digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Democrats unable to bring troops home

news.yahoo.com — Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • fredjoe, on 11/17/2007, -15/+66Yeah, its seems as thought they don't want to... hmm
    • BlueSkyfish, on 11/17/2007, -11/+28Every time they try to do something, they get vetoed.
      • p0s3r, on 11/17/2007, -10/+11The Dems are 0 for 40. Its as if they're not really trying, just putting up a bunch of stuff to appease the far left, knowing all the while it'll never pass.
        • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -4/+15That's a convenient excuse. Two things: 1) Democrats have tried 40 times before to get our troops out of Iraq. All have been vetoed. 2) Bush vetoed them.

          Face it, you can't blame the Democrats anymore, you can only blame the Republicans and Bush. And if you think it has anything to do with the Democrats, ask yourself which party is CAMPAIGNING on STAYING IN IRAQ? Who is it that says they will be in Iraq for DECADES? Republicans.
          • bugsy187, on 11/17/2007, -4/+3So, Bush is responsible, but some republicans are trying to blame democrats. Aren't the republicans the party that beats people over the head with "personal responsibility"? That's interesting.
          • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7"Aren't the republicans the party that beats people over the head with "personal responsibility"?"

            Yes, but only until they are personally responsible.
        • p0s3r, on 11/17/2007, -0/+7Bush has issued 40 vetoes?
        • Birdoftruth, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3last time I check only 5 vetoes have been issued.
      • hiphoc, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7*****, congress has more power than the pres. But congress continues to cede its powers to the Decider. Gravel helped to stop the Vietnam war, why is he laughed at in democratic circles. Even Ron Paul said that the military has enough money to bring the troops home, they always do. So all we have to do is stop funding. That's what ended the Vietnam war, funding was stopped. Human beings are dying by the boatloads. The Dems can shut down the government till the troops come home. Sorry, but stopping the killing is more important that making sure some beurocrat gets his check this friday. Read the constitution, the congress has more power than the executive. The executive is supposed "EXECUTE" the laws passed by congress.

        Question, whats the best way to fix a fight? You pay some guy to take a dive. The dems are playing the part of a palooka. They are pretending to fight and them taking a dive after carrying us all on a "Struggle" for a few months. Read Machiavelli if you want to know how politics work.
    • Pake, on 11/17/2007, -13/+3As long as they get money in their pockets for keeping the troops there, why would they want to bring them home?
      • Pake, on 11/17/2007, -3/+2BTW, so no one gets confused on what I'm saying, I'm not saying to stop funding. Keep the funding, but add deadlines for withdraws. The moment you cut funding is the moment you screw over the troops who are just trying to do their job as safely as possible.
        • notmark, on 11/17/2007, -0/+6They've done that twice. Got vetoed both times.
        • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4Notmark's right, so you have to ask yourself...since the Democrats are doing exactly what you think they should be doing, now who are you going to blame?
        • Pake, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1I'm blaming politicians in general Zen. Many republicans are also voting for funds that include withdrawals, so I'm not going to side with Democrats or Republicans, knowing that both would give up the moment they are offered a paycheck to do so.
    • Grummond, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1LEt's look at it this way, do you honestly believe, that if the democrats were in power, the Iraq war would have been started (in the way that it was)?
      • senatorpjt, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1judging by how many of them voted for it, I'd say yes.
      • bratpack8, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1I don't know, but I do remember Clinton lobbing cruise missiles into aspirin factories and bombing the crap out of Bosnia. Is there really a difference, murder is murder, and neither is our business.
  • leftykiller, on 11/17/2007, -52/+21Maybe they should take their own advice and change course on their failed strategy. Maybe actually support the work of our brave men and women for a change.
    • mikelieman, on 11/17/2007, -10/+29Wanting the troops to come home safely, to their families NOW *IS* supporting the troops.

      No spending bill has advanced to Bush's desk, so when the money runs out, what's Bush going to do? Just abandon the troops in Iraq to die?

      Seems to me, that by doing absolutely nothing, they can force Bush to withdraw. THEY are the ones who just offered up 50 Billion dollars, which the Republicans killed.

      Why do the Republicans hate the troops so much is the question now? Will Bush *really* abandon them to die in Iraq when he runs out of money?
      • leftykiller, on 11/17/2007, -8/+1You don't want the troops to come home safely. You want them to come home disgraced and demoralized. You want them to have as many physical and mental ailments so you can turn them into victims and have them become dependent on the handouts of the socialist politicians you worship.
        • mrfunktastic, on 11/17/2007, -1/+9Wrong. *WE* didn't send them over there to begin with. Bush did. All the disgrace, demoralization, mental illness, aftershock and whatnot can be put squarely on his shoulders. *WE* want them back. Bush doesn't give a ***** about them.
        • leftykiller, on 11/17/2007, -2/+3Really? Democrats didn't vote for the war? Are you sure about that?
        • mrfunktastic, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3Touché. The idea that there are actually Republicans which all stand for one thing and Democrats which stand for another is a red herring, a McGuffin which distracts us all from the real issue. The war is a sham and is only supported by those making money off it, and those poor souls uneducated enough to not know a difference. The troops, regular people like you and I, aren't getting anything but post combat trauma from this debacle. There is a huge difference between supporting the poor souls sent out to be blown up, and rah-rahing the crime ring that prolongs this deadly farce. I'm not a D. I'm a WTF is going on.

          By *WE* I meant most sane humans, who may identify red or blue, but who can see clearly, which I suspect is the majority of people, although the media won't tell that story.
        • amn3, on 11/17/2007, -6/+1Lefty,
          The liberals are just frustrated in that they are unable to schedule the printing of their "baby killer" signs and practice their spitting aim for parades of US soldiers returning home from battle disgraced. They really want that withdrawl (I'm sorry, "redeployment") date set to get the masses organized in time.
          The left has always made the claim that Iraq was another Vietnam and after years of effort are now starting to show progress; they are cutting funding for the war, they are trying to have Congress run the war in lieu of the Generals, Admirals, and Commandants, and they are waging a domestic war against the armed forces via the press and media. We've seen this all before and sadly, are seeing it all again -and it smacks of Vietnam (at least on the home front).
          I love the argument that liberals are supporting the troops by abandoning them financially -it's flawed logic is so plainly over-the-top that you really have to drink the kool-aid to believe in it. If they *really* support the troops, fund their mission and enable *them* to win quicker and get home than the alternative drawn out measures that they are now faced with in managing budgets while fighting the enemy, "No really, we're helping you guys!".
          Punish Bush politically if you wish, but don't use the Armed Forces for leverage to do so.
          In the near future you can expect criticism of missing body armor, depleted equipment, and declining morale as further criticism of Bush -all the while they turn off the tap back home. Mrfunktastic can say all he wants that Bush doesn't care about the soldiers (funny that they don't think so), but one thing is for sure, he and his kind care about them only as a tool to jeer at Republicans and Bush.
          • amn3, on 11/17/2007, -1/+0 -it's flawed logic -> the flawed logic
          • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3Wow. Does anyone still believe the "spitting on the troops" *****?

            I guess the nuts who still believe that "supporting the troops" means committing war crimes....
          • amn3, on 11/18/2007, -1/+0Read it yourself...
            You'll need user/password to read the article. I suggest Bugmenot.com.

            In Washington, counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.
            There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.
            Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
            Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.
            “These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Sparling said.

        • amn3, on 11/18/2007, -3/+0Link wouldn't paste. Google Joshua Sparling for the link.
      • APoverME, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1Supporting the troops does not mean forcing the hand of the president into bringing them back home with their mission still not completed. What you're saying is that you support the American military, the greatest force for good that the world has ever seen, coming home defeated and with unfinished work. You're saying that you support another country in the Middle East controlled by radical Islam and possibly a destabilization of the entire region as well as the global economy. Furthermore, you see the military as being in need of protection. Yes, they have a very dangerous job over there but guess what? A large majority of the military has either: 1) enlisted during Operation Iraqi Freedom, or 2) RE-enlisted during OIF. Being that the military is a entirely volunteer force very few soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are left in the military who did not know that they were going to war. Stop saying that you support the troops when you really mean you support failure.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -1/+4"the greatest force for good that the world has ever seen"

          Is it the millions of dead civilians across Asia from Vietnam to Iraq that makes that ring hollow? Or the trillions of wasted tax dollars.... I can't tell.
        • senatorpjt, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2It's not the greatest force for good, or the greatest force for evil. It's the greatest force, and they take someone else's orders. The war has been over since the "Mission Accomplished" banner went up, and now it's just an occupation force, which is not what our military was or is suited for.
    • addman0, on 11/17/2007, -11/+6oh yes that was a great idea to cut funding to buy armor, food , supplies for the troops ya that was a great idea, what they should of done in just increases everything # of troop, money everything.
      what better to slowly be force out by lack of Support -(define:To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.) or going in there with all and more of the supplies and troops need fixing the problem them come home. everyone happy the war end sooner the conflate has been taken care of and we all can get on with out life.
      • knomevol, on 11/17/2007, -4/+8they could have purchased all those things and more with the money they paid blackwater and other merc groups
      • cecinestpasvrai, on 11/17/2007, -5/+5Addman-http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Book-Grammar-Punctuatio ...
      • Pritchard, on 11/17/2007, -2/+3You have to cut spending. If you can't provide for the troops, you can't keep troops there. If you can't buy more weapons, you don't get more weapons. If you don't pay for an occupation, you have to come home.
        • amn3, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0Cutting the funding will only result in more american servicemen casualties, but I suppose soldiers coming home in body bags does serve your mission to bring the soldiers home faster.
          The military will find a way to stay in-theater as long as they possibly can by closing bases here in the US (read: layoff contractors and stifle the local economies) and canceling other projects like training and construction -which will only serve to cause more training accidents from equipment in need of repair and also ruin the preparedness of our armed forces for the next conflict. Expect more Walter Reed and veterans losing their aid stories to follow as funding dries up for them too -but remember who had their thumb on the tap while you lob your jeers at Bush and the Pentagon.
          If you think that wrecking the budget will force a retreat, then I'll bet you'll be sorely mistaken -and what cost at home will this political gamble inflict on the those back home?
          It's really a shame that the military will have to shift strategy now to defend against both foreign and domestic contrary interests whenever fight to defend freedom for us or anyone else.
          • amn3, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0* whenever they fight to defend freedom...
    • bowens44, on 11/17/2007, -5/+11Support an illegal and immoral war against a people that did us no harm and presented no threat? I think not , that would make the Democrats as morally bankrupt as the republicans.
      • leftykiller, on 11/17/2007, -7/+2What's morally bankrupt is giving the enemy a victory they couldn't obtain on the battlefield.
        • mrfunktastic, on 11/17/2007, -3/+3You're either a troll, a moron, or most likely, both. Welcome to my blocklist, tard.
        • leftykiller, on 11/17/2007, -5/+2Call me whatever you want. I won't run for the block button like a coward.
          • p0s3r, on 11/17/2007, -4/+3Why do people think we give 2 ***** if they block us? Just one less diggtard out there bothering you with their hate and ignorance.
    • abcdigg, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1let's all jump on board and repeat something popular!

      what makes them brave men & women exactly?

      feel free to answer with something you heard someone else say
  • doublehead, on 11/17/2007, -11/+32They're all owned by the military corporate war machine. There are too many military contracts in each state for any of the existing government officials to vote them away. Too many jobs at stake.
    • OreosRgood4me, on 11/17/2007, -2/+5The war is not some giant conspiracy to make money. They've tried to bring and end to it, even trying to compromise by creating a deadline, but Bush vetoes them every time, and they don't have a 2/3rds majority to overturn a veto.
      • mrfunktastic, on 11/17/2007, -0/+6No sane person can seriously think this is nothing other than a rape of the national treasury in the name of empire. Halliburton, Blackwater (and other favored corporations which Cheney is involved with) are profiting through the roof. Explain that, Oreo.
        • brad3378, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1It's true - I roughly tripled my old salary as an auto industry engineer by merely switching to the defense industry.
    • hiphoc, on 11/17/2007, -2/+8I am a republican and I voted all D last year just to see a change, maybe to break up the power mob in the District of Corruption. In someways its good that the dems are doing nothing. Now the American people have learned that there isn't a damn bit of difference between the parties. I like how Lou Dobbs put it as "Business and Political Elites." That's all folks, people who are making a killing off of killing and oppressing the US population and everyone else. If anyone needed a living example of what Benito Mussolini men when he said Fascism is really Corporatism, the perfect marriage between the state and the corporation, just look around you. The Congress votes in horrible laws to ***** up the economy, then hey vote themselves a "cost of living raise". Meanwhile most Americans havent gotten a cost of living raise in 10 years. Diane Feinstein's and her husband are making a killing of this war and their business connects in the Chinese government. We got ex-CIA and ex-military people getting huge contracts left and right. This war is about transfer of wealth through inflation. Spend trillions, rob our bank accounts through inflation and give outrageous contracts to friends of the Bush crime Family plain and simple. We are going into a feudal state because of this war. Many people wont have the money to pay for their land taxes. Look at the 1920 boom bust cycle and how Fed Chairman Bernnke admitted was caused by the Federal Reserve and actually apologized for this last year..

      To put it plain and simple is that the troops will not be brought home because the politicians have not finished consolidating our wealth into their hands. War is the biggest profit making business in history. As the economy continues to collapse we will continue to borrow money from China. And most of our troops will be overseas when all hell breaks loose here and the police will be raping and tazering us all in the streets. Call me and optimist, but that is the least that will happen. Notice how Bush used to say "the troops will come home when the job is done." What job douche bag? Right, when the economy has been destroyed. Order out of Chaos, as Kissinger said in the United Nations. Food will be used as a weapon. When I hear about the homeless veterans, the mental issues, the sub par care when they return home, the body Armour issue, billing the troops for destroyed equipment, the Tillman cover-up, the first time every multiple tours I really get angry. I am seriously about to blow a stack the next time some jackass says support the troops. Yea, support them by bringing them home to their families, by giving them good care, helping them transition into civilian life. I really wanna start punching these neocon 31% support Bush idiots, anyone else wanna join me?
      • mrfunktastic, on 11/17/2007, -1/+5I'm with you hiphoc. I'm not a republican but I salute you for seeing clearly. Dugg.
  • MacDaddyMac530, on 11/17/2007, -2/+17There's no end...
  • cashman57, on 11/17/2007, -15/+22I knew when the Democrats campaigned on bringing home the troops they were lying.I knew they would continue to fund the use of force.
    I knew when they said they would change Congress they were lying. We see the same things happening under the Democrat rule. They have yet to submit a budget. They have yet to submit a tax bill. They have meaningless resolutions and total blather on the floor of the House but can't seem to get the job done they were hired to do.
    In this next election they will be fired if Americans are paying attention.
    If we want to change Congress we need to vote out the incumbents.
    • TheRemoteViewer, on 11/17/2007, -2/+13We had a Republican congress for years and we saw how that turned out. They're certainly not going to bring the troops home or stand up to Bush. Short of a mass movement to elect a third party there is no solution and the democrats are unfortunately our best hope.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -2/+11You're clueless. Did you call George W. Bush to ask for your talking points or did he send them in the mail?
      "I knew when the Democrats campaigned on bringing home the troops they were lying."
      40 votes, 40 vetoes by Bush, 40 times supported by the Republicans. THE REPUBLICANS.
      "We see the same things happening under the Democrat rule."
      Yeah, all of those sex and money scand...oh, guess not.
      "They have yet to submit a tax bill."
      You mean the tax bills that Bush has VETOED? Read between the lines. When Bush says, "Congress has failed to send me a bill -- that will not be vetoed" it means they're sending him bills that he is VETOING.
      "They have meaningless resolutions and total blather on the floor of the House but can't seem to get the job done they were hired to do."
      When the Republicans vote along party lines against their own interests and those of their constituents and Bush vetoes any bill that he disagrees with, you won't get anything done. Especially if you only have 50% control of the Senate.
      "If we want to change Congress we need to vote out the incumbents."
      The House is doing its damn job, it's the Senate where we see the problems. Is it a coincidence that the Senate is the camera where the Republicans are holding their last bit of power?
    • Soliden, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1It was obvious that the Dems just wanted the votes from day one. They can talk all they want about healthcare and bringing the troops home from Iraq, but in the end it all boils down to the actions done.
      • shupy, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1In the end it boils down to a 2/3 majority needed to over ride a Bush veto. a two person majority can't do that. Bush will never approve a health care bill and he will never approve anything that even hints at pulling out of Oraq.
    • DangerCollie, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1If your only options are keep giving Bush more money, or strand our troops in a combat zone with no budget, how do you vote? Because those are the only two options the Democrats have. Bush knows he can hold our troops hostage in Iraq indefinitely as long as enough Republicans stay with him to hold up the vetoes.

      I don't think I could let the money run out on the Army if I'm in Congress. Of course, I would have played it differently from the beginning. My perception is the people calling for bipartisan cooperation and working together are right wingers. The rest of us want to see the people in Congress, in the White House and people supporting this corrupt administration get their ass kicked. The Republicans brought the government to a complete halt to get their agenda through. That took balls. The kind of balls the Democrats lack.

      Americans hate pussies. They'd rather you have a consistent position they disagree with than one they can't understand.
      • shupy, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Yes, and the American people dumped the Republicans from office that brought the government to a complete halt. Newt, the moron that manipulated that little stunt ended up resigning, and will never hold elected office again, and he knows it. Balls? That type of stunt is not ballsy, it is stupid and childish. Right up there with threatening to kill a puppy if they don't get their way.
        Only someone with the reasoning of an adolescent sees that kind of childishness as being a virtue. Thinking and reasoning adults see it as wasteful and stupid. The whole Newt era of "no compromise" is bad for us all. You can't live life that way and it is sure as hell no way to run a country.
        We all need our politicians to start working together. Extreme partisanship never works, it only makes it impossible to get anything done.
  • HollowMarkeD, on 11/17/2007, -15/+55Democrat/Republican - two sides of the same coin.
    • shadus, on 11/17/2007, -5/+19Unfortunately true, I remember when the democrats were liberals and the republicans were conservative, now both parties are just sell outs to different interest groups... no difference other than who you're letting screw you. I say keep voting the incumbents out until we get some non-idiots elected, screw republican screw democrat, how about "politicians for the people" instead of "politicians for lining their own pockets"
      • OreosRgood4me, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2They aren't selling out to line their pockets, interest groups have so much influence because they have the money for campaign funds, the connections for future votes, and the determination to get things done. That's why we're a pluralist democracy rather than a majoritarian one, so that interest groups have more power and a single majority faction is not kept in power so that they can oppress the minority. If something needs to be done, it should probably be to publicly finance campaigns.
    • abcdigg, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8Doesn't hold true for Dennis Kucinich & Ron Paul .. there's good & bad on both sides
      (more bad on the republican side, of course)
      • mrfunktastic, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2DUGG. So we need to start a serious conversation. In 2000 I voted my conscience, for Nader, and while I believe in voting my conscience, I utterly regret having thrown away an anti-Bush vote. When it comes down to the finals, how are we all going to make sure we pick the right horse?
    • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2The majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the illegal invasion. The majority of Congressional Republicans voted for the illegal invasion. That's a big difference.
    • Asianwaste, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Wow, that's the smartest thing I've heard all year.
  • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -8/+13OK, all the troops are home from Iraq, maybe even the globe. What's the next move ?
    • MioTheGreat, on 11/17/2007, -2/+21Well, that saves a ***** of money. So we can start working on our economy....
    • bowens44, on 11/17/2007, -4/+18Start spending as much to help people as we did to kill people to actually improve the world instead.
    • cjays1, on 11/17/2007, -2/+4Defend the borders, ports, airspace and Constitution of........get this......drum role please.........The United States of America.
    • senatorpjt, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1The Democrats should use this against the Republicans after the primaries. If we're out of iraq, they can CUT TAXES!
      • MioTheGreat, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Their record on the subject would not allow them to do that. They'd just use the money for some failing social program, or shill it out to corporations instead of actually eliminating the source of the wasted money: taxes.
      • shupy, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Well we've been spent into a deficit. Once we're out of Iraq, then we have to start paying it all off.
        How about securing our borders for starters. How about rebuilding New Orleans, and how about paying attention to the infrastructure that is crumbling?
        We could start tackling both health care and the education system. Fix the Social Security mess and spend a few bucks rebuilding our devastated military. But securing our borders and fixing the immigration mess should come first.
  • readthis, on 11/17/2007, -4/+21It is time we citizens send a clear message--any Congressman who doesn't use all his efforts to immediately bring the troops home will suffer disgrace and unemployment. Congress has full power to cut funding--funds we don't have anyway.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -1/+5Congress as a whole has full power to cut funding, but the Democrats only have 50% control of the Senate. Do you see the paradox here? Democrats were voting for funding bills and they got bashed for sending funding bills. Democrats have tried to send 40 bills through congress to pull the troops out and got vetoed 40 times. They're getting beat up for giving money to the war and getting beat up for trying to end the war! So they finally decide to sit on their money and now they're getting beat up for not funding the troops AND for not immediately pulling the troops out.
      The same people digging up for pointing out that the Democrats are useless and corrupt are bashing them for not being useless and corrupt. If they're not getting bashed for selling out to the Republicans, they're getting bashed for fighting the Republicans, and its' from the same diggers!
      Oi.
  • notque, on 11/17/2007, -10/+65They aren't unable, they are unwilling. Big difference.
    • BlackBob, on 11/17/2007, -2/+10My thoughts exactly.
    • pailsOfGrease, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7They're practically a coalition of the unwilling.
    • shupy, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/political_opinion/BREAKING_Democra ...
      See the above link. Democrats are withholding funding, so, now people can whine that they are responsible for defense department layoffs.
      The next thing will be holding them responsible for leaving American soldiers "in harms way". What do you want people, you can't have it both ways. The Republicans will not blink and will sacrifice American lives just to have something to blame on the Democrats.
  • chase001, on 11/17/2007, -7/+36And they can't deauthorize a "war" that was never authorized in the first place.
    • mikelieman, on 11/17/2007, -2/+7Agreed. That's what the United States Attorneys are for.

    • Mothrog, on 11/17/2007, -3/+4Congress authorized the war when they passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Are you a troofer too?
      • NormalVisual, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1That's not a declaration of war - that's Congress illegally delegating the power to do to the executive because they didn't have the balls to take action one way or the other themselves.
        • Mothrog, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1Step away from the keyboard until you can write a coherent sentence.
      • chase001, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1Truth bad! Moooooo!
  • leontes, on 11/17/2007, -8/+20We don't have enough of them in office. Basically, they are just shy of having what it takes to change policy. The Republicans have enough people to sustain a veto and have enough Liebermans to prevent some legislation going through. Informed people know that the Democrats can't change major policy, they can make things difficult for nominees, send legislation to the presidents desk and investigate improprieties. They have failed on some of these tasks, and haven't scored enough wins against the administration, but they haven't yet been in a position to end this "war". They could have stopped funding, but that is fraught with political danger. I personally would be totally in support of such actions, but I know it would be pretty hard for the party to frame successfully without losing support.
    • Pake, on 11/17/2007, -5/+5We don't have enough of them in office? It's not like they're all against the war and having 100 more is magically going to start pulling the troops out slowly while keeping the ones waiting to be pulled out safe. The republicans aren't preventing anything when the democrats are voting with them.
      • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -2/+2Let's put it this way. Out of 50 Democratic senators, 0 are for the war in Iraq. 2 are tied to the Military Industrial Complex (Feinstein and Clinton). Now compare this to Republicans and you find it is almost the reverse! This is why you have to throw out entrenched interests, starting with the majority of Republicans. Now, not all Republicans are corrupt, nor are they all invested in the war, but if you throw out enough of the corrupt ***** that a lot of Republican diggers voted for then you would see the Republicans stop being a bunch of pussies and start standing up for what they believe in.
        • Pake, on 11/17/2007, -2/+3Maybe you should look up that stats and quotes for the senators who voted for the war instead of just looking up what they say now. Don't forget their past mistakes when they're just saying whatever will get them in the office after each term. All you want to do is blame Republicans and praise Democrats, but Democrats supported this war when it first started and were the leaders in wanting a war during Clinton's time in office. Why do you think we bombed the ***** out of Baghdad in 1998? Both sides wanted this war and praising one or the other is doing an injustice to America.
  • IronFee, on 11/17/2007, -2/+0It's all a sad, sad game that has no ending.... or a winner
  • realwx, on 11/17/2007, -19/+37NEWSFLASH idiots: Democrats only have a majority by 1 or 2 seats. If they had 60 seats in the Senate then we'd have all our troops out by now. If you want to blame anybody, blame the ***** Republicans for holding the Democrats back. At least the Democrats are trying.
    • justinx0r, on 11/17/2007, -18/+8They have a majority and can defund the war. All it takes is a simple majority. You are an idiot.
      • p0s3r, on 11/17/2007, -12/+12Apparently, even when the Democrats fail, its still the Republicans and George Bush's fault.
        • Hermiod, on 11/17/2007, -0/+9It is when Bush continuously vetoes everything the Democrats try to do.
          • realwx, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4Exactly!!
          • amn3, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0But a veto can be overridden -if you have enough votes, thus the original premise.
        • senatorpjt, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Well, yeah, because if they hadn't started the war, there wouldn't be any war to fail at ending.
      • smoothmedia, on 11/17/2007, -4/+16But simply defunding the war doesn't provide the miitary with enough money to withdraw. The only sensible way to end the war is to pass a bill with money contingent on the withdrawal of troops. Sure it's disappointing that the Democrats haven't been able to force Bush to end the war, but it's Bush and the republicans who are to blame.

        In 2008, elect a Democrat (or Ron Paul) or we will be in Iraq until 2012.
        • realwx, on 11/17/2007, -0/+7Paul, Kucinich, or whomever can at least end this war.
          • kurttrail, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8The War in Iraq ended long ago, and we won. It is now time to end the occupation, and let the Iraqi's stand on their own.
        • Pake, on 11/17/2007, -4/+2I only dugg you up for this portion: "But simply defunding the war doesn't provide the miitary with enough money to withdraw. The only sensible way to end the war is to pass a bill with money contingent on the withdrawal of troops." The rest of what you said is ridiculous. Most of the democrats were wanting the war in the first place and helped start it. Putting in a democrat, Ron Paul, or anyone else isn't going to change anything until people start putting those in office based on merit and not on whether or not "D" or "R" proceeds their name on the ballot.
        • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -1/+4The reality is that Pake is a hardcore Republican making excuses for his party and their performance over the last few decades. Pake, answer me this: Who did you vote for and what are their CURRENT views on the Iraq War? Now, just for kicks, take a Republican Senator from the state next to yours and ask the same. Now take the closest Democratic Senator. Keep spiraling outward until you finally realize that the problem is the REPUBLICANS.
        • senatorpjt, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1So give them enough money for a withdrawal.
      • realwx, on 11/17/2007, -3/+13Dude... it's actually very simple. You need 60 VOTES to advance to block Bush's veto. Democrats have 51 VOTES.
        • mikelieman, on 11/17/2007, -4/+1So? You THEN still haven't providing any funds. Once the funds run out, is Bush *really* going to abandon the troops in Iraq to die?

          • senatorpjt, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Well, in any other case, I'd say no, but with Bush, who knows.
        • realwx, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5Well, then, tell me what they're supposed to do.
        • Gabberwok, on 11/17/2007, -0/+10Actually, you need even more. 60 votes gets past a filibuster, 67 votes gets past a veto.
        • tnoy, on 11/17/2007, -4/+4The funding comes from bills, for a bill to get to Bush it needs to pass with a simple majority, Bush cannot veto a bill that did not pass.

          Congress only needs a simple majority to defund the war. If congress refuses to pass a bill that asks for spending (simple majority here) then they are defunding the war. If they tack on a timeframe to every bill asking for funding eventually Bush will have sign it. If the Democrats have balls, they can get this war to end.
        • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -1/+2Congress is REFUSING to pass bills, so why are people still whining?
    • SiNN4R, on 11/17/2007, -9/+4They continue to fund the war.
      • realwx, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6The Senate recently voted to block the war money by Republicans who wanted to pass it without strings attached. Democrats don't want to fund it until there's a withdrawal attached to the bill. Republicans will find their brains when hell freezes over.
        • tnoy, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3No more money "this year."
          • realwx, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3No more bills to pay for the Iraq war this year. In 2008, Congress will probably bring up the "funding only with troop withdrawal" bills.
    • metapop, on 11/17/2007, -7/+6don't generalize... republican ron paul is the most outspoken member of congress on either side of the aisle to denounce the war.
      • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -2/+1*****. There are Democrats who voted against it every time.
        • metapop, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1as did ron paul... and considering he was voting against his party's grain, it was a much bolder move to do that as a republican than as a democrat.
      • cspivack, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1More outspoken than Kucinich or Jim Webb? Bitch, please.
      • senatorpjt, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1You're probably thinking of the losers in the Senate, where he doesn't work anyway.
    • roystgnr, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1To filibuster military spending bills, you don't need 60 seats in the Senate, you just need 40.

      The problem is that there are far more than 10 Democrats who wouldn't dare push that hard for withdrawal from Iraq, lest they be smeared as "not supporting the troops!" when the next election comes around.

      Also, because it seems to need repeating: any blame going to "the Republicans" or "the Democrats" is misdirected blame. Neither party votes in perfect lockstep, but as long as politicians think voters are only going to judge them based on a D or R next to their name, they have no incentive to ever put their principles ahead of their political party. I know that trying to judge the actions of 500+ congressmen is orders of magnitude more complicated than judging the aggregate actions of 2 parties, but details are important here.
  • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -12/+3Again, all the troops are home from Iraq, maybe even the globe. What's the next move ?
    • carpespasm, on 11/17/2007, -0/+14Reduce spending, start paying down the $9 trillion national debt, try to repair foreign relations since most of the rest of the world sees us as bullies, work on getting national dependence on oil down, make sure people don't have to stay with an employer just to make sure they won't lose their house and go bankrupt when they need to see a doctor; There's plenty to do right here.
    • kurttrail, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5Repair the damage to this once great nation that Bush has wrought.

      You know, secure the blessings of liberty. Stop the renditions, the torture, restore habeas . . .

      I think what you are really asking is "What about the terrorist boogeymen?" We stop fearing them, and treat them like the criminals that they are.
  • shadus, on 11/17/2007, -6/+9Because they're cowards and they're afraid of a change in status quo. The fix is simple, next election, oust all the incumbents... again. Repeat until they get a clue. There are a few good senators out there, largely the ones who voted against the patriot act in the first place, largely the ones who voted against the Bush's ***** repeatedly but they're few and far between.
  • whataboutdave, on 11/17/2007, -13/+10correction: *unwilling* to bring troops home
    • SiNN4R, on 11/17/2007, -6/+3I can't believe people are burying you.
  • MasterThief117, on 11/17/2007, -6/+6In other news, water is wet and ice is cold.
  • tynos, on 11/17/2007, -1/+13The way the dems force an end to the war is to simply stop the funding. Why haven't they stopped the funding?
    I don't know but let's put a couple possibilities on the table.
    - Their funding from the military industrial complex would dry up immediately. The big defence contractors and related companies make billions off this war.

    - They're afraid Bush will call their bluff on not funding the war and hold the U.S. troops hostage. By holding U.S. troops hostage I mean Bush will not bring the unfunded troops home. He will instead leave them there running out of fuel and ammo until they are basically defenceless and then blame the dems for it, at which point the dems will have to either risk blaming Bush back and hope the public takes their side or back down and fund the war.

    Either option is not good for the dems so don't expect an end to the war anytime soon.

    • Pake, on 11/17/2007, -1/+4That, and when you stop funding, the result is less support for the troops who are there and need the funding to survive. Removing funding only benefits the politicians and not the troops and the troops are the ones we should be protecting. There are better ways, like funding with certain deadlines that would go much further and be much smarter than just removing their funding altogether.
      • jstone, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3Except, when they try to send through a bill with deadlines, it gets vetoed until there aren't any deadlines. The only option left after that is to refuse to resubmit the bill, but that would probably result in a lot of problems for the troops that are over there.
      • tynos, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3You'll never get the deadlines. Bush and his military industrial complex buddies are there for the long haul. Why do you think they're building 15 enduring bases and an embassy the size of the vatican. Does it really take 15 enduring bases and a massive embassy to see whether WMDs are somewhere in the country?
      • senatorpjt, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1That's why I hope what they're planning to do is keep resubmitting the bill with deadlines, and keep getting it vetoed. It has the same effect as defunding the war, while making their position clear.
    • jstone, on 11/17/2007, -2/+5I think it's option #2. Bush would keep the troops in until the money runs out (possibly longer,) and the Republican Spin-Machine and Fox-News Propaganda would blame the Democrats; claiming that they just wanted to see the troops suffer. And the worst part is that there are people who would believe it.
      • tynos, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Yeah that is the worst part isn't it. There are people who would buy into the Fox propaganda. There are a lot of die hard Bush supporters out there. I've talked to them. They're all about Bush no matter what you say to them. Bush must be protected at all costs.Their minds are trapped in the two party left/right paradigm. To them, if they give ground on Bush it means a gain for the dems.
        You point out the fact that the borders and ports are wide open. They're still about Bush.
        You point out the massive government spending increases, budget deficits and the hemorrhaging national debt. They're still about Bush.
        You point out that Bush was asleep at the switch on 9/11. They're still about Bush.
        You point out that the deregulation under the Bush administration and the massive environmental and financial damage it's caused. They're still about Bush.
        You point out the huge increase in government and the ersoion of civil liberties under Bush and they're still about Bush. etc. etc. etc.
        It's all seen in the context of us vs. them. It's fanaticism.
        The irony is these same people were all over the Clintons and didn't stand for any of their lies and criminalities but sure enough when it's their man, they throw principle to the wind. It's called hypocrisy and they either don't see it or they're in denial.
  • skyscape, on 11/17/2007, -11/+6some people are too stupid to understand the fact that democrats are phonies not failures.
    • contractcentral, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2They're both, phonies AND failures. Support the troops!
  • rbk303, on 11/17/2007, -6/+7Most of them are still making money from the war. Why end it?
  • SiNN4R, on 11/17/2007, -2/+9Buried as inaccurate.
  • supyonamesjosh, on 11/17/2007, -4/+4Politicians are Politicians. They got elected on a bring troops home platform, if the troops come home they have nothing to run on
    • senatorpjt, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1How about "We got the troops home". If the war ends, troops are home, and Iraq doesn't turn into a total disaster, the Republicans will be sunk.
  • sticksc, on 11/17/2007, -1/+14Buried as inaccurate. Did you all even READ the second sentence? The very next one after the one that was posted?

    "Frustrated by Republican roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush's $196 billion request for war spending until next year — pushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the war."
  • eastypoo, on 11/17/2007, -4/+2no surprise here
  • Look4Truth, on 11/17/2007, -6/+3Well duh! At the top the dems and reps serve the same people so what's so surprising? The sooner people realize that the left and right is a false paradigm to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they divide and conquer, the better off we'll be.

    WAKE UP!
  • monkeyrun, on 11/17/2007, -2/+8Well what can you do when you have the president is holding the troops as hostage.
  • TrogdorSmash24, on 11/17/2007, -7/+5The democrat do not want the troops home they need the troops in Iraq for the invasion of Iran.
    • Grummond, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Read a newspaper...any...and turn off Fox News. Nao.
  • skews13, on 11/17/2007, -2/+1november '08.be there
  • NecroSexy, on 11/17/2007, -5/+4This can't be true: the Democrats are "results-oriented."
  • Deathrott, on 11/17/2007, -7/+3regardless of what most people think, our military has a job to finish over there and it is our government's responsibility to see to it that they finish.
    • APoverME, on 11/17/2007, -2/+1Thank you for stating what most people refuse to see. I guess for some bashing Bush is just too much fun to see the bigger picture.
      • Mardala, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Well what is the bigger picture since you have all the answers.
    • Mardala, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Regardless of what you think, we should not be occupying Iraq. Its illegal and immoral. Occupying Iraq for another 10 years WILL bankrupt the US. I hope you can at least see that much through your NeoCon eyes. Our military needs to get our of Iraq asap. This is not running in defeat, this is common sense. The so-called "War on Terror" so referenced by 9/11 from all right wing pundits is a farce. Get your facts in line. Saudi Arabia is the country that attacked us. Not Iraq.

      And just what exactly are we supposed to finish over there? Please give something besides the usual NeoCon talking points of democracy in Iraq. Thats not what they really want so why believe their lies?
  • TrogdorSmash24, on 11/17/2007, -3/+6Election '08

    Hitlery Or Giuliani America is screwed
    • tynos, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Don't give up. Campaign and vote for Ron Paul
      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
      • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Yet another Republican isn't going to change anything.
        • Tetraca, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1"Yet another politician isn't going to change anything"
          Corrected.
          • chicofaraby, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1"Yet another right wing politician isn't going to change anything"

            Corrected correction.
    • Asianwaste, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Gah, you know this whole forum went quite the long way without someone uttering that name.
  • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1America is currently a ME butt plug, pull the plug and the ***** will surely flow.
    • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1America is the problem in the Middle East.
      • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Some just don't get it, there is no King of the West. As such without America this rock is doomed until his coming !
        • chicofaraby, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2I have no idea what that comment means. Is it a LOTR reference?
      • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Dan 11:40 Russia / Turkey Kings of the North, Egypt King of the South, Rev 16:12 China Kings of the East.
        Unless you subscribe to Rev 13 as the US being part of the 10 nations, there is no King of the West.
        Meaning as previously stated, America may be a restrainer, Christ's rule from Jerusalem is the end game.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Oh. Sorry, but I'm not superstitious. I don't really care about your hocus pocus.
  • searob1, on 11/17/2007, -2/+6The people posting negative comments about Democrats are Republican shills who want to spin the situation against the Democrats so their pals can get back into Congress and continue the wars. They know the Democrats can't override Bush's veto, because the Republicans in Congress aren't supporting the Democrats in bringing the troops back home.
    • amn3, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0The people posting negative comments about Bush are Democratic shills who want to spin the situation against the War so that more of their pals can get back into Congress. They know the Democrats alone can't override Bush's veto, because the voting american public isn't supporting the Democrats in bringing the troops back home.

      More madlibs with real posters. What fun.
  • Kyderdog, on 11/17/2007, -3/+2Also Buried as inaccurate.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/17/2007, -5/+12It's amazing how easily people are blaming the Democrats for what is quite obviously the fault of Congressional Republicans and George W. Bush. George W. Bush said he will veto ANY bill with a timeline -- he has. Every Republican candidate except Ron Paul has said they need to stay in Iraq for at least 15 years. FIFTEEN YEARS! How can you be so blind to think the Democrats are to blame for this now? It's the Republicans, it always has been and now it's no one BUT the Republicans. Wake the hell up.
  • URnotheonly1, on 11/17/2007, -2/+7If the American public wanted to end the Iraq war they would have provided the democrats with a larger majority in congress, instead they didn't not trust the democrats a 100% so they limited their reactionary policies to a weak majority, knowing they would jump off the deep end at any given moment.

    The American electorate is brilliant
    • 01l0, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3lol
      in 2006, no Congressional or gubernatorial seat held by a Democrat was won by a Republican.
      in 2006 only 1/3rd of the Senate was up for re-election.
      reactionary policies indeed
  • majortom1981, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4Yay lets all make some reasons up and get into a political debate. The real reason is that the democrats dont have enough of a majority to do it.
  • s35wf, on 11/17/2007, -7/+5END the IRAQ WAR; END the DRUG WAR; END the TAX WAR!
    VOTE DR. RON PAUL 2008!
    • Grummond, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1End the neutrality of the internet?
  • pixelwerx, on 11/17/2007, -2/+10Dammit! Those lazy Democrats have had twelve months to undo seven years of bad domestic and foreign policy. What's taking them so long?

    /sarcasm
  • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -2/+2Come, argue not. Abandon war mongering Judeo-Christian intolerances, joyfully embrace global secular rainbows of darwinian love !
  • bushisterrorist, on 11/17/2007, -1/+3This is evil, a lie, propaganda, misinformation, and fraud.

    Just say no to propaganda!

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
    • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -2/+1The American Indian nailed us : HE WHO SPEAKS WITH FORK TONGUE"
  • Redemption289, on 11/17/2007, -0/+3How could this possibly be considered NEWS. I would think that this is fairly evident without a news report about it yes?
  • ralph12c41, on 11/17/2007, -5/+4There is no evidence in the exit polling from the 2006 election, that the American people indicated they wanted to cut and run in Iraq. George W. Bush is doing the will of the majority of the American people by fighting to win the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq. There was not nor is there now a mandate to pull the troops out. The far left needs to realize this and move on.
    • APoverME, on 11/17/2007, -2/+0Very well said Ralph.
      I'm not sure people realize how much harm our Democratic leaders are doing to the mission in Iraq. Do you think the Iraqi people will be willing to make risks for the future of their country (ie. business investments, enlisting in the military / police force, etc) if they believe America may pull out and leave them wide open for an invasion from Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia?
  • shunter99, on 11/17/2007, -1/+5Heard of Kucinich? $10 million one-day donation on Dec 15 - the day the Bill of Rights took effect in 1791.

    http://www.december152007.com
  • iChuckles, on 11/17/2007, -2/+11 - We (USA) don't value education enough so we raise kids who don't know the difference between "sell" and "sale".
    2 - We don't teach our children a core set of values and behaviors so they grow up apathetic and stupid (see #1)
    3 - Our embarrassing youth grow up to become inept and corrupt politicians and we & they vote them into power. (see #1 & #2)
    4 - Now there are no good candidates for the presidency. (see all of the above)
    5 - We get the government we deserve.

    And for Pete sake don't reply saying so&so is a good politician. It will just show how stupid you really are.
    • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1The misuse of such an obvious reality for meaningless political gain is historically and intellectually dishonest !
      • art42, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1You misuse of reality like this:
        "Speaking of the Arabs, Genesis 16:12 accurately profiled:
        He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
        http://digg.com/world_news/Saudi_Arabia_is_the_Mos ...
        • Pitofdoom, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1How is this a misuse ? unless Arabs Vs. Muslims ? Please advise
  • pailsOfGrease, on 11/17/2007, -2/+4I'M IN UR SENATE
    VOTN FUR IT
    AFTER I VOTD
    AGAINST IT
  • Bieling3, on 11/17/2007, -0/+2As I recall the Republicans shut the Government down on Clinton back in the 90's. Why doesn't this current crop of Democrats have that kind of backbone?
  • SillyDigger, on 11/17/2007, -1/+1Republican Party + Democratic Party = Orthrus
    Played + Suckers = Us
  • mattsw84, on 11/17/2007, -3/+1But but but but Republicans.
  • MadN, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4A NeoCon troll wrote:
    "There is no evidence in the exit polling from the 2006 election, that the American people indicated they wanted to cut and run in Iraq. George W. Bush is doing the will of the majority of the American people by fighting to win the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq. There was not nor is there now a mandate to pull the troops out. The far left needs to realize this and move on."

    1st) Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror", only the war to keep oil company profits sky high.
    2nd) Iraq had NO terrorists at all before GW decided to invade.
    3rd) Iraq invasion plans were draw up BEFORE 9-11, with the thought that the people would not stand for it unless some "catalyst event" happened. (9-11?)
    I guess you believe GW Bush and the RepubliCons have only lied "in the past" and will not lie any more.

    I do want Pelosi out of office for not allowing impeachment to proceed.
    • APoverME, on 11/17/2007, -2/+0Of course there were plans drawn up before 9-11, you dolt! We never completely left the country after the first Gulf War. Don't you think it would be wise to have a plan to carry out operations against a country we were still fighting?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.