A Simple Poll On The Supplemental:

[cali]

Poll question: A Simple Poll On The Supplemental:

Do you support it? And I'd love to know why you do or don't.

[Tom Joad]

1. The supplemental bill, as written, is a reaffirmation of US policy of occupation and war.

Which is why i think it is not surprising that it has the overwhelming support of the leadership of both major political parties.

[cali]

2. Actually, no it's not that simple.

Unless you live in Forrest Gump kind of world.

[Tom Joad]

4. Eat your box of chocolate and get back to me.

[Robbien]

3. The bill if passed allows for neverending occupation of Iraq

and gives Bush the okay to invade and bomb Iran.

Your yes vote is so misleading. A yes for this bill means MORE and NEVER ENDING war.

[cali]

5. Sorry, I disagree.

Make your own poll.

[Tom Joad]

7. It didn't give exactly bush the okay to invade Iran, but it did take out a provision that

was meant to impede that, if only symbolically. It was taken out, under the initiative of extreme rightist in Congress (Rahm Emmanuel & others) If you think the describing these people as extreme is unfair, just take a poll among average americans if they think Bush alone has the wisdom regarding an attack on Iran. You think you get 8% to say that? Not to mention that it was just saying what was in our constitution anyway... only congress can decide on war...
oppose the constitution, be called an extremist.

_____________________

CQ TODAY -- March 8, 2007
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff




Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.

The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker.

The language is likely to spark an internal battle among House Democrats, some of whom fear an expansion of the Iraq War into Iran and others who are wary of sending a signal to Tehran that Congress wants to take the use of force off the table.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers.

Emanuel said opposition could extend beyond pro-Israel lawmakers. “‘Keep this all about Iraq’ is the view,” he said.

[LSK]

17. have you read the bill? doesnt sound like it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x438643

[whoneedstickets]

37. No permanent bases!

Wow, thats a serious provision that I didn't know was in there. We have to get that bill passed.

[Tom Joad]

6. "Disappointed in Dem. Leadership"

http://www.pdamerica.org/

As the House debates the Iraq Supplemental, PDA Director Tim Carpenter issued this statement on the Democratic leadership’s refusal to allow a vote on Barbara Lee’s Amendment for fully-funded, orderly Iraq withdrawal by end of 2007:

“It is antiwar sentiment that put Democrats into majority control of Congress. The recent USA Today-Gallup poll showed 58 percent of Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year, or earlier. We are profoundly disappointed that the Lee Amendment – which reflects majority sentiment in the country -- was not allowed to be debated and voted upon by the full House.”

Continued Carpenter: “In a free vote, we believe roughly 90 members of Congress would have supported the Lee Amendment and the desires of most Americans to get out of Iraq. Having prevented that vote, the leadership’s weak supplemental that prolongs funding of an unwinnable occupation is now more susceptible to wrong-headed attacks from Republicans and certain media circles as somehow risky or extreme.”

“We commend Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters for their years of brave leadership right up to this morning in the struggle to end the U.S. occupation – a struggle that helped change control of Congress last November

[whoneedstickets]

10. 90 members! Wow out of 435....

That result would have made the anti-war position look weak. They could double that number for a straight up blank check for Bush! A result like that would have EMBOLDENED the Rethugs, not cowed them!

Why do the extremists insist we pursue senseless and losing legislative strategies full of symbol but empty of substance. To make a point?! Yeah, I want the US out of Iraq--yesterday!--but that's so far out of the realm of possible outcomes it's folly to wish for it and suicide to vote for it.

If we can drive a stake into the heart of this monster, even if it may take a year to die, it's far better than shaking our fist at it in anger while the carnage continues ad infinitum.

[helderheid]

16. ACTION:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=475528&mesg_id=475528

[whoneedstickets]

8. Any straight-up withdrawal motion...

...will be defeated or vetoed. I'm tired of symbolic motions that amount to nothing. Linking withdrawal with the funding that the administration craves so badly will make them swallow the medicine to get the $ugar!

It will be fun watching them choke that down.

[Tom Joad]

9. What folks don't understand is that if bush vetoes this bill, he has no funding for this war.

He needs this bill.
the world, the people of iraq, the american people, do NOT.

[Kelly Rupert]

11. It wouldn't get to the President.

By your advocacy link, an optimistic count has 90 Reps voting for, leaving 345 against. Bringing it to a vote would just humiliate us. We are not the majority position in Congress.

Moreover, he can and will veto it. He'll say, "We need funding for our troops, and we need funding that isn't attached to a pullout. Either you fund the troops without playing politics, or you leave them high and dry in Iraq, but they're not going home until the job is done." He'll fight dirty, and he'll use every single US soldier as a bargaining chip.

[cali]

13. I just heard an interesting take on this on

Vermont Public Radio. The analyst said that if this supplemental is defeated it will be a huge blow to the dems attempting to end the war, or have any control over bushco's actions. In fact, and I don't understand this, the analyst said that if it's defeated, they won't have another chance until January 2009.

[whoneedstickets]

14. Military appropriations...

I think they may be done on a two year cycle. Or that is the maximum. This supplemental bill is outside of the normal appropriations cycle. I presume its is intended to last through 2008 when the congress would be considering 2009 funding which would be the next time they could cut the funding for the war. That's why this is so critical that even the Move.on folks have decided to (against their instincts) support the leadership.


Dang, can't we show a bit of unity on this?

[Kelly Rupert]

19. Even disregarding that,

if we make a play and fail, it's over, over, over. If a big-ticket idea--be it social-security privatization, Hillarycare, Iraq withdrawal, whatever--is presented in a media circus and fails, it's not going to be tried again in the same session of Congress. If we try to end the war outright and fail, then the war is on until we get the White House.

[whoneedstickets]

24. ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

This is the big dance. If we fall, the music stops.

[cali]

29. God is that true. And scary. n/t

[Tom Joad]

31. If hillary wins, then the war will go on another decade. She has made promises. she intends to keep

them.
I trust Hillary.

[whoneedstickets]

12. Right...

If the Hill sends him a funding bill with a fixed termination date, he can veto it at the cost of his $. Bush know this and so will 1) do EVERYTHING possible to prevent a fixed date from showing up 2) if it shows up veto the bill and blame the Democrats for not supporting the troops. THEN the real showdown starts, will the Dems knuckle under and send a blank check or will they grow some kohones and stand tough. If they do Bush will have to accept the time limit. If they don't we're toast and 08 doesn't look so good.

The FIRST battle is to get the damn fixed time limit in the legislation (the senate bill has no binding date!). The house bill will, if the loony left in our own party can get its act together (aka learn a lesson in institutional strategy) and appear unified enough to shove it through the house. THEN they have to support it enough to NOT have the fixed limit removed in the reconciliation committee where the Senators will be trying to soften it.

I swear the lack of unity among Democrats on this drives me nuts. NO UNILATERAL withdrawal bill will pass. This is the best we can do.

[whoneedstickets]

21. The ONLY other strategy...

I suppose would be to sit on it and not send anything to Bush thereby de facto de-funding the war. But the White House would have the upper hand in the public battle because the Dems wouldn't be able to claim to have tried to compromise with a $ for Exit-date exchange. The "Dems won't support the troops" claims would be unending and irrefutable. What would we have to offer in reply? Hey! You're wrong! we did....nothing. Thats a loser.

[helderheid]

15. Not one more dime, not one more day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=475528&mesg_id=475528

[cali]

20. We just don't have the votes to cut off funding.

Period. I am reminded of that old saw: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Futile gestures are not helpful.

[helderheid]

23. Bush is going to veto anything we put forward.

[cali]

Maybe.

Yes, he says he will, but we don't know that for sure. In any case, it doesn't change the fact that we don't have anything close to the votes to cut off funding.

[whoneedstickets]

32. Probably, BUT...the post Veto game is where the action is...

how do things look afterward? If we send a funding bill with a fixed limit, the Bush spin will be "the Dems aren't supporting the troops", the Dems reply "we gave you a bill with a reasonable timetable and you refused".

If we refuse to fund at all then the Thug mantra is the same, but the reply is what? We lose the mantle of reasonableness, and look like a bunch of radical lefties and that will kill us in 08. It will force our candidates (both Senators) to deal with questions like "Why didn't you vote to support the troops" or, almost as bad, "Why are you so out of line with the rest of your party?".

The source of republican strength in the House from 1994 until 2006 was their lockstep unity. We can't even manage 3 months without the pie-eyed idealist jumping ship.

[helderheid]

34. Democrats were overwhelmingly elected in 2006 to END THIS WAR.

Are the majority of Americans "radical lefties"?

[whoneedstickets]

35. I guess that's a fact since you said so...

....anti-war sentiment was an important part of the election. But no one ran on a national the 'we'll defund the war immediately' platform. You're staking a lot of the party's 08 future on a shaky assertion.

[cali]

36. But it's not that simple.

Americans are all over the map when it comes to funding the troops and how to pull out of Iraq. And as I recall, the number one issue wasn't even the war, it was corruption. Americans who voted for dems are not some monolithic block.

[endarkenment]

18. No money no war.

No money no war
No money no war
No money no war
No money no war
Cause I remember when we used to sit
In a government yard in Trenchtown
Observing the hypocrites
Mingle with the good people we meet
Good friends we have, Oh, good friends we have lost
Along the way
In this great future,
You can't forget your past
So dry your tears, I seh
No money no war
No money no war


Bob Marley, we loved you brother.

[cali]

22. sloganeering just ain't gonna cut it.

they don't have the votes. At the most there are 90 votes to cut off funding. At most.

[endarkenment]

25. Not the question asked.

"A Simple Poll On The Supplemental:
Do you support it? And I'd love to know why you do or don't ."

The question wasn't "do we have the votes to defeat the funding bill".

I oppose one more dime for the war.


No money no war.

[gravity]

26. Cutting funds is dangerous

There needs to be a plan of action instead of cutting the money supply.

[endarkenment]

27. oh bullshit

There is plenty of money in the pipeline to fund a withdrawal.

[Kelly Rupert]

30. Bush won't just roll over like you suggest he will.

He doesn't start funding a withdrawal. He says, "Give the troops funding. We can't withdraw, we can't pull out. We're staying in Iraq until the mission's over."

Now what?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Continuing to fund an immoral war is immoral.

The excuses given that "it's a move in the right direction" is smoke and mirrors. It does nothing to end the war. It is contingent on Bush's approval to meet certification guidelines that he is free to ignore. It promises to bring the troops home in 19 months if Bush approves.

But, the point is moot. The bill will fail, or if not (an unlikely - at best - occurrence) Bush will veto it.

It's a half assed measure with no teeth.

If they're going to present a bill that is "symbolic" at least make it more of "symbol" than this pathetic excuse for doing something.

[whoneedstickets]

33. Think about the POST VETO environment.

This is going to be played out in the court of public opinion. Like the republican attempt to shut down government was. What will be each side's position?

The Surge was CLEARLY designed to give a short run impression of success to which the WH could point EXACTLY for this battle.

If you understand the polls, a majority of American 'don't want to lose' (the substantive outcome is secondary now to self image). Bush will say, we're making America lose the war. If we turn off the public we could be out of power again in 08. Then what? All your precious moralizing was a waste of breath and the emboldened republican's war continues.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. If they stop funding it - the war ends.

If they continue to pussyfoot around the fact that more money to fund the war = more war, the war continues.

It's time they, at least, acknowledge the fact that the war is lost and that funding it only extends the slaughter.

The majority of the American people may not want to lose, but that's like saying the majority of the American people believe in Santa Claus. They're finally waking up. Your precious pandering to them only puts them back into the la-la land of believing that it can be won.

The time for pretending to be doing something by playing it safe and pandering is over.

“In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.” Gandhi

[Odin2005]

38. I support it. We can't let the Perfect become the enemy of the Good.

[helderheid]

39. is it really good?