Are Democrats Ignoring the Surge ?

[Rex Kickass]

While we're on the subject. The Democrats are passing a $50 billion Iraq budget supplement to "bridge fund" the efforts.

 

The bill has some "strings" attached.

1. The US must begin limited troop withdrawals by the end of the year. (Something which the White House has already announced it will do.)

2. The US must state a goal of withdrawing the majority of combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2008. (There is no timetable for withdrawal, nor any absolute directive to do so - just to state that goal.)

 

The bill also requires all government interrogators must follow procedures for interrogation prescribed in the Army field manual (i.e. specifically outlaws waterboarding), and the White House to certify all units being sent to theater as "mission capable" 15 days prior to deployment (although this could be waived in times of emergency.)

 

The Bush administration says it will veto the bill, should it reach his desk. It looks certain for easy passage in the House. In the Senate, prospects are less certain - because the GOP leadership opposes the bill's "strings" (which - again - are already basically met)

 

Harry Reid, in a rare show of balls, has said this is the only funding bill he'll allow for a vote... i.e. if this doesn't become law, bridge funding won't happen until 2008.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ll_N.htm?csp=34

 

[NorthSideSox72]

While we're on the subject. The Democrats are passing a $50 billion Iraq budget supplement to "bridge fund" the efforts.

 

The bill has some "strings" attached.

1. The US must begin limited troop withdrawals by the end of the year. (Something which the White House has already announced it will do.)

2. The US must state a goal of withdrawing the majority of combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2008. (There is no timetable for withdrawal, nor any absolute directive to do so - just to state that goal.)

 

The bill also requires all government interrogators must follow procedures for interrogation prescribed in the Army field manual (i.e. specifically outlaws waterboarding), and the White House to certify all units being sent to theater as "mission capable" 15 days prior to deployment (although this could be waived in times of emergency.)

 

The Bush administration says it will veto the bill, should it reach his desk. It looks certain for easy passage in the House. In the Senate, prospects are less certain - because the GOP leadership opposes the bill's "strings" (which - again - are already basically met)

 

Harry Reid, in a rare show of balls, has said this is the only funding bill he'll allow for a vote... i.e. if this doesn't become law, bridge funding won't happen until 2008.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ll_N.htm?csp=34

 

Passes 218-203. Not enough for a veto override, even if it does pass the Senate.

 

But given his history, I doubt Reid sticks to his guns about funding. We'll see.

[longshot7]

we should pull out tomorrow - who cares if the Iraqis exlode into sectarian violence and kill each other?

 

btw, what surge? (I'm ignoring it)

Edited November 15, 2007 by longshot7

[NorthSideSox72]

we should pull out tomorrow - who cares if the Iraqis exlode into sectarian violence and kill each other?

Apparently BushCo thinks that's a great idea, since they are the ones who plunged Iraq into a civil war to begin with. And they've been killing each other for years now.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So, this question, basically, was put to the Democrats in the debate last night. I saw answers from Kucinich, Richardson and Obama. Kucinich was predictable - no it isn't working, and get out now. Richardson said no also, but added his usual spiel about engaging regional partners, finding a political solution, and then leaving. Obama echoed the regional partners and political solution thing, but he actually acknowledged that the surge was undoubtedly working in some neighborhoods.

 

Just interesting to see the differentiation there, for those who care about the Dem nominee. I am glad, I suppse, that Richardson and Obama are talking about the political situation. But I still think none of them really know what's going on over there.

 

[YASNY]

So, this question, basically, was put to the Democrats in the debate last night. I saw answers from Kucinich, Richardson and Obama. Kucinich was predictable - no it isn't working, and get out now. Richardson said no also, but added his usual spiel about engaging regional partners, finding a political solution, and then leaving. Obama echoed the regional partners and political solution thing, but he actually acknowledged that the surge was undoubtedly working in some neighborhoods.

 

Just interesting to see the differentiation there, for those who care about the Dem nominee. I am glad, I suppse, that Richardson and Obama are talking about the political situation. But I still think none of them really know what's going on over there.

 

Not to be trite, NSS, but do you?

[NorthSideSox72]

Not to be trite, NSS, but do you?

Not a trite question at all, its a fair one.

 

I don't think I know it nearly as well as people on the ground there. Or people who live there. I take my information from them more than I do our government though. So I like to think, at the least, I'm informed. The candidates in the debate, frankly, seemed to be varying degrees of uninformed.

 

[southsider2k5]

Not a trite question at all, its a fair one.

 

I don't think I know it nearly as well as people on the ground there. Or people who live there. I take my information from them more than I do our government though. So I like to think, at the least, I'm informed. The candidates in the debate, frankly, seemed to be varying degrees of uninformed.

 

I wouldn't call them uninformed at all. ALL of the candidates seem to have varying types of agendas that seem dictate their opinion on the effectiveness of the surge. Obama might be the least tied to his agenda judging by the quotes of his view on its effectiveness, but I digress.

[YASNY]

Not a trite question at all, its a fair one.

 

I don't think I know it nearly as well as people on the ground there. Or people who live there. I take my information from them more than I do our government though. So I like to think, at the least, I'm informed. The candidates in the debate, frankly, seemed to be varying degrees of uninformed.

 

I, as well, try to stay informed. But, you get into the issue of who and what to believe. I tend to listen to guys and gals that come back from Iraq. They seem to get a reasonable amount of radio interviews in my neck of the woods. They generally paint a complete different picture than the MSM paints, which imho gives some credence to what the government says. That said, I don't trust them bastards either. BTW, nice response.

[NorthSideSox72]

While we're on the subject. The Democrats are passing a $50 billion Iraq budget supplement to "bridge fund" the efforts.

 

The bill has some "strings" attached.

1. The US must begin limited troop withdrawals by the end of the year. (Something which the White House has already announced it will do.)

2. The US must state a goal of withdrawing the majority of combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2008. (There is no timetable for withdrawal, nor any absolute directive to do so - just to state that goal.)

 

The bill also requires all government interrogators must follow procedures for interrogation prescribed in the Army field manual (i.e. specifically outlaws waterboarding), and the White House to certify all units being sent to theater as "mission capable" 15 days prior to deployment (although this could be waived in times of emergency.)

 

The Bush administration says it will veto the bill, should it reach his desk. It looks certain for easy passage in the House. In the Senate, prospects are less certain - because the GOP leadership opposes the bill's "strings" (which - again - are already basically met)

 

Harry Reid, in a rare show of balls, has said this is the only funding bill he'll allow for a vote... i.e. if this doesn't become law, bridge funding won't happen until 2008.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ll_N.htm?csp=34

 

Passes 218-203. Not enough for a veto override, even if it does pass the Senate.

 

But given his history, I doubt Reid sticks to his guns about funding. We'll see.

 

Update...

 

Funding bill blocked in the Senate, fails 53-45. GOP proposed a funding bill with no strings, and it failed by the exact same vote count.

 

So the showdown continues. Reid says no funding without the promise of troop pullouts. GOP says give them a blank check. Dems will say the GOP just loves war, wants to keep fighting even though 70% of the country is against it. GOP will say the Dems don't support the troops and are cowards.

 

How far will it go this time?

 

 

 

[YASNY]

Update...

 

Funding bill blocked in the Senate, fails 53-45. GOP proposed a funding bill with no strings, and it failed by the exact same vote count.

 

So the showdown continues. Reid says no funding without the promise of troop pullouts. GOP says give them a blank check. Dems will say the GOP just loves war, wants to keep fighting even though 70% of the country is against it. GOP will say the Dems don't support the troops and are cowards.

 

How far will it go this time?

 

Just like it's gone every other time. When the people start calling the Dems in congress and tell them to give the troops what they need, they'll cave.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just like it's gone every other time. When the people start calling the Dems in congress and tell them to give the troops what they need, they'll cave.

And if they don't cave, some people will see the Dems as monsters or cowards, even though this was of course a BushCo-caused disaster.

 

[StrangeSox]

And if they don't cave, some people will see the Dems as monsters or cowards, even though this was of course a BushCo-caused disaster.

 

"Give us exactly what we want, or we'll label you as traitors and cowards."

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I know for a fact that the Democratic politicians are going to ignore, marginalize or otherwise try to discredit the huge improvement in the military situation in Iraq. That's a given since their political fortunes are tied to how well they placate the moveon.org wing of the Democratic party.

 

What bothers me the most, however, is how the mainstream media, an outfit which is supposed to be objective, continually ignores, marginalizes or otherwise tries to discredit the huge improvement in the military situation in Iraq. Seems now that they don't have nearly as many bombings, shootings and other attacks to write about, they choose instead to find people who got screwed over by the VA as CNN.com did this morning. I have seen virtually no coverage of the decline in violence in Iraq at all.

 

The only exception to this is Fox News which regularly has reports about positive developments in country here including todays article about the re-opening of a Christian church in Baghdad. I can hear it now "What? Who cares about a lousy Christian Church anyway?". What they don't realize is that the area in question is right smack in the middle of what was billed as "Al Queda's last stronghold in Baghdad" and only about a mile west of where my unit is presently patrolling.

 

Personally, I take issue with a supposedly objective mainstream media which refuses to report any positive developments. Indeed, in a recent interview both Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN said they felt the improving situation in Iraq was "not worthy of additional coverage.

[YASNY]

"Give us exactly what we want, or we'll label you as traitors and cowards."

 

Agree with you and NSS totally.

[YASNY]

Hey Nuke. Glad to hear you are safe and still fiesty. I just wanted to say that I am behind you guys 100%. No ifs ands or buts about it. However, I also have to point out that I believe GWB is setting us up to become a socialist state. The crap coming from the government, I don't believe at all. They have ulterior motives that are not beneficial to the USA or it's citizens. At same damn time, I wish the MSS would just tell the truth about everything and stop filtering things to enhance their political agenda. I guess what I'm really saying is you cannot believe anything that either side has to say. It's all totally 100% bulls***.

 

God Bless you and your buddies and hope you all come home safe and well.

Edited November 16, 2007 by YASNY

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Hey Nuke. Glad to hear you are safe and still fiesty. I just wanted to say that I am behind you guys 100%. No ifs ands or buts about it. However, I also have to point out that I believe GWB is setting us up to become a socialist state. The crap coming from the government, I don't believe at all. They have ulterior motives that are not beneficial to the USA or it's citizens. At same damn time, I wish the MSS would just tell the truth about everything and stop filtering things to enhance their political agenda. I guess what I'm really saying is you cannot believe anything that either side has to say. It's all totally 100% bulls***.

 

God Bless you and your buddies and hope you all come home safe and well.

 

 

Thanks

 

[YASNY]

Thanks

 

 

No sir. Thank you!

[kapkomet]

Hey Nuke. Glad to hear you are safe and still fiesty. I just wanted to say that I am behind you guys 100%. No ifs ands or buts about it. However, I also have to point out that I believe GWB is setting us up to become a socialist state. The crap coming from the government, I don't believe at all. They have ulterior motives that are not beneficial to the USA or it's citizens. At same damn time, I wish the MSS would just tell the truth about everything and stop filtering things to enhance their political agenda. I guess what I'm really saying is you cannot believe anything that either side has to say. It's all totally 100% bulls***.

 

God Bless you and your buddies and hope you all come home safe and well.

Exactly. BOTH parties have ulterior motives... it's called how to maintain power. As an example, if this field of presidential candidates doesn't scare you about the politics of today, you're just plain ignorant of what this country faces. A GOOD third party candidate would win in a landslide, but the laws that exist are so difficult to overcome. The source of the laws? Both Dems and Re-pubes who all but guarantee that they keep themselves in power.

 

[YASNY]

Exactly. BOTH parties have ulterior motives... it's called how to maintain power. As an example, if this field of presidential candidates doesn't scare you about the politics of today, you're just plain ignorant of what this country faces. A GOOD third party candidate would win in a landslide, but the laws that exist are so difficult to overcome. The source of the laws? Both Dems and Re-pubes who all but guarantee that they keep themselves in power.

 

Bingo. They have made it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to have a chance. Sadly, that is Ross Perot's legacy.

[mr_genius]

even though this was of course a BushCo-caused disaster.

 

Not completely. The dems voted for this war. Don't let them off the hook so easy. And yes, they would have mismanaged this war just as bad as Bush did. Nation building and being "world police" is a bad idea, and the Iraq war is an excellent example

[NorthSideSox72]

Not completely. The dems voted for this war. Don't let them off the hook so easy. And yes, they would have mismanaged this war just as bad as Bush did. Nation building and being "world police" is a bad idea, and the Iraq war is an excellent example

True. Some of them did, and they are to blame as well.

 

[YASNY]

Not completely. The dems voted for this war. Don't let them off the hook so easy. And yes, they would have mismanaged this war just as bad as Bush did. Nation building and being "world police" is a bad idea, and the Iraq war is an excellent example

 

While your mention of the Dems that voted for the war was indeed a good point, it's not nearly as good of point as your nation building and world police remark. That is something we need to take notice of, remember and ... well ... carve in stone.

[Rex Kickass]

I think its great that the situation in Iraq has improved on the ground and that some sense of normalcy might actually be returning to Baghdad. That's great, and hopefully will last. At the same time, I don't think its irresponsible to start attaching some strings to continued funding. There are a lot of issues with mission focus that have yet to be addressed and have yet to be addressed. Strings attached on funding helps start that process.

 

I'm glad that Senator Reid is finally showing the sack to insist on it for passage.

[EvilMonkey]

I think its great that the situation in Iraq has improved on the ground and that some sense of normalcy might actually be returning to Baghdad. That's great, and hopefully will last. At the same time, I don't think its irresponsible to start attaching some strings to continued funding. There are a lot of issues with mission focus that have yet to be addressed and have yet to be addressed. Strings attached on funding helps start that process.

 

I'm glad that Senator Reid is finally showing the sack to insist on it for passage.

If he had a sack he woulda done it the first 6 or 7 times he threatened it. Alot easier to do now that things are at least looking better.