until you negotiate a timeline to bring the troops home”. If Gates has to stop funding the contractors in Iraq, so be it. There’s plenty of money left to ensure the safety of our troops if the money isn’t being spent on civilian contractors. The last accounting showed that 40% of the money spent in Iraq is spent on civilian contractors. So, bring them all home and spend that money on the troops.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:19 pmYou are a complete moron.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Let me see if I got this right.
The bush administration lies to congress. Articles are published questioning the lies, but its perfectly fine for congress to scoop up those lies and blindly run with them because, well the executive branch SHOULDN’T lie to them. And we can trust the executive branch. In fact, its so utterly ludicrous that the executive branch would lie that we probably don’t even need a congress or checks and balances…we can just TRUST them not to lie.
And I’M a moron?
You are right that lying to congress is an impeachable crime. The executive branch should be held accountable for that, too. But I have a hard time not blaming the congress for being asleep at the wheel when they were supposed to be checking and balancing.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:21 pmThey don’t have to filibuster if they have the votes to defeat a cloture vote (ie, as long as the Dems don’t have the 60 votes needed to win a cloture vote, there’s no reason to filibuster) When we were the minority, we had to filibuster because we aren’t such a lock-step group and some of our members were (for whatever reasons) willing to vote to cut off debate (invoke cloture) even when they new that the Rethugs had the votes needed for a simple majority.
Just a little civics/parliamentary procedure refresher.
Comment by Sahu
They don’t ever force the Republicans to actually filibuster. All they do, when they know they don’t have the 60 votes, is to walk off and say “ok, we didn’t get the 60 votes”. I am saying that the Democrats need to force the Republicans to actually filibuster a bill and don’t go along with them and cut off the debate. Make the Republicans work for their filibusters. This will do two things 1) frustrate the Republicans and 2) make it very obvious to the US public who is obstructing the political process.
I really do wish that the Democrats had allowed the Republicans to invoke the “nuclear option” and kill the filibuster forever. If they had done that, they would not be having the problems they are encountering today.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:22 pmUntil we get big money out of politics, this is the way it will be. There aren’t a lot of people out there with the big bucks it takes to challenge an incumbent.
Comment by bilbobaggins
Sad, but true.
I’m still gonna fight it tho….
November 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — November 16, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
That’s not their job, idiot.
I didn’t know they’re supposed to vote w/o doing their research. Then again, the Democrat mantra of the workforce is to do very little work for excessive pay. Democrats, after all, aren’t the ones citing their sources. Also, calling me an idiot doesn’t exactly make your case.
Are you seriously maintaining that it’s the responsibility of every member of Congress to fact-check every piece of intelligence doctored up by this administration?
Of course it is. If they have such brilliant democratic minds, it shouldn’t be too hard to catch the “inept” administration. What’s wrong, is Bushie too much for you? You and your ilk are all hype.
Are you actually trying to shift the blame for the lies away from the liars, and to the victims of the lies? Really?
Poor, poor, poor, victims. I get the feeling your party doesn’t want to prevent the worst, but to allow it in order to play yourselves off as “victims.” Getting it done right the first time, your party can’t do.
Point fingers, spin, and see things 20/20 in hindsight, while screwing up in the here-and-now. Good logic, dems.
It looks as though you just tripped on yourself, monkey.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pmTrippy wants to change the job description of Reps/Sens. Soon enough, though, he’ll insert the “Checks and Balances” part back in the billet. He’s just having a moment of inconvenience.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:32 pmComment by Usual Leftist — November 16, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
None of that drivel made the slightest bit of sense. Not really sure why I expected it to…
UL, you’re dismissed. At least McE is trying discuss the issue.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pmPlease stop responding to “Leftist” and report him for spamming this blog. If you haven’t figured out by now that he isn’t in the least interested in hearing anything other than the sound of his own voice, then you are rather dense. Just allow him to speak to himself and don’t respond. Since TP doesn’t seem inclined to rid us of this vermin, let’s do it ourselves.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:35 pmIt sounds and looks to me as if they’re finally trying to craft legislation that will bring troops home, but even if/when they agree, Dumbya will still veto because he’s a g*ddamn IDIOT, playing politics with a WAR!??!
November 16th, 2007 at 1:37 pmI have a new question too, why did Bush cut and run from Afghanistan
in 2003?
Comment by troll buster — November 16, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Troll Buster! What are you doing? Why are you responding to the troll and asking it questions? The troll deserves NO answers and NO questions! He needs to be reported for abuse and REMOVED from the TP site PERMANENTLY!
The topic is: The appropriation bill sent from the House with a provision for deployment of the troops, failed to get enough votes in the Senate to require cloture, and thus met the SAME fate as a substitute offered by the republicans with “no strings attached,” that failed to get a majority of votes.
Trolls are irrelevant and should be reported for abuse.
The fact that too few republicans joined the Democrats to require cloture is a BIG problem and is RELEVENT!
Perhaps MORE republicans will vote with the Democrats when the election draws nigh and their continued presence in the Senate is threatened by their refusal to do what the majority of Americans want: Redeployment/Withdrawal of our troops OUT OF IRAQ!
November 16th, 2007 at 1:38 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — November 16, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Leftist translation:
“None of that made sense” = Accountability isn’t on my side today.
I know, that’s “dismissed”
November 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pmBetter idea, lay off 200,000 civilians. There are 160,000 mercenaries in Iraq that get paid three times what a US soldier gets paid. You could lay off all of them and have enough cash left over that you could higher more US soldiers.
But, that makes sense, so fu*k it.
Comment by Spudge Boy
I really don’t understand why the Democrats don’t get this. All they need to do is to give Bush money for the soldiers but cut 40% out of every appropriation request that would go to the contractors. Then if Bush keeps the contractors and shorts the troops, guess who will have the finger pointing at him? The truth is that he can’t keep this occupation going without his private army. Take away his private army and the military will be forced to start bringing our troops home.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pmComment by hterrya
November 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pmHe usually runs off to another thread when I ask him those questions.
UL, you’re dismissed. At least McE is trying discuss the issue.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Thanks, Monkey ^_^
FWIW: I’m as liberal as the day is long, but its tough out there for an old lefty who feels betrayed by his party.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:43 pmbilbobaggins sez:
I’ll start responding to him again…just as soon as he manages to hammer out a post worth responding to. Since his initial post, he hasn’t managed that feat.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:55 pmPerhaps MORE republicans will vote with the Democrats when the election draws nigh and their continued presence in the Senate is threatened by their refusal to do what the majority of Americans want: Redeployment/Withdrawal of our troops OUT OF IRAQ!
Comment by hterrya — November 16, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
If they were going to cut off funds they should have done it when they threatened to do it last year as the surge was getting underway. Instead, they caved.
Now, a year later, the dynamic in both Iraq and DC has shifted. There is a perception – and perhaps a kind of reality – to improved security in Iraq. Meanwhile, time has marched on and we are close enough to the gravitational pull of the 08 elections that everything is seen through that prism. If the Dems cut funding now, right as it SEEMS things are getting better, they hand the Repubs a dagger. Keep that dagger away and the Repubs will have to accept the onus of reducing troop levels to survive with anything in 08.
I agree with most everything Sahu has said on this thread. Perception is reality. 50% of Americans don’t even vote, and the other 50% are 90% tuned out.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:55 pmAround the globe people had high hopes when the Democrats took the House and Congress… their hopes were soon to be over when the Republican dressed as Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, took IMPEACHMENT ”off the table”. IMPEACHMENT was the reason she got there! Now we see Democrats doing a lot of thetre played infront of the American people, but that is only theatre. When it comes to the crunch, Democrats go against the wishes of the American people and the World community. If the United States wishes not to be known on the 21th Century as the FACIST STATES OF AMERICA, they have to stop the occupation and have the WAR CRIMINALS, all of them, not just one scape goat, all of them held accountable for WAR CRIMES and executed because of it! Otherwise, they can window dress as much as they want, the rest of the World will never trust or like you again! God Help You!
November 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThere is no improvment in IRAQ, that is White House rethoric deceiving the american people again and again. The only improvment the US is getting, is the number of casualties… in the begining of this week was 3855 and now it stands at 3865! IMPEACH, INDICT AND IMPRISON THE WAR CRIMINALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND PENTAGON.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:06 pmIf the Dems cut funding now, right as it SEEMS things are getting better, they hand the Repubs a dagger. Keep that dagger away and the Repubs will have to accept the onus of reducing troop levels to survive with anything in 08.
Comment by Keltoi
You really would love people to believe this garbage, wouldn’t you. A very large majority of people in this country are much smarter than this. They know that things do not SEEM to be getting better in IRAQ, they know it’s all smoke and mirrors. The number of people in this country who want us out of IRAQ has not changed since the Republicans have been on their “things are getting better” PR campaign, so I really don’t think people are buying it.
The fact of the matter is we are occupying Iraq against the wishes of the citizens in that country. There is NO justification for continuing to do this. Our continuing to occupy their country is NOT going to make things better. We are a burr in their side and until the burr is removed, there won’t be any political reconciliation in that country.
Keltoi, why don’t you go peddle your right wing talking points at redstate where they will welcome you. You may not be a Republican troll, but you certainly are a Republican tool!
November 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWhere’s the supposed reconciliation that the surge was supposed to buy time for?
The violence is down because Baghdad is now a series of ethnically homongenous fortified enclaves.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThe Sunni tribes have been bribed to work with the occupiers to root out AIQ. This does nothing to promote unification, but quite the opposite.
So what is the definition of victory again?
Point fingers, spin, and see things 20/20 in hindsight, while screwing up in the here-and-now. Good logic, dems.
It looks as though you just tripped on yourself, monkey.
Comment by Usual Leftist — November 16, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Sounds like the Republican Party…oh it’s CLINTON’S fault, it’s the LIBERAL MEDIA, the homo agenda, the ACLU, environmentalists, etc.
As I said, nothing projects like a Republican.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pmKeltoi, unfortunately, it should not be about winning in 08. The Dems have no principles other than doing what their establishment thinks will help them win elections. This should be about getting our troops out of Iraq, out of a civil war, out of the way of sectarian violence, but we’re talking about winning in 08. Lives are being lost, whether our soldiers or Iraqi civilians, but the Democrats can only talk about looking forward to 08 as if it is their given right.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pmHe usually runs off to another thread when I ask him those questions.
Comment by troll buster — November 16, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Well, so far, it’s WORKING!
Sorry, troll buster! It just seemed so “out of character” for you to respond to such an egregious serial troll!
Thanks to you (and the others who are paying attention to your plaintive requests), one by one, the trolls are disappearing from the threads. That is GOOD NEWS!
Keep up the good work!
November 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pmI laughed at Beefeater’s failed attempt to try to use my own barb against his calling Ned Lamont ‘Nerd Lament’. I do agree with you, Beefeater, that inane and childish name-calling is inappropriate on either side of the aisle. However, he at least managed to get Joe’s name right, even if he did call him a traitor.
Regardless, try getting your OWN barbs, dude? That one I used only really worked on you because of your ‘Nerd Lament’ thing, and if you don’t get why, you’re dumber than I thought.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:08 pm