Nothing like a "defeat by" date for our enemies to mark on the calendar. Democrats own defeat.

Anyone find it ironic or a little bit Orwellian that Dems are begging Republicans for another $124 BILLION in war funding??

I pity QM, I really do.

And joe, get your facts straight.

Unlike what QM? Efficient Republicans?

QM, we were "defeated" by a simple-minded Commander-in-Chief who costs thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of permanently wounded young men and women, hundreds of thousands of permanently dead Iraqis, hundreds of BILLIONS of tax dollars that won't be spent on education, healthcare, research, energy independence, retirement, economic growth, shoring up housing or trade deficits.

Regardless of your view on Iraq, we should have changed course three years ago, and been a lot smarter instead of throwing more money and US lives at the problem.

So yeah, keep up with your bumpersticker idiocy. (It works for Bush)

theo, I don't understand. What facts did I get wrong? Dems want (and needed) Repub votes to pass an additional spending bill to fund Iraq and Afghanistan (and some for the vets).

Ever hear of power of the purse. And "only Congress shall declare war". If it's not a war, then what is it? And they could very easily end this through reduced supplement funding. (Half of which goes to Military contractors and war profiteers)

I understand your point, joe - it's just a gross oversimplification; no one is prepared to take the step of cutting off funding yet.

The spending package has the rider attached that the troops would have to be out some time next year, which may not seem like much to you - but politically, it's huge - even though Bush will certainly veto it if the House version gets to his desk. It's the first time such a move has been made by the Congress, and the dominoes will finally begin to fall in ending this thing.

If it isn't completely obvious yet, this thing will not end until Bush is out of office - so Democrats have to play it smart to make sure they do get the White House back so they CAN end the war when he/she is sworn in...and Bush is leaving things in such a mess, it's making it very difficult for even the best Republican candidate to win.

I know the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but it just doesn't work that way in government. Progress is slow - and believe it or not, the Democrats are playing the game correctly.

has the rider attached that the troops would have to be out some time next year

Actually, yes, the commander-in-chief has troops in a foreign country without war being declared. In fact, the U.S. Congress has not declared war since WWII. Instead, Congress passes an Authorization to Use Military Force as outlined in the War Powers Resolution. Thus, Congress actually has three options:

(1)They could rescind the AUMF. However, this will never happen because there is no way that such a measure would pass the House, let alone the Senate.

(2)They could refuse to pass supplemental spending bills in order to "starve the beast" and force the President to decide between leaving troops in harm's way without funding or remove them. However, this is in reality political suicide because it would make Democrats appear to be abandoning the troops. It also would be very unlikely to make it out of Congress.

(Both options 1 and 2 would also, obviously, be vetoed by the President)

(3)Attach troop limits and stipulations to supplemental military spending bills.

Obviously, the Democrats have gone with option three because it is the most politically viable and the one with the greatest chance of passage. In fact, the House bill in its current form does not abandon the decision until next fall but has several mid-points. The first which will arrive on July 1 of this year. If the benchmarks which the President himself set in his State of the Union address are not met, then we begin an immediate troop redeployment to be executed within 180 days.

In my opinion, this bill is the smartest thing they could have done. It sets clear deadlines for the end of the Iraq War and does so in a way that is politically beneficial to the Democrats. Everyone voting against this bill (or in the case of the President, vetoing it) is voting against the supplemental funding, against veteran's benefits, and against the welfare of the U.S. military. Bush may not like the restrictions being placed on him, but the only way for him to stop them is to deny himself the very funding that he requested. This is how you effectively use the power of the purse.

"Anyone find it ironic or a little bit Orwellian that Dems are begging Republicans for another $124 BILLION in war funding??"

It's not the war funding they're asking for. What Murtha is not telling you is that this bill is loaded to the brim with pork and pet projects such as:

-- $25 million for payments to spinach producers
-- $120 million to the shrimp industry
-- $74 million for peanut storage
-- $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
-- $24 million to sugar beet producers
-- $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program
-- $120 million to compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries
-- $100 million for citrus assistance
-- last but not least...A minimum wage increase

And that's the short list. None of these have anything to do with the war, but they have everything to do politicians getting local projects passed that they couldn't get through otherwise to please their constituents. It's not about the war, it's about getting reelected.

Appropriations bills rarely limit themselves to a single subject matter.

Big Agriculture would go under if they did. Murtha gets on my nerves.

this is so Orwell's 1984. whatever happens in iraq will be to america's monetary advantage, it was planned this way, it was all planned like this all along. america's been at war with at least one country at any one time for something like 60 years non-stop. elections may make some differences but the overall direction of the country is being directed by people you will never have any say over. it's a greed machine. the UK's just as bad, but it seems to me less obvious here of what's bullshit or not. perhaps it's because our politicians are better actors and liars.

In my opinion, this bill is the smartest thing they could have done. It sets clear deadlines for the end of the Iraq War and does so in a way that is politically beneficial to the Democrats.

This opinion illuminates perfectly why victicrats should never be given power. It's not about America's national defense or Iraq's struggle for stable, tyrant-free government, it's HOW CAN DEMOCRATS BENEFIT?

Democrats own defeat. The only true deadline is when 99% of the enemy is dead and the other 1% is ready to surrender. Any other option is defeat, giving up, letting thugs triumph. Don't sugarcoat liberal sabotage of the military and its mission.

Even in a best-case scenario, withdrawal from Iraq will not lessen the threat of islamofascism to American lives anywhere. Iraq is one battle in a very long series of wars to come.

Of course it's about the war, Wumpus - if pork projects are necessary to get votes to pass it, then so much the better. Please don't get on some sort of high horse about pork after the last six years. Your party was a fucking joke in that regard.

Morons like QM and Wumpus are thoughtless authoritarians - they will support a pointless war as long as George W. Bush (our first retarded president) and Rush Limbaugh tell them to.

And joe, thanks for not reading my post. My point wasn't that defunding the war isn't possible (it is), it's just that no one is going to take that drastic a step with presidential elections this close.

You want the war over? Vote for Democrats next time around.

It's not about America's national defense or Iraq's struggle for stable, tyrant-free government, it's HOW CAN DEMOCRATS BENEFIT?

Actually, no. It's about both. We're talking about politicians after all. It just so happens that 64% of Americans think the war wasn't worth fighting and 56% favor a withdrawal even if order is not restored. It's hard to see how developing a plan for withdrawal wouldn't be politically beneficial to Democrats. However, as I explained earlier, there is more than one way to skin this cat. I was just expressing my belief that the Democrats have chosen the most effective, and at the same time beneficial, method of doing so. Also, you are implying that the war in Iraq is somehow benefiting the safety of America. Unfortunately, the country's top spy agencies strongly disagree with you.

Furthermore, you seem to think that Republicans are somehow ideologically pure. That they would never consider the political repercussions of their foreign policy choices. Frankly, that strikes me as extremely naive.

The only true deadline is when 99% of the enemy is dead and the other 1% is ready to surrender.

Which enemy are you talking about? The Sunni fueled insurgency? The Shiite militias? Al Qaeda? Radical Islamic terrorists? The fact is, it doesn't really matter which one you meant because we will never arrive at a point where 99% of them are dead. The violence we commit and the people we kill only serve to spawn more and more people who resist us. In fact, according to General Petraeus, the new Defense Secretary, "there is no military solution" in Iraq.

Don't sugarcoat liberal sabotage of the military and its mission.

The only people that have sabotaged the military are those in the White House and their Republican cronies. They have stretched our military to the breaking point during their experiment of spreading democracy at the business end of a rifle. They have neglected our wounded veterans after they came home.

Finally, Republicans in Congress had absolutely no problem using the ability granted them by the War Powers Act to force the removal of troops from Somalia in 1992. As a matter of fact, they attached it to an appropriations bill. Imagine that!

Do some research and stop drinking the Kool-Aid. WAKE UP!

I love the way QM has been taught to talk about liberals - in a McCarthy-esque tone drummed into his head by talk radio day in and day out.

The history of this country is the history of liberalism - going all the way back to the Boston Tea Party, kids. Tools like QM have been doing their best to confuse liberals (centrists) with socialists and communists on the extreme left, all the while trying to pull the center further right...and you're seeing the backlash against that effort now.

"Morons like QM and Wumpus are thoughtless authoritarians"

Well said - and you could also add warmongering champions of hatred and intolerance!

"Even in a best-case scenario, withdrawal from Iraq will not lessen the threat of islamofascism to American lives anywhere. Iraq is one battle in a very long series of wars to come."

What a heap of crap - typical QM nonsense. America is only a target because of its blind and unobjective political and financial support for Israeli government policy, and a large number of undemocratic tyrannical regimes throughout the Islamic world - Egypt, Pakistan, etc. The biggest threat to American security and democracy is the power of AIPAC (and other special interest lobbies) who's activity ensures the continued support of militant zionism and the oppression of the Palestinian people.

" I love the way QM has been taught to talk about liberals - in a McCarthy-esque tone drummed into his head by talk radio day in and day out."
'
I am continually amazed by the way the Republicans have successfully turned 'liberalism' into a dirty word. It seems that now politicians who are liberal do not wish to be classified as such for fear of a voter backlash.

No matter what you say Theo, I think it's fucking disgusting to let US lives sit in Iraq and Afghanistan while we wait for Democrat controlled White House. I don't know how that can be reconciled. Republican or Democrat they all get corrupted at the top.

"Big Agriculture would go under if they did. Murtha gets on my nerves. "

Big Agriculture is hardly in danger of going under. American farms produce so much food that they tend to drive the price's in other parts of the world down. Farm subsidy bills are incentives for farmers to produce and sell less so the international markets can compete.

It's still curious to me that a member of congress who was against every piece of war spending is suddenly giving a tear jerking speech about how a vote against this bill is tantamount to leaving soldiers high and dry with no support or training.

But I guess according to some other people, you're not allowed to ask those questions.

As an economist I must say that subsidization or in the case of agriculture specifically, paying to stop production is one of the most ill-defined rules ever conceived. The problem is that the subsidy comes when farmers over produce, so irregardless of how much you pay them they will see that increasing production basically means a hand out from the goverment.

This subsidization has lead to the growth of use of hormones and other crap in livestock, and the want to switch to GM products because you can produce even more at even less production cost to yourself and probably get paid by the goverment to stop producing.

I remember pre-9/11 a bunch of bills were trying to get passed to 'sustain America's agricultural development' through even more subsidies, they got thrown out, post 9/11 the bills got re-submitted under the new names of 'Assurance of Food supplies in face of Terror" or some crap like that.

As an employee of the Department of Ag, I can say that SOME of the subsidies are actually beneficial in containing the flow and maintaining a consistency in production levels for agribusiness. And some of these appropriations seem to be disaster-related (so it is probably unfair to characterize it as pet or pork because disasters and droughts hit agriculture harder than any other business sector).

But my previous comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. If you want to follow the money these days, you will almost always see it benefiting four sources: defense/industrial lobby, energy/automotive lobby, the Israel lobby, and Big Agriculture.

The subsidies, kickbacks, and pay-outs not only sustain American agribusiness, but they lead to a perverse political culture at the local level.

It's still curious to me that a member of congress who was against every piece of war spending is suddenly giving a tear jerking speech about how a vote against this bill is tantamount to leaving soldiers high and dry with no support or training.

Your lack of sourcing for this opinion made me curious. especially since it was opposite of my thinking on John Murtha, so I decided to do a little digging.

Here is his voting record on defense issues since 1993
for those that don't click the link, he always votes for appropriation bills and has consistently voted against any condemning statements of the military
Here are his rankings according to military interest groups
again, for the non-clickers: he usually rates somewhere in the 80 to 100 percent category
Here are some of his rankings according to peace interest groups
here he runs middle of the road, but their formulas are a bit more complicated because they take into account foreign aid and human rights intervention, not just military spending

And this is from his bio on his website:
Military/defense service

"Congressman Murtha is so well-respected for his first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues that he has been a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties on military and defense issues and is one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in the country. He is the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective."

So basically, I have no idea where you got the idea that he votes against war spending or hasn't always been looking out for our troops. Maybe you are confusing him with Feingold??? Sorry to bring facts into the matter, but somebody had to do it.

Facts, aaronfr!? How dare you! These arguments are supposed to be about blind rhetoric, not facts! Clearly a Democrat would never vote for military spending, he'd be too busy getting high on weed!

Of course I *want* the troops home immediately, Farhad - I was against this war from the start; not just for the obvious humanitarian reasons, but remembering how the Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan, that it would be a strategic error that would reverberate for generations.

That said, we are not dealing with a White House, American public, or media that are thinking clear about the situation - and it's become obvious that Bush intends to pass this off to the next administration rather than clean up his own mess, so I'd much rather the Democrats let the Republicans dig their own grave on this so a Clinton or Obama administration is in the White House to finally pull the troops out.

Democrats leading the American people? I refuse to have them be seen like that, I just hope people wake up. But I guess it's hard not to be cynical.

Republicansleading the American people? I refuse to believe they ever did that (competently).

It is definitely a uniquely Republican ability to deny the truth. Democrats control both houses of Congress, therefore they ARE leading the American people. You can deny facts 'til you're blue in the face but it won't change the truth.

*accidental post

*waronterror

Adding video to channels (Waronterror) - requested by MarineGunrock.