Are Democrats weak for drafting Iraq funding resolution with NO TIMELINE???

Question

To me they are caving in to Bush's demands. Why they fear him I have no idea. Bush is the most unpopular man on the planet. They need to stick to their guns. If Bush will not accept a funding bill with a timeline to withdraw then he wont get money for his war..thats it..then let him decide. If he's stubborn then the war ends now due to lack of funding.

Its funny that Wolf says Dems hate the US when Bush has killed the most Americans, has destroyed the most American families..and could care less when American homes were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. .He also said he no longer cares about Osama Bin Laden the murdurer of 3000 Americans..but inspite of all this its Democrats who he thinks hate the US. I thik thats hilarious when you consider the fact the Bush has caused Americans far more harm than any enemy.

Answer 1

They don't fear him, but they cannot get a bill past his veto. So they are doing what reasonable people do: compromise.

Answer 2

No. IMHO, they got the better end of the deal - I consider it a win. Let me explain:

Bush, with his veto pen, has been demanding (rhetorically) to give Petraeus a chance to execute on his plan. When this supplemental first came up, I saw the whole debate as ridiculous -Bush wanted time for "new plan" to work or not and Dems wanted troops out by May 2008. By setting a 1 year deadline - the Dems gave Bush/Petraeus/Surge the chance to work or not and by setting a withdrawal date, they set the limit of their patience. Withdrawal wouldn't have needed to start in earnest until Jan 08.

So Bush had his 'time to try' and Dems have their withdrawal - what's the debate all about? An easy amendment/provision would have been to do 6 month reviews (ie September/October) and if the surge appeared to be working (intellectual honesty is required on both sides), then the withdrawal plan could be withdrawn.

Real reason Bush/Republicans pushed to kill/veto this version was because, in reality, they know the surge won't work and would end up withdrawing with no options to continue to stall. Bush would be forced to oversee the withdrawal and would have to admit (privately of course) that, even if the illegal invasion (no UN approval) hadn't been a bad idea, the occupation was a disaster and since everything the CPA tried to implement was a Conservative wet dream and it failed miserably. This President was told by his God to invade Iraq and since it failed, that would be a crisis of faith.

Also Dems would be handed major political victory and set a huge precedent - imagine one party winning an election and "instantly" ending a war, a trillion dollar war.

Also, this President is no MBA - despite the diploman on his wall - since he doesn't believe in objectives or accountability. But nothing new there - all of his business' went bankrupt on his watch.

So, what is about to get passed? Hmm - same thing just one less string. They have approved funding until September -same as easy reassessment provision mentioned above - when an "honest" assessment of the surge by Petraeus.

In 4 months' time, Republican Congressfolks will be able to save face with "well, we gave Bush one, last great shot and tried another new strategy, but it failed, too many mistakes in execution to recover from. Time to send a veto-proof withdrawal bill and have a chance in heck of keeping some seats/WH in 2008.".

Also, no one mentions it much, but all of the non-war spending is still in there - minimum wage up, New Orleans levies, etc. So Dems got all of their extraneous stuff and in 4 months enough Republicans will be forced to sign-on and they will get veto-proof supplemental directing withdrawal by Sept 08, just in time for the elections.

Of course, if the Republicans who go home over summer and don't get an earful (especially since Afghanistan will be falling apart by then) and stop Iraq bungle, nothing will get them to change their minds.

Answer 3

The Dems want their cake and eat it too.

It's not Bush's war. Dems and Reps voted for it - now the Dems say they only voted for it because Bush gave them false information. Are they saying that they were too lazy to check what the facts were themselves? If so, they SHOULD be out of a job for deriliction of duty. - or - Are they saying that only the president, (the Comander In Chief) has access to the top secret information needed to make the decisions about war? If that's the case, then why are they trying to make the decisions?

Either way, all they really want is to spin it for votes and power for themselves.

1 - They know that Bush won't sign a surrender bill - so they're free to pretend to "Really want to end the war" without actually doing anything about it. Lots of posturing, but nothing done. If they meant what they said ... "Not one more drop of American blood...", then they should vote to stop it immediately - they have the power to do that, but then they'd actually be responsible for having done something.

2 - They know that in ANY war, American soldiers die. They know that this war is necessary, and a good thing to do - but they also know it's "unpopular". By playing their game the way they have, the US goes to war (which we must), and whatever casualties occur (and they do in war), the Dems will blame Bush for, and they'll tell all their constituents "We TRIED to get a good bill through (although they didn't try) but HE is too stubborn. This way, they keep getting votes, because they look like they care, when in reality they wouldn't want the responsibility of being in charge and having to make the decisions. (I don't think the Dems are monsters - they did not jump for joy at 911 - but they jumped for joy that it didn't happen during a time when they would have been responsible for the US response to it)

3 - Look at the fake "concessions" that they offerred to begin with. They started out with a bill that included two totally outrageous things (1) TIMELINE FOR SURRENDER. and (2) MORE POLITICAL PORK THAN YOU COULD IMAGINE. Then, on the next try, they said "We're offeing to meet the President half way - we'll take out some of the spending (PORK) that the President did not agree with, but we must insist on a timetable (TO SURRENDER).

The wars on Terror, Drugs, Illiteracy, Homelessness, Hunger are all wars that need to be fought and are all wars that will never be finished - unless we decide to surrender.

Answer 4

The democrats realized that the administration was able to play the democrats' game and make them to be the "bad guys" and in doing so forced the democrats to back away from forcing the administration to have a timeline for a withdrawal if the administration wanted a Iraq funding bill.

Answer 5

They are finally doing THEIR job and not trying to do his. They are Congress, he is the President. HE commands the armed forces, not them. If they had any guts they would have cut funding for the war. They just wanted to use the war to get as many votes as they can for the 2008 election. By the way it's not HIS war. This was what the Dems were calling for when Clinton was in office. Then after they gave Bush the authority to use force in Iraq they turned their backs on him and the troops.

Answer 6

I think they often let Reps dictate their moves because Reps are better at playing the political game of spin. I believe they think that if they push the time line bill, then Reps will start with the unpatriotic, putting our troops in danger, not supporting them, blah blah blah stuff -- and the Dems let them because they're not as good as getting their points across to the American people.

Answer 7

If they really had a spine, they'd give him this bill: We'll fund your war, with no timeline, but the only way you get the money for your war is to repeal your tax cut. Time to decide, Mr. Decider: What do you want more, your precious war or your precious tax cut?

Answer 8

Democrat Politicians believe in NOTHING.
Everything they do, or don't do, is a grasp at getting more Money or more Power.
If they can get votes & money by supporting Terrorists and our Enemies, they will do it.
Democrats Hate the USA.