Democrats Break Promise to End War

[RandFan]

Link

WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - In Washington politics, things are not always what they appear to be. The current debate over continued funding of the war in Iraq is an example.

The conventional wisdom insists that the debate over ending the war is all about the looming veto showdown between President George W. Bush and Congress over continued funding for the $2 billion-per-week Iraq war and whether or not funds, which must be approved by Congress, should include mandates for any withdrawal of U.S. forces.

On the one hand, the Bush administration wants no conditions on the massive amounts of money it says it needs as it escalates the bloody war now in its fifth year, and that strings attached by the Democratic-led legislature are reckless, dangerous, and undermine his commanders and their troops who are “in harm’s way.”

Democrats, on the other hand, argue that their tactic of providing full funding for “Bush’s war,” while setting non-binding timetables for troop withdrawals is the best way to force a change in the war policy.

I'm not sure how realistic it ever was for the Democrats to meet expectations.

 

[Cleon]

Whoa! You mean the Democrats shamelessly exploited anti-war sentiment, and are now turning their backs on it? Surely nobody could have predicted this!

 

[Cain]

Democrats ideally want to grandstand against the war, putting up a token opposition for show but not doing anything about it. They know this is seen as "Bush's war," and they know it will be difficult to hold them accountable because it's a two party system.

 

[Iamme]

But *I* just read in the paper that Bush warned the Iraqi leader that our presense there is not "open-ended"...making it sound like Bush himself is actually leaning towards how we perceived the Dems were leaning.

I read in the same article how according to Pentagon reports, we have to abandon our plan to build up Iraqi forces enough to maintain the peace!

I think this is just some 'spin' story. We all know that we aren't staying there forever. The public does not want this, plain and simple. That is why we voted the Dems in! We can't afford the billions and billions this is costing us.

And the longer this goes on, the more we will be seen as occupying bullies taking over that part of the world and (I even read) about out 'splitting oil revenue' with the Iraqis.(And we'll HAVE to just to keep OUR economy from sinking!) This kind of stuff just is not going to sit well with other foreign powers/adversaries.

 

[Schneibster]

Nice opinion piece. It was written in a newspaper so it must be true. /sarcasm.

ETA: for those a little hazy on the difference between opinions and facts, the newspaper article merely states as an opinion that which the title of the thread presents as a fact. The OP of the thread appears to be one of those subject to that particular sort of haziness.

 

[RandFan]

Nice opinion piece. It was written in a newspaper so it must be true. /sarcasm.

What exactly is in dispute? One should not believe everything that one reads but if the newspaper reports that snow is cold I'm not certain that you should really question the prudence of taking your parka on a ski trip.

I could be wrong though.

Help me out here.

 

[RandFan]

ETA: for those a little hazy on the difference between opinions and facts, the newspaper article merely states as an opinion that which the title of the thread presents as a fact. The OP of the thread appears to be one of those subject to that particular sort of haziness.

Hmmm...

Could be. Could you be more specific?

Did the Democrats campaign on a promise to bring an end to the war?
Have the Democrats taken any substantive measures to end the war?

 

[FarmallMTA]

Hmmm...

Could be. Could you be more specific?

Did the Democrats campaign on a promise to bring an end to the war?
Have the Democrats taken any substantive measures to end the war?

Depends on what you mean by substantive. If substantive means "cowering in duck and cover position under their school desks in puddles of warm wee-wee" then yes, they're very engaged.

 

[Bob Klase]

Democrats, on the other hand, argue that their tactic of providing full funding for “Bush’s war,” while setting non-binding timetables for troop withdrawals is the best way to force a change in the war policy.

And it may be a good (if not the best) way. But packing it with bacon to swing votes was not the best idea. And how much can we trust anyone in congress who planned to vote against it and changed their vote in exchange for a few million dollars to their local farmers/voters?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I can't see what your quote has to do with the thread title, or the thread title with the campaign pledges of the Democrats. Remember that I live in the faraway land of Somewhere Else That Isn't The USA, so will someone please talk me through this slowly. Thanks.

 

[Schneibster]

Hmmm...

Could be. Could you be more specific?

Sure. "Democrats Break Promise to End War" is a statement of apparent fact, one which you made. As evidence you present an opinion piece about something that hasn't happened yet and might or might not. That's called "lying." You might have heard of it before here and there.

Then there'd be the fact that the processes required to turn a bill passed by one house into a bill passed by both houses and presented to the pResident for signature are not yet complete, and the sections of the bill that contain the operative provisions requiring withdrawal of our troops by particular dates if certain conditions are not met may or may not survive that process; it's no longer up to the House, the Senate gets their say. In all of this, both Democrats and Republicans get to express, and in some cases on BOTH sides, enforce, their opinions. It's cute to try to ignore this necessary process so you can blame the outcome on someone, but not very bright, when there are people on this forum who know better and can prove it. That you are incapable of understanding what you no doubt consider subtle nuances doesn't make everyone else incapable of it, and indulging in adolescent blame fantasies is quite revealing of your character and level of education.

Finally, the actual content of any "promise to end war" might or might not be "broken," depending on precisely what comes out of that process, and depending on precisely what each candidate promised, not sound bites, mind you, but fully contextual statements with their complete context, and finally depending not necessarily on the final outcome but upon what each individual insisted be in there if they were to vote for it, notwithstanding what the final outcome is. You can't give one party points for trying and deny them to the other.

Did the Democrats campaign on a promise to bring an end to the war?

I have no idea, you haven't provided any evidence. I'd have to say, though, that ending the war seems to be beyond the capability of anyone in the US short of the extensive use of nuclear weapons so that there will be no living combatants left. A rather extreme solution, don't you think?

We might be able to end our involvement in the war; but that's a rather different thing from what you said, or even what you implied.

Have the Democrats taken any substantive measures to end the war?

One house of Congress, the House of Representatives, (note: not the Democrats, it's not an all-Democrat house) has proposed a budget bill that contains firm deadlines for getting our people out. The Democrats in that house insisted those provisions be in there, which is what they said they'd do. Whether these provisions will make it past the phase of writing a law where the differences between the laws passed by the two houses are reconciled, remains to be seen; certainly there will be some form of attempt at restraint of the wilder excesses of the current administration. I guess from there it's a matter of opinion, kind of like that newspaper article you presented as "evidence."

What you've presented here is sloppy emotional thinking of the worst (i.e., not merely incorrect, but destructively so) sort. Sound-bites are for children who are incapable of understanding the subtleties of real politics as practiced by the politicians, and incapable of understanding the laws that govern the operations of our government.

 

[RandFan]

Sure. "Democrats Break Promise to End War" is a statement of apparent fact, one which you made.

I was quoting the article but that's fine. It wasn't clear so I will accept responsibility.

As evidence you present an opinion piece about something that hasn't happened yet and might or might not. That's called "lying." You might have heard of it before here and there.

I don't think your charactherization is appropriate for a number of reasons. According to members of Code Pink (a Democrat orginazation) the efforts of the Democrats to date do not indicate that they are working to end the war. It is Democrats who are acusing congress of breaking their promises and that is what I wanted to talk about. The feelings of these Democrats.

We might be able to end our involvement in the war; but that's a rather different thing from what you said, or even what you implied.

What did "I" say and what did "I" imply? I'm passing on the sentiments of a number of Democrats. According to them promises were broken.

What you've presented here is sloppy emotional thinking of the worst (i.e., not merely incorrect, but destructively so) sort. Sound-bites are for children who are incapable of understanding the subtleties of real politics as practiced by the politicians, and incapable of understanding the laws that govern the operations of our government.

?

Sorry no. Not even close. Right or wrong there were expetactions of Democratic voters regarding the war. Many of these voters now feel that the Democrats have broken their promises. I only wanted to discuss this issue not attack Democrats or prove that Democrats have broken promises. I have not made an argument that they have.

To the extent that my thread title was misleading I appologize. To the extent that I have given the impression that all Democrats have broken promises or are not working to end the war I appologize.

I have only one interest, to discuss the sentiments of those who feel that the Democrats have broken their promises to end the war. To discuss the sentiments of those who feel that the Democrats lack the backbone to stand up to the president and tell him "NO, we will not fund this war. End it. End it now."

The issue is a current event and it is political. The sentiments are real.

Democrats in Congress: ‘Wishy-washy’ or ‘weak’?

(FinalCall.com) - If there was ever any real wonder as to whether the Democrats in Congress are more worried about being labeled “hypocrites” by the voters who support them, or “weak on defense” by the Republicans who oppose them, then that argument was settled in late March when both the House and the Senate narrowly voted approval of $120 billion-plus spending bills extending the war in Iraq for one more year.

 

[RandFan]

Pelosi's promises

"This election is about Iraq,'' said Pelosi, a consistent war opponent who has said her failure to prevent the United States from going to war in 2003 is her greatest disappointment in public life.

"If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on."

If they win, Democrats will immediately reach out to Bush to find a bipartisan way to begin redeploying troops "outside of Iraq," Pelosi said.

They will also apply pressure to disarm the militias, amend the Iraqi constitution and engage in diplomacy in the region.
"A Democratic victory would be in furtherance of reaching that goal. Absent a Democratic victory, we'll be there for the next 10 years,'' Pelosi said.

Questions:

Has Pelosi-

1. Reached out to Bush to find a bipartisan way to begin redeploying troops?
2. Applied pressure to disarm the militias, amend the Iraqi constitution?
3. What have the Democrats done to end the war?

This is NOT an attack on Democrats. I understand how some might see it as that. I'm interested in the rhetoric and impression before the war and the realities since.

 

[Schneibster]

At last, you're rational. I'd about given up hope. That's not a slam, perhaps it was my fault for not being clear.

I was quoting the article but that's fine. It wasn't clear so I will accept responsibility.

Then accept it- not what you did below, I'll point it out.

I don't think your charactherization is appropriate for a number of reasons.

According to you in the immediately preceding sentence, it is. Make up your mind. Either you accept responsibility for it or you don't. If you do, it was at minimum a gross misstatement, and at worst an outright untruth.

According to members of Code Pink (a Democrat orginazation) the efforts of the Democrats to date do not indicate that they are working to end the war. It is Democrats who are acusing congress of breaking their promises and that is what I wanted to talk about. The feelings of these Democrats.

No, you're not discussing the feelings of Democrats, you're discussing the feelings of Code Pink. If you want to discuss the feelings of Democrats, you've completely left out one at minimum- me. And there are plenty more like me as you'd quickly find out by posting this POS on a Democratic political discussion forum, and you've left all them out too. What you're doing here is misrepresenting how Democrats feel and what they think. You aren't one yourself, and you are engaging in stereotyping- a practice that racists generally use, among other despicable people. It's a bad habit, and it makes you look bad. I'd recommend against it if you want to have a serious discussion, because after you do it, no one is going to take you seriously.

What did "I" say and what did "I" imply?

You chose the title of the thread, and you implied that all Democrats feel that way. Any other questions?

I'm passing on the sentiments of a number of Democrats. According to them promises were broken.

What number? 1%? 5%? 80%? You don't know, and you don't care. And that's wrong. It isn't good procedure, and it doesn't have anything to do with reality. If you want to bait Democrats, do it somewhere else- there are people here who don't like it and won't tolerate it and I am one of them. I'm tired of being baited, and I'm tired of listening to people spouting horsepucky and calling it truth. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Otherwise, stick to the facts, or prepare to be made to look like a complete idiot.

Sorry no. Not even close. Right or wrong there were expetactions of Democratic voters regarding the war. Many of these voters now feel that the Democrats have broken their promises. I only wanted to discuss this issue not attack Democrats or prove that Democrats have broken promises. I have not made an argument that they have.

1. How many, precisely, expected what, precisely?
2. How many, precisely, feel like that?
3. If you wanted to just discuss the issue, why did you pick that title?
4. If that title isn't part of what you had to say, why use it?

Look, I realize that you are actually looking for a serious conversation; and you'll get one from me if you just stop playing adolescent games. Admit you screwed up on the title, stop defending yourself, and ask your questions. I'll answer as best I'm able, for me only, and perhaps some others here who share some of my opinions will too. If that's really what you want, that's what you'll do. We now will find out if you're serious or not.

To the extent that my thread title was misleading I appologize. To the extent that I have given the impression that all Democrats have broken promises or are not working to end the war I appologize.

I have only one interest, to discuss the sentiments of those who feel that the Democrats have broken their promises to end the war. To discuss the sentiments of those who feel that the Democrats lack the backbone to stand up to the president and tell him "NO, we will not fund this war. End it. End it now."

The issue is a current event and it is political. The sentiments are real.

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about. Very well, apology accepted. You really want to know?

It's my opinion that unless you take a hard stance to start out with, you'll get ground down to nothing before you're done. That's not always true, but the way that the pResident has been "negotiating" for the last six years, I think it's unquestionable. The Iranians have taken him at his word, and are doing everything they can to get a nuclear weapon to wave around; the Koreans have already done it, and there they are at the negotiating table. I think this is a dumb way to operate, but that's not really to the point. The point is, if you don't come with a "nuclear option," you're not even going to get these peoples' attention. Not Republicans; the current administration. The Democrats had the Republican Congresscritters's and Senators' attention immediately after the November election; it's taken until now to get the pResident's, and he's STILL posturing. Imagine if they'd gone in going, "well, we're going to write some laws to advise the pResident to back off in Iraq, but they won't be binding or anything." You kidding? He'd sweep you under the carpet. With this guy, you go in going, "Look, we want out of there next month and we're going to impeach you if you don't." Nuclear option, see? If they'd done that, there'd have been enormous whining from the Republicans, but the bill would already be signed. But they'd be paying for it come election time next year. So overall, I'd say this was pretty much the measured response I expected, and elected the ones I voted for to get.

Secondly, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There's all kinds of very anti-war people among the Democrats. Many of them hold it as some sort of moral position, and you know how I feel about morals; they're what children who aren't capable of understanding ethics use until they learn what the real world is like. Now, these people continue to pressure the Democrats in Congress to push hard, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. It's a hard fight, and a dangerous one from a political standpoint, and they need to understand that there are quite a few people who feel that way. But they also need to understand that that's not the majority. The majority want something done to stop the bleeding, not just walk away and let the Iraqis do the bleeding for our failed foreign policy. But to get there, hard pressure has to be applied to the pResident, because this idiot doesn't understand things until you hold a knife to his throat. So to my mind, right or wrong, and I think mostly wrong, these Democrats play an important part in this process.

War is bad, there's no question about that. But it isn't unthinkable. It's not the first choice, and if you go in, you're responsible for what happens after unless you lose. That's the reason it's not the first choice. But the fact of the matter is, we're there, and if we walk away and let someone win by atrocity, that's a failure on our part. It has to be obvious to anyone that we can't accomplish what we've set out to do with an army. We need diplomats, and we need to talk not just to our friends. The major failure of the administration over the last two years has been not getting that diplomatic effort underway. Of course, they screwed up in the first place going in there, but at this late date, that's not the point. The point is, if you want to win, you have to get the diplomats in there, and they have to be patient, and they have to be negotiators, and they have to bring something important to all the parties present to the table. Until that happens, there won't be any peace. But without the army, the diplomats have nothing to talk about. Unfortunately, until the diplomats have done their job, we're going to have to have feet on the ground over there. I don't like that; but it is what the people who serve in my military signed up for. What they didn't sign up for is to be doing that, but not have any diplomatic effort going on. That's a travesty, a sin, and a shame, and they're dying for nothing until the administration gets their ◊◊◊◊ together and starts negotiating.

So my perception of these elements within my party is that they're highly unrealistic, but necessary to provide the Democrats in the two houses of Congress the reason they need, without a "nuclear option," to pursue getting this administration to do the right thing. It's presented often enough as an "either-or" set of options, and I think that's not just simplistic but stupid. There are any number of other options, but they all involve negotiating with people the administration doesn't want to have to talk to. This is, in my opinion, cowardice. Which is another mark to add to the corruption, malfeasance, and incompetence I have been watching for the last six years.

Now let's see if anyone else here has anything to say; perhaps there are people here who are on the same side of the great divide as I am who think I'm an a$$h0le for saying it. So be it; they deserve to have their say, too.

 

[Schneibster]

One last point- my position is essentially unchanged since about 2005. I've said more aggressive things when I perceived that nothing at all was being done. Now that someone's doing something, I feel less need to be so aggressive. But if nobody do nothing on the diplomatic front, look for me to become considerably more rabid. US soldiers are giving their lives over there. We need to make that worth something- it's not now. Their sacrifice needs to make things better for all of us, not just the elite few.

 

[RandFan]

No, you're not discussing the feelings of Democrats, you're discussing the feelings of Code Pink.

I'm discussing the feelings of Democrats. Period. Ive not excluded anyone and I welcome the thoughts and feelings of those who disagree with the Democrats posted.

I appreciate the tone of much of your post and I sincerely appreciate the response to the substance of the thread. Thank you.

What you're doing here is misrepresenting how Democrats feel and what they think. You aren't one yourself, and you are engaging in stereotyping- a practice that racists generally use, among other despicable people. It's a bad habit, and it makes you look bad. I'd recommend against it if you want to have a serious discussion, because after you do it, no one is going to take you seriously.

I'm currently endorsing and campaigning for Obama and have started a number of threads in favor of him. One was not so favorable but it wasn't an attack either.

I recently started a thread where I confessed to having been materially wrong about Bush and was inconsistent in my analysis of him and Mike Nifong. I have, in the past, started quite a number of threads critical of Bush and other Republicans.

That said, I stand by all of my last post. If you disagree that's fine. If you think me dishonest that is fine. I think my seriousness speaks for itself.

Now, these people continue to pressure the Democrats in Congress to push hard, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. It's a hard fight, and a dangerous one from a political standpoint, and they need to understand that there are quite a few people who feel that way. But they also need to understand that that's not the majority. The majority want something done to stop the bleeding, not just walk away and let the Iraqis do the bleeding for our failed foreign policy.

This was the motivation for my last sentence in the OP and the motivation for my starting the thread. I think the expectations were unreasonable. I don't think we can simply pick up and walk away. I DON'T think that the Democrats should be demonized for not simply demanding an end to the war.

That said, and agreeing with you, I think that we need to face the fact that two parties can never represent all of their constituents. Not even close. The nature of politics is to make stated policy and rhetoric akin to a 10 speed bicycle and change gears to suit the occasion.

The question becomes how do you respond to claims of deception? Politically it is fair for the opposition to exploit these perceptions.

Bush (I know you hate the guy and that's fine but let's have a discussion) played to moderates and did not follow through with his rhetoric. Clinton played to liberals and worked with a Republican congress to scale back welfare and pass other more conservative measures. I applaud him on that.

 

[strathmeyer]

One last point- my position is essentially unchanged since about 2005. I've said more aggressive things when I perceived that nothing at all was being done. Now that someone's doing something, I feel less need to be so aggressive. But if nobody do nothing on the diplomatic front, look for me to become considerably more rabid. US soldiers are giving their lives over there. We need to make that worth something- it's not now. Their sacrifice needs to make things better for all of us, not just the elite few.

Who is doing what? Where were you when all the Democrats where talking about weapons of mass destruction?

 

[Schneibster]

Who is doing what? Where were you when all the Democrats where talking about weapons of mass destruction?

Did you have some point, or were you arguing to be arguing?

 

[Schneibster]

I'm discussing the feelings of Democrats. Period. Ive not excluded anyone and I welcome the thoughts and feelings of those who disagree with the Democrats posted.

I appreciate the tone of much of your post and I sincerely appreciate the response to the substance of the thread. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I'm currently endorsing and campaigning for Obama and have started a number of threads in favor of him. One was not so favorable but it wasn't an attack either.

Obama is interesting. I'll be watching carefully on Thursday. I still favor John Edwards, but not so strongly that I won't be watching the whole thing carefully. Obama's books impressed me. My major concern is that he's not ready. I ain't exactly Hilary's biggest fan.

I recently started a thread where I confessed to having been materially wrong about Bush and was inconsistent in my analysis of him and Mike Nifong. I have, in the past, started quite a number of threads critical of Bush and other Republicans.

I have no comment. You seem overly concerned with matters that I think are secondary and are more critical of popular sentiment than I find entirely credible. Quite frankly, I don't think you've figured it all out yet.

The Republicans tried to make hay out of "class warfare." I note they've dropped it since 2002; you never heard that in 2006. They're in real trouble, they can't take an election by crook anymore in Ohio or Florida, and they're increasingly seen as the "party of the screwups." Watching all those Republicans on the Judiciary Committee try to figure out how to get out of the blowback on the Gonzo hearings was real interesting. As Paul Atreides observes in Dune, it's one thing to hear about drowned fishermen being found with boot marks on their shoulders; it's entirely another to see it at the dinner table. Or in a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Meanwhile, Gonzo says stuff like, "I don't recall remembering" (yes, that's an actual quote) and Shrub sits there and goes, "He told as much of the truth as he could." Then he says Gonzo has "increased my confidence." After saying "I don't remember" 71 times. I mean, come ON. As much of the truth as he could WITHOUT WHAT? Increased your confidence IN WHAT? It just BEGS the questions.

And redistricting comes up again in 2010. That makes the next election pretty important, as well as the mid-term after it. If they lose those, they won't be able to gerrymander any more districts; of course, now that they've opened the box, the Democrats will be all over it like stink on s&&t. Too bad. This is the world's smallest violin playing, "My Heart Bleeds for You."

That said, I stand by all of my last post. If you disagree that's fine. If you think me dishonest that is fine. I think my seriousness speaks for itself.

It does at the end; but you still have some problems early on. Luckily, they're not fatal; we can ignore them and move on, and in the presence of your apology, I intend to do precisely that.

This was the motivation for my last sentence in the OP and the motivation for my starting the thread. I think the expectations were unreasonable. I don't think we can simply pick up and walk away. I DON'T think that the Democrats should be demonized for not simply demanding an end to the war.

On these points we agree.

That said, and agreeing with you, I think that we need to face the fact that two parties can never represent all of their constituents. Not even close. The nature of politics is to make stated policy and rhetoric akin to a 10 speed bicycle and change gears to suit the occasion.

Politics, to me, is the art of "good enough." Maybe one of these days the Republicans will emerge from the wilderness where they've been bending over for the corp-rats and actually start representing the real concerns of the people; i.e., not "will Betty down the street get away with giving that guy a blowjob/getting an abortion/treating her father's Alzheimers with stem cells" but "will I have money to feed my kids next year, will there be a school for them to go to where people won't shoot at them, will I be able to by the house I want?" If they do, I'll vote for them. But I'm not holding my breath.

The question becomes how do you respond to claims of deception? Politically it is fair for the opposition to exploit these perceptions.

I suspect you meant the last sentence as a question. My answer is, "yes, if they can make it stick." I suspect the answer to that implicit question is, "no, they can't make it stick." The Republicans sure don't seem to think so; Shrub is out there playing Turd Blossom's game, and it don't look to me like anyone's buying. Like I said elsewhere, they tried twice and screwed it up twice. Gates flubbed the rotation extensions, and Turd Blossom keeps trying to spin it the other way, but it's looking more and more like "the surge" is going to get dubbed "the fizzle." Turd Blossom so far forgot himself as to get into a drunken brawl with a coupla cuties at the Correspondents' Dinner. He's coming apart, man. He can see the axe coming down, and there's nowhere to hide. He's out with this pResident, and he knows it. After Plame, and Gonzo, and Abramoff, and everything else, he's DONE. Stick a fork in him.

Bush (I know you hate the guy and that's fine but let's have a discussion) played to moderates and did not follow through with his rhetoric. Clinton played to liberals and worked with a Republican congress to scale back welfare and pass other more conservative measures. I applaud him on that.

Frat-boi screwed my country, and he thinks it's funny. 'Nuff said.

 

[Schneibster]

Oh, and to top it all off, numbnutz got caught on tape spitting on the White House Lawn.

It ain't yer f**kin house, frat-boi. It's MY house, and MY lawn, and you DON'T spit on it.