The Lie That Keeps the Occupation Going

[davidswanson]

It is a lie that Congress must pass a bill to end the occupation of Iraq. The occupation can be ended with an announcement by Congressional leaders that there will be no more funding. Any proposal to fund it can be blocked by 41 senators. Bush has plenty of money for withdrawal and could be given more for that exclusive purpose. When your television tells you the Democrats need 60 or 67 senators to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could if they wanted announce today that the House and Senate will no longer bring to a vote any bills to fund anything other than withdrawal. They have many colleagues already on board with that position, not to mention two thirds of the country. It would take 218 signatures on a discharge petition to force a bill to the floor of the House without Pelosi's approval. It is unlikely enough Democrats would oppose their party to fund Bush's war in that way. In the Senate, Reid alone could refuse to bring a bill to the floor, or another senator could put a secret hold on a bill. And, while not all bills can be filibustered (appropriations bills can be, budget reconciliation bills cannot), you can hardly claim you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster without admitting that with only 41 you could launch your own filibuster and that with 51 you could defeat any bill. Once you understand the goal as blocking bills rather than passing them, the number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/liegoing

[robinlynne]

1. AGREED!

[ChenZhen]

2. But you are preaching to the choir...

Most American's still believe Saddam was a hijacker on the plane packed with Sarin gas that took out one of the twin towers on 9-11, then he resurrected himself with satanic Muslim rituals, and then ate all his WMDs just to make us look stupid for invading.

Im not sure anyone else out there is going to get it.

[nightrider767]

3. Scary.....

It's like a nightmare.

:dilemma:

[WizardTN]

4. Too many people don't know this.

I have been saying it for some time. All that is needed is for the Democrats to refuse to bring it to the floor.

Soooo... Now, how do we get that message across? Fast enough and forcefully enough to convince the bunch in DC that it is exactly what over 70% of the public wants?

[SaveElmer]

5. Stopping funding today will n ot stop the war...

According to Barbara Boxer Bush has more than enough money in the pipeline to keep the war going until the end of his Presidency...

[jmp]

13. Then he doesn't need any more does he?

No more funding!

[ChenZhen]

6. Senate approves $150B in war spending

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3013201

[slick8790]

7. Stopping funding doesn't do anything.

Bush can pull the money for Iraq from other parts of the DoD budget if he so chooses, as well as what SaveElmer said. All it is political suicide.

[davidswanson]

8. there's no question he will

but then they HAVE to impeach

[slick8790]

9. No, they don't, and they won't.

There's far worse things Bush has done than take funds from other sources. If they didn't impeach for those, then why would they impeach for this?

[ljm2002]

10. No guts, no glory...

...our leaders are not exactly draping themselves with glory, are they.

I don't give a rat's ass if these timid twits think it's political suicide to end the war by means of ending funding. Do they not realize that there is a fundamental question of right and wrong here? Do they not realize that what they are doing right now is political suicide anyway?

The people of this nation somehow managed -- in spite of all odds, in spite of Diebold, vote caging, voter suppression, et-fucking-cetera -- to put a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, with a clear mandate to end the war. And they have pissed it all away because they're too busy making political calculations. Right now their mantra is, "well now it really is the Republicans' war" -- wow, that is a really inspiring stand, there. Not.

Of course, let us not forget the blue dogs. These assholes are undermining the party, and have no sense of party discipline -- gosh, you don't think there might be any MOLES in there do you?

Getting madder by the minute here.

[slick8790]

11. Alright.

Explain how cutting off funding would do anything other than kill the congressional democrats with "THEY DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS" crys from every media outlet.


Secondly, you don't like the blue dogs? go move to their district and run against them in the primary. Most of these democrats are elected to seats that a liberal would stand no chance of getting or holding. have you forgot people elect representative to vote for what they want? I don't know about you, but i'll take someone who votes with us 75% of the time over a republican who votes with us 0% of the time.

[ljm2002]

12. And do you not see...

...they use the "They don't support the troops" line on the Democrats EVERY FRIGGIN' DAY OF THE WEEK RIGHT NOW?????

I am so tired of defeatism and politics-as-usual that I could just scream. Well I suppose that's what I'm doing -- screaming. Sorry if it gets under your skin, this whole nightmare has gotten under my skin. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and the continued occupation is a continuation of that war crime. There are 4-friggin'-million Iraqi refugees right now, a humanitarian disaster quite apart from the 600,000 (conservative estimate) civilians killed in this immoral enterprise. This is not something that lends itself to the political art of compromise. You might say we are in a situation that calls for "moral clarity".

What Yeats wrote so eloquently in 1920 holds true again today: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." When will the best of this generation rekindle their own passionate intensity? When will we have the courage of our convictions? When will we be able to point to the atrocities going on right now and say Enough is enough? This is not a time for triangulation, it is a time to take risks and tilt at windmills and head-butt and do whatever it takes to knock these bastards down like the statue of Saddam. It's the least we can do.

[slick8790]

14. Once again, I ask you....

If you agree with me that cutting off funding will not end the war (as I assume you do, you haven't objected), what is your suggestion for what they do? Our best hopes lie with plans like Jim Webbs that can get bipartisan support.

[ljm2002]

16. First, I am not convinced...

...that Bush can so easily draw on enough other funds to keep pursuing this criminal and immoral enterprise, even if Barbara Boxer says so. For example: Congress could pass a law disallowing him to siphon general DOD funds for continuation of the Iraq occupation.

Second, acquiescing to blackmail is never the right approach. This idea that "well even if you cut off funds, we won't stop this war, and we'll say mean things about you for trying" -- well, that's just blackmail, and that's where the guts comes in. If that is the threat, make him carry it out. Make Bush suck money out of the DOD then -- God knows they could use some belt tightening over there. Use the tools you have, and quit handwringing over the beating you'll take. You'll take that beating anyway -- may as well stand for something while you're at it.

[slick8790]

17. But if congress could pass a law disallowing that, then they could pass one

setting a timetable for withdrawal. But they cant, not with 235 in the house and 49 in the senate. But cutting off funds the only thing you actually accomplish is killing many of our new house pickups and risk losing it back to the republicans in 2008. And isn't it better to be able to have a democratic congress when the next democratic president is inaugurated, rather than a split one to make things more difficult?

[Tesha]

18. Good. Let him do so. Either way, no new money for this war. (NT)

[Tesha]

19. Of ocurse that wasn't tru when the Democrats first took power, was it?

They could have voted "NO" right then and there, or never
even brought the measures to the floor. But because they
hold the same "powerful" views you do, they went right
along and enabled Bush to the tune of a billions of
dollars more for the war.

Tesha

[slick8790]

20. What are you talking about?

There was never any way stopping funding could have ended the war, unless the DoD budget was eliminated almost entirely. The only way congressional dems can get out of Iraq is eiher to de-authorize IWR or set a timetable. Cutting funding will do precisely nothing, and only enable a brand new set of attacks that might well cost congressional seats or even presidential elections. If the dems are gonna be bashed for something, why not be bashed for something that actually accomplishes something, rather than this, which doesnt?

[Tesha]

21. Bullshit. (NT)

[slick8790]

22. How enlightening. Care to explain?

Is there something grand i'm missing? Or have you just run out of excuses?

[Tesha]

23. It bears no explanation. Your argument was complete bullshit.

You know as well as I do that the Democrats, since taking
the majority in both houses of Congress, have passed funding
bill after funding bill *SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING FUNDS FOR
SHRUB's OCCUPATION*.

Okay, you say funds are fungible and if the Democrats hadn't
passed these special appropriations, Shrub would have have
just shuffled the pots of money around and kept his war
going anyway from other funding sources.

Good! Make him shuffle the pots. At least then we wouldn't
be adding to the national debt at the rate of hundreds of
billions of dollars for the war.

The Democrats defaulted, and that's a fact you'll just
have to face.

Tesha

[GreenArrow]

15. the lie is that there was something -- anything --

honest, decent or honorable about our being there. When people -- voters and pols -- are ready (a big if) to give up that illusion, then *maybe* something will be done.