Have We Ended the War Yet?

We haven't even put a dent in it. It's arguable that the laughably low approval rating the public gives the Democratic-run Congress is attributable to that body's failure to move the ball one inch down the field. Worse, the Democratic leadership has looked feckless, confused, spineless and outmaneuvered at every turn by the administration and its Republican allies, frightened though the latter may be to be tied to the war come next election day. Today, the Politico echoes what Mike Gravel contended in the Dartmouth debate -- the Congressional Dems could do far more to stop the war...if they wanted to.

Comments

[zull2]

The prevailing fear in regards to taking drastic measures is that in this political culture, most should expect those drastic measures being aimed right back at them in the next cycle. And so on and so on.

Unfortunately, it's just going to happen anyway these days. The days when the two parties actually worked together have come to an end, at least in the foreseeable future. The differences in philosophy may not be that great, but politics have turned into an "us against them" game (strangely, this seemed to occur around the time that the concept that both sides should have equal television/radio air time was thrown out the window) and it's gotten so petty that Republicans would even block expanding a health care program for kids just because it's "a Democratic thing".

[lisakaz]

I agree that they've put 2008 ahead of the lives of US soldiers as well as the sanity of American policy. This includes Iran. How yet another blank check helps is anyone's guess. Feckless sure is right. I'm very disgusted that nothing has occurred. This mis-administration deserves to be impeached and yet the Dems seem to have forgotten how to govern and have forgotten the American people. Indeed, neither side really represents the best interests of average Americans AT ALL. I might have voted for Bloomie if he ran.

[Ginzaman]

All that matters is money, power and willing in 2008. So all the "debate" about the war, universal health care, social security, etc. is meaningless. One key reason: they know that they can get away with this s**t and the public is so f*****g apathetic it doesn't matter to them. One phone call or email doesn't mean anything. MILLIONS of calls and emails non-stop gets attention and results. It could also get your ass put in jail as well. But right now what's the alternative?

[rhiles2760]

Updated Version:

The real reason Bush will not bring our troups home is that this would give the Democrats the opportunity to investigate the real reasons of why we went to war in Iraq and then the Democrats would have the means for the Impeachment of the Bush Administration.

[WaterRat]

It's like everyone taking a turn in Congress to hammer away at the screw stuck in the middle of the map of Iraq.
They twist and turn it, then hammer away again, shuffling more troops forward thinking they can pull the screw out, whilst hammering it even deeper.
One day, someone will invent a screwdriver and take a quick turn, cut off funding, and, it will be all over.

[rhiles2760]

The real reason why Bush won't bring the troops home, that would allow the Democrats to investigate the true reasons why we went into Iraq and Impeach Our President.

[nowaterboardUSA]

The short answer: the dems don't want to stop the war by cutting the funding (ala democrats 1973) because they afraid of losing possible independent and rep refugee voters in the 2008 election and lose their chance at the white house. There's an argument to be made Reagan's Presidency was made possible by Rep backlash over Vietnam/Nixon.

The long answer: Military-Industrial Complex. Since this has made war a very profitable business for America since the early 1960s and members of the MIC have large lobbies that pander to politicians that contribute to campaigns and the industries themselves employ millions across the country and do better in wars financially, that's a lot of money & jobs that say: "keep the war going"

[FearlessFreep]

The short answer: What's good for the Democratic Party is good for America. (Isn't it?)

[Stuart]

Other reasons why the war hasn't stopped and why Congress is in such low regard:

The nature of the Senate, where 18 percent of the population can wield a majority, and where the rules preserve the right of as few as one Senator to block legislation. That safeguard against "mob" rule seemed to work well enough before it was co opted by this Administration.

The disparity between war budget and everything else may also be a factor. Congress is having trouble passing five and ten billion domestic spending measures while continuing to authorize hundreds of billions *every year* to keep the war going. I'm not sure Americans are getting that, but if and when they do, that would sour their view.

[Steve]

I agree with everything Mr Shearer says in his posting with one small exception: substitute the word "is" for the words "has looked" and then it's exactly right.

Yesterday near campus library there was a fellow set up with a card table registering voters. I came within a _epsilon_ of changing my registration to "independent". George Wallace was wrong in so many ways but he did have the right idea when he said there's not a "dime's worth of difference" between the parties.

Come to think of it, even that may have been off by an order of magnitude.

[T0MSAWYER]

1 party - 2 right wings.

And, btw, the rethuglicans keep saying that if you don't vote to authorize more money for the war you don't support the troops. Yet no one seems to be asking the question how much money is going to the troops as opposed to blackwater, kbr, haliburton etc. etc. etc.?

The country has been taken over by the corporate mafia and we are being bled dry.

No more votes or money for any candidate who votes for money for this debacle. And I don't care if that means some dems will lose - they stink as bad as the gop.

[Dantheman99]

One of the reasons I became a member of the Green Party is that not only are their policies right, but they don't take corporate money on principle.

One shouldn't need a new law to abstain from legal forms of bribery and influence peddling.

[woodro]

What is really sad, is that, if we as a nation were not so lazy and complacent, we should take the government away from both the left and the right, kick out everyone in congress an the senate and start all over. "We" have the power just not the collective courage.

[Nonamnesiac]

I have to wait until Sunday to watch Stephanopoulus to see if there are still the names of KIAs to know if the war is still going on. Also, the Dems talk against it every once in awhile in order to get votes, and then vote for it, including expanding it to Iran. But the media? -- only minimal coverage now -- just enough to let us know the surge worked.

[nancytheragingliberal]

The word, frightened, stood out for me, after viewing all of the rest. These Dem's are a joke, just a joke, but the joke is on the country. How bad is that? Here they are, once again, handed the mother of all gifts by the American people, both houses, and they dither, dither, dither. What a useless bunch...They deserve what they get, but hey, the $$$ they get for shriveling up, at least for them, not the country is worth it.

[iwishicouldvote]

I share your frustration but it's not quite factually correct, is it?

Democrats run the House and have passed a lot of legislation there, which founders in the Senate because Democrats do *not* have enough votes to get past Republican filibusters.

[scooperss]

How do they know that since they haven't even tried? They fold when filibuster is mentioned.

[BBackSoon]

Agreed, But how about if the Dems force them to get out the cots? Instead of calling a filibuster make then actually do it. Every time. It is like that word in the Pirate Movies, Parlay. Filibuster is not as powerful if the Dems would not just say, "OK" every time the Repugs utter it. Make them actually follow thru.

[TheQuestion]

It true that it would be difficult to get something through that the republicans don't want. But why don't they stop some of this nonsense that the dem's don't want. What was that Iran vote all about the other day. You can't give George an inch - he will take it and more.

[Ranta]

If voters voted to end the war in the last election, why is the Democratic party so lame?
One poll shows an 11% approval for congress. What does the Democratic Party do? They give us candidates who want to perpetuate the war and candidates who take corporate money without any shame.
Hillary,the best candidate money can buy, has been anointed president by the MSM and that's who we're going to get.

The largest voting group in this country is now "independent". (42%). That is becoming really convenient. Now, when the Democrats call me and want another contribution, I just say "I'm sorry, I'm no longer a Democrat". "I'm an independent". That stops them dead every time.

[backhandpath]

Good idea.

[wagymfan]

Why are we so willing to let the media determine our candidate? Aren't the voters the ones who get to decide who is or is not "electable"? Forget what the media says, and vote Kucinich!

If we vote for the lesser of two evils, we still vote for evil...

[MasterfullyInept]

I would hope that at some point in the last day or so the Dems may have seen the news.Seen the courage on display in Myanmar.Seen how the tree of liberty is fed by the blood of patriots.Those monks and their supporters stand up unarmed in the face of the powers that be demanding a right to be represented, and are ruthlessly slaughtered in the streets and temples.We have secured the right to be represented in government, at no small cost of blood and treasure.Take heart congressmen and women.Show one iota of the bald courage on display on the other side of the world.Democracy lives!Stand up to the president and wrest control of this conflict from his bloody hands.

[nomobull]

enough excuses democrats do what you were elected for

[DatelessNerd]

Congressional Democrats are engaged in a coordinated misinformation campaign, their mantra is "we don't have the votes," and it's a flat-out lie.

Our Constitution requires appropriations legislation to originate in the House. Therefore, there's no war funding unless a majority of Representatives approve it. Democrats hold a clear majority.

In the Senate, 41 Senators can prevent a bill (including war appropriations) from coming to a vote. Not counting Lieberman, there are 50 Democratic Senators.

If the President vetoes a war funding bill because it contains provisions he dislikes, and Congress is unable to override the veto, there's NO FUNDING and it's back to Square 1.

The Founding Fathers fully intended Congress, not the President, to be the "Decider" as to whether we are at war, and gave them "The Power of the Purse" as a check & balance to Presidential power.

The fact that the American public isn't angrier with Congressional Democrats only shows that people weren't paying attention during high school Civics class.

[BeerHolder]

NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO OVERRIDE A VETO.

That's pretty much it. If Dems cut funding they will have "hurt the troops". Republiscum will ride it for everything it's worth. It will be their mantra for 2008.

AGAIN, NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO OVERRIDE A VETO.

Blame who you want but the facts are the facts. Also, you still have a few democrats who will vote with the Republiscum. We can't even get all the dems to stick together. Locate the ones who are voting with the Repubic senators and throw them out of office in 2008. Make them pay.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

So?

Force the showdown!

[Nonamnesiac]

Think about what you're saying. According to that logic, there would have to be at least 80 Dems elected in the Senate (maybe more) in order for the Dems to do anything, as at least 13 are DINOs (Democrats in Name Only). No, the 67/60 thing is just propaganda. As the other blogger stated, 41 votes ends the war and the Dems have a majority. With a majority, they can continue to put forward legislation that funds troop protection while moving immediate withdrawal. If the Repubs vote against it, it is THEY who are refusing to fund the troops. If Bush vetos, it is HE who refusing to fund the troops. The Dems know that, but want to create the stupid fiction of needing 67 votes. If they had it, then they'd say there's not enough party unity and it is highly doubtful there will EVER be 80 Democratic votes in the Senate.

The Dems have to put the Reps up against the wall and force them to continuously vote against funding the troops as part of a rapid withdrawal. The Repubs would cave quickly. And then they have to put Bush up against it. His veto would be overridden when the Repubs started being seen as the obstacles to troop protection.

If Bush tried to fight the war without funding, he and Cheney would be impeached and removed for intentionally placing our troops in harm's way and sacrificing their lives knowing he had no funding.

The reality is, as was seen during the Dem debate, that it is a bi-partisan war and even the leading Dem candidates won't promise withdrawal by 2013 and their frontrunner just voted for an "invade Iran" amendment.

[PhantomAviator]

The Demo-lazies have a REAL problem defending their veiws in from of the Public.
What else can explain war-hero Kerry's inability to put National Guard-dodging Bush in his place? All he did was stand there with that depressing look on his face an mumble incoherent statements of outrage.
This is no different. The Dummy-crats can't even manage to get across the idea that 1 out of 6 dollars sent to Iraq is MISSING through no-bids contracts and institutional corruption?
The most annoying thing is, is that there IS no reason why, The Demo-zombies ALWAYS do this to themselves. Which leaves us with a choice between the Republo-Facists or the Do-Nothing-crats.
God Bless America, where the government belongs to the people.

The people with MONEY.
Get used to it, slaves.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Beautiful.

You might not have a date, but you got a fan.

[HamletsMill]

Ditto.