Lets assume Bush is a monster willing to sacrifice the troops

[Az]

He is willing to play the political game. Hold the troops hostage until he gets his way. As it stands right now the Dems did not have the votes to force the troops home. Bush was not going to budge and he had the political might to make the veto work. What options did the Dems have at this point?

Yes they could play fillibuster games and hold up the funding bypassing a veto. But that would not bring the troops home. It would just leave them stranded. Bush doesn't care.

So what is the right thing to do in this situation? For the troops. If you can't force Bush to bring them home what do you do to keep them as safe as you can? You fund the troops and continue trying to dismantle Bush Co with investigations and trials.

They had to know the reaction the public would have. They are not that cut off. So they make sure the current crop of candidates vote with the people despite having no effect on the outcome. They buckle to Bush. But only on this count. Because they believe it is the only right thing they can do for the troops.

I do not know if this is the rational they are using. But if Bush is willing to sacrifice the troops then it makes a bit of sense. Bush must be brought down. But honest and honorable men and women would not want to do it at our soldiers expense.

Any thoughts on this?

[jody]

1. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. n/t

[Az]

3. Then what choice did they have?

If they could not use politics to bring the troops home then what choice did they have but to fund the troops and go after him by other means.

If Bush is what is keeping them over there then he has to go. If the troops cannot come home until we get rid of him then political brinksmanship is pointless on this subject and wastes time. The most expedient way to bring the troops home is to send Bush home.

[jody]

23. My post was a tart reply to "Lets assume Bush is a monster willing to sacrifice the troops". nt

[Dr.Phool]

2. Overriding a veto has nothing to do with it.

I heard Kucinich on Democracy Now today. Just don't vote on legislation to fund the war. No veto necessary.

Dems are afraid that Mr 30% is going to bad mouth them. Well guess what. Now an angry 70% are going to bad mouth them.

[Az]

What does that do for the troops?

It won't bring them home. Not if Bush is willing to sacrifice them. He will turn blue holding his breath but the troops will be dying.

What short of bringing the troops home does any good?

[EFerrari]

4. There are a lot of people between Bush and doing that.

The military establishment would never allow it. Get real.

[Az]

5. You mean like those navy officers that just got fired?

I don't know if this is what is going on. I am just exploring possibilities.

[EFerrari]

11. Yes, like those officers that just got fired. Their higher ups are looking

at that and making plans.

The generals would NEVER allow their troops to be put in the kind of jeopardy that people who say "its for the troops" are imagining. It would never happen on that scale. They would mutiny first and they'd never do THAT.

[snappyturtle]

6. Why couldn't they have funded the amount necessary

to nurse them through with necessities and to bring them home. A lot of money is going for re-construction....that's been wildly successful....poorly constructed...abandoned....and they voted more money for it! OR, not pass this bill....force bush to the wall so he knows he can't continue the war and aggression and let him ask for the appropriate amount to bring the troops home...I know this is simplistic but to say we're abandoning the troops if this bill wasn't passed isn't so. I support the troops....I think it's in their best interest they return to America.....that's support too.

[Az]

10. I don't know.

Maybe they decided that fighting the funding was not the route to go. Maybe they have a different route in mind.

Do you think they don't know that this would be political suicide? This is what is eating at me. They had to know the repurcussions of this descision. What was there to gain from it? If they don't do something their careers are definately over.

[snappyturtle]

14. I'm so tired tonight that now when I re-read my reply it doesn't

make much sense either. I guess the best I can say is that we're in a very bad spot and hopefully a little rest for all will help make some sense of what happened today.

[Az]

15. Thats all I am doing

Trying to make sense of this. Cuz it doesn't make sense on the surface and thats for sure.

[snappyturtle]

16. It makes no sense.....maybe that was the purpose..keep us in

limbo! Good night! Gotta grab a quick shower...very quick and watch Gore on Jon Stewart!

[BurtWorm]

20. Az, did you read Skinner's post asking "Whose compromise was this?"

It's a very interesting, very puzzling question. It seems to me that there were factions among Congressional Dems (possibly among Congressional Repubs too, but that's a whole other story) which makes it very difficult to read who thought this was a good idea and why. Suspicion here and elsewhere seems to be settling on Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel, all of whom voted for the bill against the better judgment of the 70%-ers who are now breathing down everyone in the Party's neck. The best I can tell is, this group wanted to take away from Bush the opportunity to saddle the Dems with blame for not supporting the troops, and also push through some funding Bush was not giving ground on. It's as though they believed the Party's insistence on timelines was too complicated for the American public to grasp, especially when compared to Bush's insistence on "supporting the troops." As though they were not allowed to state truths like, "When Bush says 'support the troops,' he means, 'keep the war dollars flowing.'"

In other words, I think they don't understand that they have some power. Not all the power in the world, of course, but they certainly do have the power to explain. That's the very essence of their job as politicians, to explain to their constituents what they're doing. They're not doing that very well.

PS: The worst case scenario is, of course, that the compromisers really believe in keeping the war dollars flowing. I can only hope it's not as bad as that.

[Az]

21. Yes I read it but I am skeptical

The degree to which they would have had to misread the public would be astounding. If they are that out of touch then they need to go and thats for certain. We don't need any more charismatic idiots in power.

I don't know. When I don't know I acknowledge that I do not know. I explore possibilities. I ask questions. I do whatever I can to avoid leaping to a conclusion as that is an emotional response and can quickly blind us. I am deeply disappointed. But I will not leap to a conclusion and will continue to explore possible explanations.

[riderinthestorm]

22. Or the Dems are also in on the take....

they are in on the corporate war profiteering and election fraud - they know they aren't REALLY sacrificing anything. Diebold, Mobil, Halliburton etc have their political careers all sown up.

This isn't political suicide - it's their political guarantee, for life.

[leftupnorth]

7. I don't think Bush has the balls to actually leave the troops in the field without food or ammo.

If he does, it's not the Dems that look bad.

Besides, I don't believe the officer corps would allow their soldiers to go out so ill-equipped.

[Neshanic]

8. Thank you. And that makes the war completely and irrevocably owned by Bush.

[Neshanic]

Self delete

[Neshanic]

9. Self delete

[Possumpoint]

12. I Fail To Understand Why

holding the line on the troop with drawls wouldn't have worked. Let President Bush Veto anything he wants but tell him the conditions don't change. Let us know when he needs the money; here are the conditions.

[Az]

13. It doesn't bring the troops home

I am assuming that the Dems were stuck making a very hard descision. Anything short of getting the troops home just weakens them. Not funding them doesn't mean they will run out of ammo tomorrow. It just means they start cutting back and safety drops.

Then the repugs put on a full court press to spin it that the Dems are playing games with the troops lives. KO may be good but he is outnumbered by conservative pundits and they will play it up like there is no tomorrow.

[aquart]

18. Uh...Then you haven't been paying attention to the reports.

He's allowed exactly that. Hungry, skinny soldiers supposedly supplied by those wonderful privatized outfits run by Bush cronies. (Of course some got fat on empty calories, but that's almost normal for Americans.) And he's been willing to let them die because they're under-equipped, too. Where have you been?

<http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/03/30/troops-losing-weight-while-eating-mres-in-afghanistan>

<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070520-1444-iraq-missingsoldiers.html>

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml>

<http://storiesinamerica.blogspot.com/2006/01/iraq-vets-call-for-hearings-on-body.html>

<http://www.govexec.com/features/0704-15/0704-15newsanalysis1.htm>

<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece>

<http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121903D.shtml>

<http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/contamination.html>

<http://www.northcoastjournal.com/010804/cover0108.html>

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/13_starve.html>

[EFerrari]

19. But that's mostly unreported. You are right about that.

(I subbed to Army Times when all this started because I didn't trust the whore media to report.)

But, it would be a different situation if the whole country knew the Congress was pulling the money and Junior didn't bring them home.

In general I agree with you. Junior @sswipe doesn't give a damn about our service people or how or why they die, are injured or what they suffer. And he gets away with it because of the lapdog media.

[Bluerthanblue]

24. he'd threaten it, maybe take it right up to the edge, but i agree his

handlers wouldn't let him do it-

There is eventually a Captain Queeg moment for everyone.

[frogcycle]

17. i tend to agree that they MUST have a hole card

they did not get where they are by being complete idiots.

Either they are SOOOO corrupt and 'on the take" that they don't give any more of a shit about our country, the troops, civilization as a whole than bush does... or they are mind-numbingly stupid, thinking they can just do whatever and then go home and "spin" it to make the constituents think they hung the moon (hell, pugs believe that, so why NOT the dems?), or - my favorite - they have something up their sleeve