The Republican Filibuster of the end of the war in Iraq

As we're correcting spelling, it's Neo-Clowns.

0 Replies

I, sir, am a Ronald Reagan Republican. The party hardly reflects my values any longer, both sides of the aisle look like a bunch of libs to me.

0 Replies

You mean you're having trouble remembering anything?

0 Replies

CJ,

I know Ronald Reagan Republicans, I have worked with Ronald Reagan Republicans, Ronald Reagan Republicans are friends of mine.

You sir, are no Ronald Reagan Republican.

((but who do you think you are kidding anyway))

0 Replies

I guess it depends on your definition then, Beavis. Since I haven't been happy with either party since Ronnie was in office, that is why I call myself that.

0 Replies

ronald (you aren't really lying if your heart tells you otherwise) wrote:

A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

Like assholes on a2k, facts and evidence just get in the way.

0 Replies

That was the most incredibly rhetorical slithering out of a political nightmare I've heard until, "I did not have sex with that woman." But, ya know I think all politicians are snakes at heart. Self-labeling oneself as a Reagan Republican or a Clinton Democrat does not move me and I'm waiting for someone to self-label themselves a Bush Republican.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
another armchair warrior bows up from the safety of his keyboard....

So,are you saying that only those that have served in Iraq have the right to comment on the war,or that only those that have served in Iraq have the right to support the war?

So you are saying your only argument is creating a strawman since that isn't even close to what BPB said.

I don't see you commenting on cj's claim "he served" by having a paid job at a private company state side.

I didnt reply to it because I saw no reason to.
The rest of you did a good job of shooting his statement down,I saw no reason to add to it.
But,since the comment was made that those supporting the war are cowards if they dont go to Iraq...

Quote:

Anyone besides me think that falls under the category of gutless puke

?

Quote:

get your ass over there then hero.... I don't see you doing your duty as a real live American...

Both of those quotes are from BPB,and both of them are on this thread.
So,my question stands...
Are only those that served in Iraq allowed to support the war,or are only those that served in Iraq allowed to comment on the war,from the conservative side?

Those are the comments I was responding to,nothing more.

ebrown said...

Quote:

We all know the rules, Mysteryman. The Republicans have every right to use the filibuster to keep the war going.

It's the politics of the thing.

The American people want the war to end... and the Republicans are filibustering an increasing majority of Americans (who are getting more and more frustrated).

This combined with the fact the Republicans whined when the Democrats used the filibuster makes them look rather pathetic now.

I agree,it does make the repubs look pathetic,but it also makes the dems look pathetic.
The dems dont like the fact that the repubs used the same tactics that the dems used.
They both seem to have forgotten that it is the job of the minority party to block any legislation they dont like,no matter what party it is.

As for the dems representing a majority of Americans,I find that a little hard to believe.
If the dems were so sure they were representing the majority,they would grow some balls and simply stop funding the war.
Instead,they have voted for every appropriations bill,and the legislation the repubs blocked didnt even call for a total US pullout of Iraq.
Instead it called for a reduction in force,allowing US troops to remain to train Iraqi forces,to provide security in some areas,and it also allowed the president to decide if more troops were going to be required.

Why vote for that if you represent a majority of US citizens?

Why not vote to cut off funding totally and to demand a total withdrawal of US trooops?

0 Replies

How hard is this to understand? They don't want to cut off funding b/c it's the messiest and most dangerous way possible to end the war.

Why doesn't Bush just nuke Iraq into Glass and be done with it? It would effectively stop Al Qaeda from operating there.

Cutting off the funding for the war is an extreme position - one that nobody wants to do. The Dems aren't looking forward to cutting off funding. But they may end up having to, b/c Bush isn't following the will of the American people.

Quote:

As for the dems representing a majority of Americans,I find that a little hard to believe.

Polling shows that Americans strongly support timetables to end the war - which is exactly what the Dems have been calling for. Not leaving today, not cutting off funding, but timetables. To ignore this is to ignore reality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Comparing the Republican filibuster of this bill to the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees in 2005 misses a big point. The Shrub has gotten more of his appointments through the Senate without a hitch than Clinton did when facing a Republican dominated Congress--and the Shrub has had far fewer of his appointments rejected.

But quite apart from that, compare the public mood. Is anyone here prepared to claim that a significant majority of the public were angry about judicial appointments? Does anyone claim that a significant majority of the public wanted those appointments quickly confirmed? I'll tell you, judicial appointments are almost always unimportant to the public.

But what about support for the war? More than two thirds of the public does not approve of the Shrub's handling of the war. This is an issue the public very definitely does care about. And if carefully managed, the Democrats can use this again and again against the Republicans.

0 Replies

Right Setanta -- how many people can a judge sentence to death compared to the deaths from the Iraq war? No comparison.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How hard is this to understand? They don't want to cut off funding b/c it's the messiest and most dangerous way possible to end the war.

But it would do exactly what the dems want and end the war.
By cutting off funding,it would force the US to leave,because they couldnt continue to fight.
Isnt that what the dems want?

Why doesn't Bush just nuke Iraq into Glass and be done with it? It would effectively stop Al Qaeda from operating there.

I agree,perhaps it would.
But,if he did that,would you also support him nuking Iran,Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia,and every other country that might be harboring terrorist groups?
And to be honest,I am surprised to see you advocating the use of nukes.

Cutting off the funding for the war is an extreme position - one that nobody wants to do. The Dems aren't looking forward to cutting off funding. But they may end up having to, b/c Bush isn't following the will of the American people.

Please show me anywhere in the Constitution that says the President MUST follow the will of the people.
We elect the President and the congress to govern as they think best,as allowed by the constitution.
We dont elect them to govern by opinion polls or by popularity contest.
EVERY President has at one time or another gone against the "will of the people" when they thought it neccessary.
As long as he isnt violating the Constitution (and so far he isnt), then he is free to make the decisions he thinks best.

Quote:

As for the dems representing a majority of Americans,I find that a little hard to believe.

Polling shows that Americans strongly support timetables to end the war - which is exactly what the Dems have been calling for. Not leaving today, not cutting off funding, but timetables. To ignore this is to ignore reality.

I agree,polling does show that.
BUT,it isnt up to you or me or anyone else to set those timetables,its up to the President and the commanders in Iraq.
When they determine that its time,we will leave.

Also,why are the dems not living up to the promise they made when they approved the surge and approved letting General Petraus(sp) take command in Iraq.
The whole idea was to let it go till Sept,then to make decisions based on the report in Sept.
Now,the dems are reneging on their promise.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Dems and Independents are a majority that are in favor of ending the war ASAP.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

The Dems and Independents are a majority that are in favor of ending the war ASAP.

Then cut off the funding and stop pussyfooting around.
If what you say is true,then when will they grow some balls and end the war?

0 Replies

Quote:

I agree,perhaps it would.
But,if he did that,would you also support him nuking Iran,Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia,and every other country that might be harboring terrorist groups?
And to be honest,I am surprised to see you advocating the use of nukes.

I'm not, of course - it was done to point out that the quickest solution to a problem is often fraught with tons of problems.

Quote:

I agree,polling does show that.
BUT,it isnt up to you or me or anyone else to set those timetables,its up to the President and the commanders in Iraq.
When they determine that its time,we will leave.

You conveniently forget that many other commanders in Iraq have decided this - and they were promptly removed from office when the told the prez. that the surge wouldn't work. The Joint Chiefs of staff said the same thing, and they were removed as well. Bush has placed a guy, Petraeus, in there who will just say whatever Bush tells him to say.

Quote:

Also,why are the dems not living up to the promise they made when they approved the surge and approved letting General Petraus(sp) take command in Iraq.

The Dems' didn't make any promises when they confirmed Petraeus. They just voted him in.

Also, you want to wait until September? Fine. That's 42 days from now. You really think things are going to be better between now and then? I don't. But I fully expect Petraeus to give a glowing report, so Bush and the Republicans in congress can cover their asses.

Cycloptichorn

ps, I don't buy into the bullshit that Petraeus is some sort of infallible, neutral character. He's nothing of the sort, nothing but a puppet put up by the Bush crew in order to salvage some sort of credibility on the war.

He's been making statements and predictions which turned out to be wrong for the entirety of the war now. Read for yourself -

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/19/petraeus/index.html

Don't buy the hype.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
The Dems and Independents are a majority that are in favor of ending the war ASAP.

Then cut off the funding and stop pussyfooting around.
If what you say is true,then when will they grow some balls and end the war?

You also know that the Republicans would use this to attack the Dems for the rest of time; and there's a good chance that Bush simply wouldn't withdraw the troops, and then blame the Dems for them running out of ammo. It's disingenuous for you to call the Dems 'pussies' for not cutting off the funding.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
The Dems and Independents are a majority that are in favor of ending the war ASAP.

Then cut off the funding and stop pussyfooting around.
If what you say is true,then when will they grow some balls and end the war?

You also know that the Republicans would use this to attack the Dems for the rest of time; and there's a good chance that Bush simply wouldn't withdraw the troops, and then blame the Dems for them running out of ammo. It's disingenuous for you to call the Dems 'pussies' for not cutting off the funding.

Cycloptichorn

If the dems truly believe that the war should end,and if they truly believe they are representing the "will of the people",then cutting off the funding would be supported by the "people".

If they truly believe that they are right,then they should act on their beliefs and not worry about the political consequences to their careers.

But,since they haven't,that to me shows that they don't have the balls to do what they think is right,and that their whole anti-war stance is an act designed to get votes,nothing more.

They seem to have forgotten that old axiom that says...Doing the right thing may not be popular,but it is right.

So,are the dems more worried about being popular or doing what they deem is the right thing?

0 Replies

Mysteryman doesn't understand how democracy works.

We don't want Congress to remove funding for the troops...

1. We want Congress to protect the interests of the troops by ending stop loss provisions and by limiting the amount of time a soldier can be kept in theater.

2. Then we want Congress to remove authorization for the war.

3. Then we want Congress to legislate a plan for leaving Iraq.

Our first two desires are clearly inside of the Constitutional duties of Congress. The fourth may be contested by our "Commander and Chief". But Congress has many Constitution ways to bring about an end to the war if two thirds of them want to do so. Ending funding is one of the worst ways to do it.

The key is when Congress will get to the all crucial two thirds point to overcome vetoes.

Of course this depends on the all important public support. Democrats are very deliberately making sure that America knows that they are being deliberate and thoughtful and responsible.

The other key is to keep pressure on the Republican obstructionists. The longer this goes on, the harder it will be for them to keep blocking the end to the war. You will see Republican after Republican change their mind.

Step by step, mysteryman. We already have two thirds of Americans on our side... two thirds of Congress won't be far behind.

You will see mysteryman. The Democrats are being smart. Their strategy will prove much more effective than yours.

0 Replies

MM you need to get back over there... your war fever has not yet been satiated....

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

MM you need to get back over there... your war fever has not yet been satiated....

And once again you show that you have no idea what you are talking about.

THere is nobody that is more anti war then someone that has seen it.
But,there must be people willing to fight when called.
If it was my decision to make,there would never have been a war,and we would not be fighting in Iraq now.

But,there is and we are.
The difference between you and me is that I have served,and I know we can not allow ourselves to be defeated.

You on the other hand seem to prefer that we are defeated,no matter what the consequences of that would be.

As a soldier,I go where I am ordered and fight when needed,whether I agree with the reasons or not.
In this case,I agree with what we are trying to do,but that does not mean I want or are in favor of war.

It does however mean that I did my job to the best of my ability.
Thats all anyone can do.

0 Replies

The Republican Filibuster of the end of the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know