The humiliating spectacle of this quivering party, returned to power with the express mandate of stopping this sadistic madman and instead contemptibly giving him whatever he wants, as if he wasn't the most despised man in America, is beyond nauseating. "Poor us, we don't have the votes to stop the war." What sickening crap! As Arianna pointed out, in fact they can stop the war any Goddamn time they want, and what they're really saying is, "We don't have the balls to stop the war. We stink of fear for our jobs and nothing is more important to us than that, certainly not mere trifles like the lives of our citizens, or the Constitution."
Isn't there a single member of this castrated party capable of explaining that cutting off funds for the war does not mean that the troops will be left instantly bulletless on the battlefield, but rather that there is going to come a time in the not-too-distant future when there will be no more money for weapons, and so Bush had better get the troops out of harm's way before that happens or whatever befalls them will be his fault?
How about this? Cut off funds to the Democrats. When they call or email asking for contributions, tell them, not a penny more for you spineless wimps until you stop the war! If everyone who shares my disgust actually did this, the war would be stopped by Christmas.
How else does it make sense that they're not stopping the killing when they clearly have the power to do so, massive public support, and the most unpopular opponent ever? Balllessness doesn't cover all that.
The Dems vote the same way as the Repubs, and use the 67/60 BS Democratic talking point to explain away their betrayal of those who voted them in. It's BS, because it only takes 41 votes to stop funding Bush's budget without restriction.
As long as the Dems know they will continue to get the vast bulk of progressive regardless of what the Dems do, they will continue to support Bush's programs.
The only way to stop this is to stop funding the Dems and let them know we will not vote Democratic if they insist on giving us two pro-war candidates in 2013.
The Republican candidate will run on a secret peace plan to have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013 and win.
Well?
I'd rather see them tried for war crimes along-side Bush.
I'd vote for Kucinich, Gravel, or Colbert.
I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.
I wonder who they think I am? Who they think "we" are? Sometimes, in despair, I wonder if we're really the fringe, anathema to the party, unreasonable children tugging at the sleeves of the people we've voted for and trusted to carry our standard. The Republicans know where to find their base. Who do the Democrats play to?
Well, I'll tell you what won't be, and that's an open wallet. As someone suggested on a different thread, the DCCC, DSCC, and DLC can take a hike. In the future, my money is going directly to the people who represent what I believe in. We need to stop acting like party faithfuls and more like the powerful lobby that gets the party's attention.
As the funds run dry, we'll approach the point where we wouldn't have enough money to get the troops out even if the order was made. Bush will make it clear that he will not withdraw the troops under any circumstance. If Congress continues to block funding, he'll be forced to declare martial law.
I don't think that the anti-war constituency realizes how far Bush will go to continue this occupation at all costs. If it means assuming complete executive control of the government, all the better in his eyes. Bush has made it clear that, short of impeachment, the President holds all of the trump cards in Constitutional showdowns.
If Congress doesn't have enough votes to override a veto, then they don't have the votes to impeach both Bush and Cheney, and therefore they don't have enough votes to end this war. If they play a game of chicken with Bush, they'll lose, and it will be "rage and cave" all over again with much higher stakes.
We have checks and balances in this country, but they were only designed for situations where one branch of government is overwhelmingly opposed to another. It wasn't designed for the slightest of Congressional majorities to overcome a remarkably steadfast President.
The fact of the matter is that no more than 59% of Americans have ever supported withdrawal, and only 3% are in favor of cutting off funding. This is hardly a mandate for a hard-line stance against the White House and Congressional Republicans.
IT JUST ENCOURAGES THE BASTARDS
This is why I voted for Nader in the last two elections, and will vote for no Democrat other than Kucinich in 2008.
Umm, sorry, Paul but I don't think so.
Unless you're actually thinking the telecoms and the banks and the warmongers are actually going to be disgusted by their creation and stop feeding it.
We can raise holy hell, we can vote them out - and we will.
But the money that's really feeding them isn't coming from us, Paul.
We're just peanuts to these worms.
Besides the treason factor.
!@#