Liberals All But Defeated On Iraq Bill

Precisely how it will play out remains to be seen, but read this inside politics post from Chris Bowers at MyDD and you'll know the nutroots has been given a boot right up the butt from the Democrats they so fiercely supported in the last election.

If, upon the defeat of this bill, a supplemental without any strings attached will easily pass through the House, then I have serious concerns over the leadership's willingness to even fight for this compromise bill once it is either vetoed or defeated via filibuster in the Senate. One of those things will almost certainly take place, and so if progressives are willing to compromise in order to get this bill through the House, then the leadership better be willing to stand behind this compromise. If, instead, it turns out that progressives have been placed in the position of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football on this one, don't expect as many of us to get behind a compromise like this next time around. I am not particularly energetic to fight for Democrats who don't fight for themselves. The House leadership better be ready to go to the mat in defense of this bill.

Bowers stops at concluding the obvious, opting to only acknowledge it as a possibility for now. But he knows what's coming. Maybe he's just trying to let himself and the nutroots down slowly. Whether it dies in the Senate or through a veto doesn't matter. The clock will force the Democrats to put through a straight on funding bill, the war in Iraq will go forward as it should and after the far Left mopes a bit, they'll focus their rage on the sensible elements of the Democrat Party, setting the political stage for another 1968.

For all the screaming about Iraq being another Vietnam, the Left failed to learn the ultimate lesson of that very thing - it was Vietnam that relegated them to the wilderness when it came time to elect a President charged with implementing foreign policy. Far from learning from that mistake, they are energized to repeat it.

Go for it, guys - challenge Blue Dogs and moderates in the primaries, it'll be nice to have the Presidency and both Houses back in GOP hands in 2008.

Oh, and who didn't know this? lol They forget he cut his teeth with the Clintons.

Rahm Emanuel really is a self-serving backstabber who will leak whatever he possibly can to the press if it will help him while simultaneously hurting the rest of the leadership.

Comments

[Buzzy]

The DEMs have painted themselves into a corner on Iraq. To win in 2008 the war in Iraq must keep on going, they offer nothing positive and absolutely nothing else but being anti war and anti Bush. They also know that if they defund the war they will carry the responsibility for whatever happens into the next election.

Without Iraq the Democratic party has nothing to offer the American voters except higher taxes. Everything else will remain the same because the Republican in congress the past several years have been acting like Democrats anyway.

I don't think that Pelosi, Reid and crew want the American public to associate the bloodshed that will result in American abandonment of Iraq with the DNC. If that is the case they won't be in power very long. America doesn't like people who surrender.

[Zifnab]

Yes, the Liberals are defeated. But the soldiers are the real losers.

"This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight."

As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.

http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/

This is the result of the disasterous campaign the "nutroots" opposes.

[Legalize]

"http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/

This is the result of the disasterous campaign the "nutroots" opposes."

Don't be silly. The best way to keep maimed soldiers away from Walter Reed is just to send them back to the front - missing limbs, PTSD, and all. I'm just wondering why our heroic winger friends aren't signing up in droves to fight as we speak. Geoff? Limp Right?

[Jeff]

"I'm just wondering why our heroic winger friends aren't signing up in droves to fight as we speak."

Fine if that's the way it works, there are a few things the left must do.

1) If they support gay marriage, they must get one.
2) If they support abortion, they should intentionally get their girlfirend/wife pregnant, and abort the baby.
3) If they support the kyoto accords they should already being giving 20% of their paycheck to "green" charities.
4) If they want to criticize the war, they should go to Iraq as a journalist - after if I support the war I must go there in order to know how great/bad it is.

[Zifnab]

Jeff, these are all great excuses for failing to support the war with more than lip-service, but it does little for the wounded soldiers being thrown back into active duty because our President is too vain to admit his error and too cowardly to demand a draft.

[Legalize]

Nice try, Jeff. So, your position is that war isn't important enough for you to actually risk anything; war is merely a political instrumentality, i.e. a means to attain the end of political power. That's very principled. You and your fellow travellers have claimed ownership over patriotism, courage, and morality, while simultaneously declaring the "GWOT" to be the existential fight of our generation - much like WWII. You know what young, healthy, patriotic, courageous men your age did during WWII right?

[Andrew]

Thats funny. The dems are defeated on the Iraq bill while the cons are defeated IN Iraq. You cons are a funny bunch!

[templar knight]

Andrew, it won't be the cons, as you say, defeated in Iraq. It will be the United States. You delude yourself if you think otherwise.

[Zifnab]

"Andrew, it won't be the cons, as you say, defeated in Iraq. It will be the United States. You delude yourself if you think otherwise."

Vietnam Redux. We know. The question is, why can't we pull out today rather than waiting another five years like we did under Nixon? Why do conservatives insist on losing even more blood and treasure than we've hemoraged, purely on pride? Why do pundits insist on sending wounded soldiers back into battle, because they need a war to cheerlead? How many flag drapped coffins still this Administration stops feeling manly?

[tk]

I live in a congressional district that went from republican to democrat because we thought,and he promised,to be a moderate. He will not be re-elected. The democrats are not controlled by sensible people but by progressives,who are not that at all,but extreme left wing nuts. We all see it and talk about it. We make a mistake and will repair it.

[templar knight]

Hey, Legalize, I'm back from the wilderness of Alabama. And all you people from Alabama, I'm kidding.

[templar knight]

Ziffy, is Andrew your sock puppet?

[Andrew]

Yawn. It's your war, cons. Your failure, your idiot president, your rumsfeld. Your problem.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[ET]

Sure, libs. The war is our problem. Of course, your party is too weak to solve the problem, despite their lip service to the contrary. Hypocrites.

War is hell, and good Americans are suffering for a higher cause, while you sit on the sidelines hurling insults at the administration. I can't wait until we turn the corner in Iraq and expose you (Zif, Legal, Andrew) for the whining losers you are.

[Darth Malice]

ET,it still gets me how the left still cheers for the enemy.

[Legalize]

"I can't wait until we turn the corner in Iraq and expose you (Zif, Legal, Andrew) for the whining losers you are."

I can't believe you are dense enough to actually utter the phrase "turn the corner," in light of the laundry list of lies and failure associated with it. Besides, I thought we "turned the corner" a half a dozen times already, and that the insurgency was in its "last throes" about 2 years ago, and that the "mission" was "accomplished" in May, 2003.

Oh, right; I forgot - you are delusional.

[scarshapedstar]

Meanwhile, back in reality:

# Iraq was the primary issue in this election. Asked which one or two issues are most important to them in making up their minds, 37 percent identify Iraq (36 percent in House races, 39 percent in Senate races). No other issue comes within 10 points of this mark.
# Iraq was the number one issue among key swing groups. Iraq was the top issue among seniors (42 percent), Independents (39 percent) and moderate voters (43 percent). Nearly half of voters who supported Democrats in congressional (50 percent) and Senate (47 percent) campaigns identify Iraq as one of their most important issues.
# Iraq drove the new Democratic majority. Among voters who identify Iraq as their most important issue, Democratic candidates enjoyed a 33-point margin in House races (65 - 23 percent) and 40-point margin in Senate races (69 - 29 percent).
# Issue was clearly defined. A majority of voters in both House and Senate races saw major differences between the candidates on this issue.
# Voters demand change. By a 54 - 39 percent margin, voters favor setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Even more (58 percent) want to increase congressional oversight of the President’s policies, including investigations into private contracting and intelligence gathering during the lead up to the war and 53 percent want to change leadership in the Iraq War, beginning with the firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
# *******Voters expect change. A very striking 71 percent of voters expect Democrats to reduce or withdraw troops from Iraq if they gained control of Congress.*******

71% of voters hate the troops and love the terrorists!

[Fred Beloit]

A story against the war at Solon? I can't believe it. They are normally so objective and fair. Remember the so-called 1000 soldiers who were against the war? "Hey, we're soldiers. You've got no business sending us into a war." The tip of the iceberg. A mass mutiny in the making. Ah ha ha ha ha. There is one telling element in the Solon report. According to the story most of the medical records show the health of the soldiers improved. These few soldiers say their health hasn't improved. Don't most people under medical treatment show improvement after months? This will probably have to be investigated like all the other BS stories from the likes of Solon, taking time and money away from priorities. I'll remain skeptical until the results are in.

[Zifnab]

"Of course, your party is too weak to solve the problem, despite their lip service to the contrary. Hypocrites."

It would be nice if every solution we propose isn't met with "Your not supporting Halibur... er... the troops!" Investigations into Walter Reed are too demoralizing. Demanding proper troop readiness and proper equipment is downright treasonious terrorist coddling.

So far, Republicans have filibustered the very idea of debating Iraq troop readiness or mission status. Nothing comes up for a vote in the Senate because of Republican obstructionists and because of perpetual Presidential Veto threats. You blame Democrats for failing to solve the war that you made and you refuse to correct. Like smashing a vase on the ground then standing on the shards and blaming the maid for not cleaning it up.

But instead of a piece of porcellian, you're standing on the bodies of wounded, dying, and dead soldiers. Too proud to move, you'd rather send GI Joe off with a broken spine to play referee in a civil war than to admit the war isn't going smoothly.

Not a single "Support Our Troops" conservative here has had a word in for wounded soldiers being sent off to battle. Apparently, they don't factor into your calculus.

[seekeronos]

And is it not true that "figures lie, and liars figure"...?

From whence cometh these numbers, pray, and tell?

[Zifnab]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101517.html

In other news, not even the contractors want to be in Iraq anymore.

"The State Department and other government agencies are having trouble filling great, career-enhancing jobs in Baghdad as part of the new Iraq reconstruction push. Many agency employees are hesitant to sign up for these new "provincial reconstruction teams" because they think they might be killed. Iraqi Embassy employees have been increasingly jittery about working for foreigners."

[Fred Beloit]

Zifnab, I suspect that you don't know any more about troop readiness than a jackass knows about the musee des beaux arts. I could be wrong, and if I am, I apologize. However, the discussion in Congress hasn't really got anything to do with troop readiness. It is about the Dem majority trying to manage the nitty-gritty of this war, a job which is clearly given to the President under the Constitution. It's all politics. You hard Lefties are putting heat on your Congresspersons to end the war now. They can't, it would be political suicide and they don't have the votes. But they have to do something to placate you all. They are hoping this will work to get you off their backs.

[Zifnab]

"However, the discussion in Congress hasn't really got anything to do with troop readiness. It is about the Dem majority trying to manage the nitty-gritty of this war, a job which is clearly given to the President under the Constitution. It's all politics."

Funny. Because after Walter Reed and now this latest story of injuried soldiers being sent back into active service, an issue you continue to dodge, it seems like the President isn't doing much nitty-gritty managing at all. If a President fails to manage his own war, is the Congress required to stand by and allow the military to crumble do to White House incompetence? Congress has power of the purse, last I checked. If the President threatens to strand the US Army in Iraq unless Congress forks over the money, I think Congress still has the right to deligate how the money is spent. Congress restricted Presidential authority in Kosavo. I fail to see why their hands are tied in Iraq.

[Fred Beloit]

I'm dodging nothing. You can take a story from a propaganda rag like Solon at face value if you want to. I'll wait to see what an investigation reveals. And sure the President of the United States is responsible for peeling paint in our embassy in Katmandu along with everything else in the Administration. But get real. Steps are being taken to fix things and this problem has nothing to do with whether we should stay in Iraq. And a humble request is made to stop with the straw dogs. Nobody said Congress's hands are tied where funding the war is concerned. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES to stop funding the war. Perhaps you are familiar with the veto process. (Somehow my caps lock was hit by mistake. Please excuse the breach of internet manners.)

[yyy]

BushCo. has been 'all hat, no cattle' on supporting the troops since the beginning. These jokers don't support the troops they support the WAR. Anything that actually supports the troops--training, medical care, functioning equipment, housing--have ALL BEEN NEGLECTED. Anything that supports the war is good.

BushCo. also didn't bother managing the 'nitty-gritty' of the war for almost four years. Only when they lost Congress and the support of the American people did they start trying to win the actual war, rather than the propaganda war.

[Darth Malice]

YYY,Bush is not a good CnC I will agree there.That is why I am sending Templar Knight to the White House to school him on warfare:)......bottom line we must rise above Bush's incompetence and win.

[seekeronos]

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

"There is no substitute for victory."

-- Douglas MacArthur

[Zifnab]

"I'm dodging nothing. You can take a story from a propaganda rag like Solon at face value if you want to. I'll wait to see what an investigation reveals. And sure the President of the United States is responsible for peeling paint in our embassy in Katmandu along with everything else in the Administration. But get real. Steps are being taken to fix things and this problem has nothing to do with whether we should stay in Iraq."

You're joking. Is Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins a Salon propagandist? Or are you just going to pull a Malkin and debate his existance? They found a story, they reported on it, and the best you can come up with is "oh, don't worry, the President is dealing with it." He's not "dealing with it", he instituted the policy! Sending wounded soldiers back into combat duty isn't a paper-shuffling mistake. They're actually, deliberately, suiting up soldiers who have been declared unfit for combat and sending said soldier back into combat. Bush doesn't listen to his Generals. Now he's proving that he won't even listen to his doctors. Unless the doctors are just Salon propagandists too.

Stop treating Walter Reed and the blossoming scandals like a problem. It's not a bug, dude. It's a feature.

"....bottom line we must rise above Bush's incompetence and win."

If that was the true conservative sentiment, I suspect we would see more conservatives pushing for impeachment. Alas, all hat and no cattle.

[Darth Malice]

Amen seek....GW needs that lesson.

[Zifnab]

"I spent seven years under MacArthur studying dramatics."

--President Eisenhower

Wasn't Douglas MacArthur the guy who wanted to invade China and nuke Vietnam?

[Zifnab]

"I spent seven years under MacArthur studying dramatics."

--President Eisenhower

Wasn't Douglas MacArthur the guy who wanted to invade China and nuke Vietnam?

[seekeronos]

"If that was the true conservative sentiment, I suspect we would see more conservatives pushing for impeachment."

Perhaps so, but considering who would be next in line to the Oval Office after we got done firing Bush and Cheney... well... we'd have to hit some of that moon rock Legalize likes to toke before even _seriously_ considering that.

[seekeronos]

"Wasn't Douglas MacArthur the guy who wanted to invade China and nuke Vietnam?"

Errm. Maybe. I remember he had some idea about nuking China and rolling back Stalin/Kruschev before they could fully recover from WW2.

Probably would have saved us much of the headaches of the Cold War, especially when we were the sole posessors of "Da Bomb".

[yyy]

I think it was Korea he wanted to nuke, not Vietnam...and then move up to the Chinese themselves if dropping some A-bombs on the North Koreans didn't get them to give up.

Great quote though.

[Fred Beloit]

You're joking. Is Master Sgt. Jenkins a doctor? Are there any soldiers in the Army, any at all, who may not want to go into combat again and would want to have themselves unfit for combat duty? And please stop the BS. I said I'd wait for the results of an investigation before making up my mind on this issue, didn't I? Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that Solon never finds a story that presents the military and the President in a favorable light?. And you are just like them. As evidence, I present the record of your comments here. Lord, I get this mental picture of the President in the Holiday Inn in Columbia, South America, typing orders for M. Sgt Jenkins to go to Iraq. With deep admiration and respect, yours, Fred

[Fred Beloit]

Oops. "...to have themselves declared unfit..."

[Zifnab]

"Is Master Sgt. Jenkins a doctor? Are there any soldiers in the Army, any at all, who may not want to go into combat again and would want to have themselves unfit for combat duty?"

Master Sgt. Jenkins was declared unfit for duty by a doctor. Read the article. Does that still count? And who then determines if a soldier is unfit for duty if not the doctors themselves? You're saying a soldier can "want to have [himself] unfit for combat duty" so... we should send those guys out anyway? I'm deeply confused by your logic here.

Also, what investigation would you believe? They investigated Libby and you've got people chanting for his pardon. They investigated Walter Reed and apparently "the President is fixing it" is a valid retort.

Once again Fred, there's nothing to fix. These types of decisions aren't mistakes. Not bugs. Features.

[Fred Beloit]

So you are telling me to simply accept the propaganda Solon puts out and ignore any investigations that might come after? Very good. But, no thanks. You should reread the article. Lt Col. Appenzeller, the unit doctor, declared the eight complainers fit to return to Iraq. I don't suppose you will agree his decision. I'll be back with more later, if you wish to continue.

[Zifnab]

"So you are telling me to simply accept the propaganda Solon puts out and ignore any investigations that might come after? Very good. But, no thanks."

I'm telling you to take the word of a veteran soldier at face value even though the Washington Times decided not to run with the story.

Ah, you mean this evaluation. The one without a physical exam.

"The soldiers described having a cursory discussion of their profiles, with no physical exam or extensive review of medical files. They say Appenzeller and Starbuck seemed focused on downplaying their physical problems. "This guy was changing people's profiles left and right," said a captain who injured his back during his last tour in Iraq and was ordered to Iraq after the Feb. 15 review.

...

A copy of Jenkins' profile written after that Feb. 15 meeting and signed by Capt. Starbuck, the brigade surgeon, shows a healthier soldier than the profile of Jenkins written by another doctor just late last year, though Jenkins says his condition is unchanged. Other soldiers' documents show the same pattern."

So good of you to read the whole article.

It's also nice to know that our men in uniform are now "complainers". How many years did you serve again? Which injuries did you receive?

[yyy]

Of course when it is finally revealed that military doctors have been pressured to certify soldiers as fit to return to duty when the evidence would suggest they were not fit to return to duty, the nutters will either say (a) these were a few 'bad apple' doctors and the military and Bush Admin would never never do such a thing (b) the Dems have infiltrated the military and these 'complainers' should all be put up on charges of treason (c) Clinton did it too, and besides he got a consensual bj in the oval office.

[Legalize]

"Probably would have saved us much of the headaches of the Cold War, especially when we were the sole posessors of "Da Bomb"."

Yeah, that whole explosive power of the middle class/unprecedented technological innovation/rapid modernization/civil rights thing sure was a fucking drag.

[templar knight]

Legalize, why do you think the non-existence of the Cold War would have necessarily precluded the other things you mention? Or perhaps much more would have been accomplished had we not had the Cold War. I think the Cold War was harmful to the US, and to the rest of the World, just as I think WWII contributed measurably to the decline of Europe.

[seekeronos]

"Yeah, that whole explosive power of the middle class/unprecedented technological innovation/rapid modernization/civil rights thing sure was a fucking drag."

Ummm. What kind of psycho moon rocks are ye smoking now, Legalize?

Because the post WW2 economic boom would have happened regardless of Cold War or not.