http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzY0MjU3ZTAxYTJjMzEyMjZlNTY1OWM4MDhmYTExZmE

Quote :

"Wednesday, April 23, 2008 A Milestone [David Freddoso] House Democrats have apparently given up on ending the war through lack of funding, according to Congress Daily (sub required). Instead, they will condition funding on "limited" but surely unrelated domestic policy concerns. Democratic leaders have reached a consensus that the emergency war funding bill considered in the House will have a limited domestic spending component and not embrace controversial war policies, House Democratic leadership sources said Wednesday. 04/23 10:39 PM "

Anyone think that this could be a signal that Democrats are thinking about the war in a different light? What do you think?

4/24/2008 12:46:34 PM

If by different light

You mean

Actively trying to fail at being an opposition party.

4/24/2008 12:50:32 PM

Quote :

" Paying for the War Dollars are the best bullets. by Frederick W. Kagan 04/24/2008 12:00:00 AM CONGRESS IS PREPARING TO consider (finally) the remaining $108 billion in supplemental authorizations to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Previous talking points of the antiwar party--the surge has failed, Iraqis will never reconcile, Iraqi troops won't fight, violence won't fall or, if it does, it won't stay down--have fallen by the wayside as they have been visibly disproven one by one. So the current authorization debate is unlikely to see serious renewed attempts to legislate military failure by imposing a timeline, denying funds for our troops, or attempting to micromanage the deployment and/or use of American forces in a combat zone. The new talking point is that the war costs too much, America's economy is in trouble, Iraq is a an oil-rich nation, and we must make the Iraqis pay. As is so often the case with the antiwar party, this talking point proceeds from assumptions that are false: * That the Iraqis are not paying their share, do not want to, and can only be forced to so by act of Congress (an argument similar to previous claims that only hard timelines and Congressional threats would force the Iraqis to pass laws, fight militias, and so on, all disproven); * That the United States is spending money to build schools and hospitals in Iraq when we need schools and hospitals here at home; and * That we are spending money in Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis rather than Americans, and that it is fit that the Iraqis spend the money or, alternatively, acceptable if the money isn't spent at all. The reality is: * The U.S. foreign assistance budget for Iraq has dropped from $16.3 billion in 2004 to a programmed $1.2 billion in 2008; the Iraqi capital budget has grown from $3.2 billion to $13.1 billion in the same period; * Actual Iraqi spending has risen from $1.2 billion out of $5 billion programmed in 2005 to $4.7 billion out of $10.1 billion programmed in 2007--doubling the budget execution rate in three years; * Iraqi budgeting for Iraqi Security Forces has risen from $1.6 billion in 2004 to $9.0 billion in 2008--nearly a 500 percent increase; American budgeting for the ISF has dropped from $5 billion in 2004 to $3 billion in 2008--a 40 percent decrease; * U.S. assistance money in Iraq is not going to build any sort of permanent infrastructure--hospitals, schools, electrical grid, etc. It is focused instead on the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP--more about that below); on building the capacity of Iraq's government institutions to spend Iraq's money; and on developing the capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces to take responsibility for Iraq's security--all essential elements of creating the conditions for a responsible reduction in American forces over time; and * The U.S. is not spending money in Iraq to make Iraqis happy--all American aid programs are designed to help America's soldiers succeed in their fight against al Qaeda and Iranian-backed Shia militias. It is particularly odd that the antiwar party that has been so loudly trumpeting the need to use soft power rather than hard power is now attempting to undo years of effort to develop a sophisticated political-economic-social-military program in Iraq to secure America's objectives. Having failed to force American troops out of Iraq, Congress is now trying to strip them of all the enablers they need to win. And it is not scare-mongering to state a fact that any brigade commander in Iraq will bear out: cutting off assistance, particularly the CERP money that brigade commanders rely on to establish and maintain good relations with local populations who reciprocate by helping track down terrorists and protect key infrastructure (including the "concerned local citizens," now renamed "Sons of Iraq" who are the lynchpin of this effort), will lead to more American casualties. "

Here is another article regarding this. Though it has biased undertones, it is still relevant.

4/24/2008 1:04:03 PM

Quote :

"General Petraeus and many other commanders have repeatedly said that in this war dollars are the best bullets. Why would Congress want to take the best non-lethal weapons out of the hands of our soldiers and force them to use their guns and risk their lives unnecessarily? What sense does it make to hector the Iraqis about their failure to spend their own money and simultaneously cut funding to the American efforts to help the Iraqis do exactly that? How can a political leader simultaneously bemoan the fact that the Iraqi Security Forces are not "stepping up to the plate" adequately and then propose to eliminate resources American soldiers and civilians are using to help the ISF fight better? It is very hard to see in such incoherence anything other than political cynicism. That having been said, there are some things that Congress could reasonably do and some things that would seriously harm America's interests in Iraq and the world. Congress can appropriately * Insist that Iraq continue to improve its budget execution and prioritize spending its surplus on its own reconstruction and the development of its own armed forces; * Recognize the reality that the United States is no longer in the business of building Iraqi infrastructure or otherwise "reconstructing" Iraq on a large scale; * Declare its expectation that Iraq will fully fund its own military and reconstruction programs from 2008 on; and * Request that Iraq continue to contribute its own money to the CERP program. Congress must not * Cut off or reduce CERP funding, support for capacity-building efforts, or security assistance funding for this year; * Levy any claims whatsoever on Iraq's wealth--Iraq is a sovereign state with which the United States is allied in a fight against mutual enemies. We can ask that Iraq share the expense of that fight with us, as we do with many allies, but we cannot demand it (as we do not demand it of any of our allies); * Demand or even ask Iraq to pay any portion of the cost of maintaining American soldiers in Iraq. Any such request will be portrayed throughout the Muslim world as an American demand that Iraq pay for its own occupation, that America really is an imperial power determined to wrest Iraq's oil wealth from it, and that this really was a war for oil all along. The truth is that Congress spends more money on useless pork than it is ever likely to recoup from Iraq with such demands, but even recouping billions of dollars would not begin to cover the cost of so damaging America's image in the world. As has become unfortunately common, the antiwar party has turned a fairly simple problem into a complex and confusing equation. Either America has interests in defeating al Qaeda and Iranian-backed Shia militias in Iraq or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then we should not have any troops in Iraq and we should not be spending money there. If it does, and we have already made the decision to sacrifice the lives of the best of Americans in the effort, then we owe it to them to give them the tools they need to succeed. If Congress wants to "end the war," then let it debate and vote on that. If it doesn't--or can't--then it is time to stop playing games and fund our soldiers. Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Iraq: The Way Ahead," the Iraq Planning Group's phase IV report. "

4/24/2008 1:05:52 PM

Yes they've seen the light

Iraq was worth it

Either that or you're a deranged fool who is so goddamned stupid he falls into the bottom 20% of the country that still supports the president

I'm willing to take my bets

4/24/2008 1:13:03 PM

You can disapprove of bush, and still not be for an immediate withdrawl.

4/24/2008 2:45:44 PM

Yes, wanting a stable Iraq is the dumbest idea ever.

Quote :

"Yes they've seen the light Iraq was worth it Either that or you're a deranged fool who is so goddamned stupid he falls into the bottom 20% of the country that still supports the president I'm willing to take my bets"

ooorrrr I was talking about Dem's viewing the war being concluded in a relatively short time with a stable country. Meaning they can see the light, and are willing not hinder the momentum towards success.

4/24/2008 3:48:12 PM

Quote :

"Wednesday, April 23, 2008, November 7th, 2007 A Milestone [David Freddoso] House Democrats have apparently given up on ending the war through lack of funding, according to Congress Daily (sub required). Instead, they will condition funding on "limited" but surely unrelated domestic policy concerns. Democratic leaders have reached a consensus that the emergency war funding bill considered in the House will have a limited domestic spending component and not embrace controversial war policies, House Democratic leadership sources said Wednesday. 04/23 10:39 PM "

fixed ur date

4/24/2008 5:43:40 PM

Quote :

"the surge has failed, Iraqis will never reconcile, Iraqi troops won't fight, violence won't fall or, if it does, it won't stay down"

i dont know any dem that says the surge has failed...seems like most say the surge has worked at making it less violent but we still shouldnt be there

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2008 5:55:24 PM

fuuuuck. ^^pretend i fixed that date to 2006.

4/24/2008 6:59:00 PM

Quote :

"i dont know any dem that says the surge has failed...seems like most say the surge has worked at making it less violent but we still shouldnt be there "

I dont think anyone wants us there. Its all a matter of how long we should be there. Which is entirly dependent on the Iraqi government.

4/25/2008 8:11:45 AM

^
no, that's not true

I believe that many people's grand strategy, including John Mccains is to basically have a South Korea like Iraq with a perpetually strong US presence

that's why we're building all those bases and that massive embassy

they are looking for a draw down but the hope is to keep multiple 10s of thousands (40? or so) there...

FOREVER

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3041621320070530?pageNumber=1

old link but probably still valid

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2008 4:39:24 PM

Quote :

"Actively trying to fail at being an opposition party."

4/25/2008 4:41:58 PM

Quote :

"Democratic leaders have reached a consensus that the emergency war funding bill considered in the House will have a limited domestic spending component and not embrace controversial war policies, House Democratic leadership sources said Wednesday. "

Why does a WAR-FUNDING-BILL need a "domestic spending component?" I'm just trying to understand this. Why does EVERY FUCKING BILL EVER SIGNED have to end up costing the American taxpayer. Seriously. What the fuck good is a budget when you can just go out and ignore it the next day?

4/25/2008 7:03:55 PM

^


http://earmarks.omb.gov/

4/25/2008 7:37:59 PM

Quote :

"^ no, that's not true I believe that many people's grand strategy, including John Mccains is to basically have a South Korea like Iraq with a perpetually strong US presence that's why we're building all those bases and that massive embassy they are looking for a draw down but the hope is to keep multiple 10s of thousands (40? or so) there... FOREVER http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3041621320070530?pageNumber=1 old link but probably still valid"

I agree that we will most likely have troops there for a long time, but I think the Iraqi Government might want it that way. With all the good will we have gained with the surge, I dont think it would be a huge deal to keep them there to the Iraqis. Hopefully

4/27/2008 3:30:26 PM

13.1 billion that the Iraqi capital budget has grown is the previous money we gave them...it almost adds up exactly.

4/27/2008 3:36:55 PM

Quote :

"With all the good will we have gained with the surge, I dont think it would be a huge deal to keep them there to the Iraqis. Hopefully"

HAHAHHAA

4/27/2008 3:52:13 PM

i heard hamas wants around a 6 month truce with israel...i think they are waiting for the election...dont vote dems cause hamas wants obama

4/27/2008 4:08:38 PM

honestly, why the fuck do I care if Hamas wants Obama?

The things they want to see happen if Obama is elected would not damage my security. Why should I have a problem with someone who hates America now liking it a little more?

Every time I hear this claim, I really don't know what to make of it, other than that it's fucked up and racist.

4/27/2008 4:30:20 PM

^^^I was referring to the good will of the Iraqis about our troops being their.

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 5:27 PM. Reason : dsa]

4/27/2008 5:25:27 PM

Quote :

"Anyone think that this could be a signal that Democrats are thinking about the war in a different light?"

Not really. I think they look at it as, "it's cheaper to fight Iran from Iraq than from the States."

Quote :

"What do you think?"

The Democrats are incompetent.

4/27/2008 5:33:25 PM

The Senate Caves
Democrats regained control of Congress by promising to stand up to Bush. So why does the Senate leadership keep rolling over without a fight?

Quote :

"Under Reid's leadership, the approval rating of Congress has plunged to a record low — 18 percent. The problem, according to the majority leader, is that Democrats hold only a one-vote majority — and Senate rules give the GOP minority the right to a 'silent filibuster' unless he can come up with a supermajority. 'I can't do anything unless I get 60 votes,' Reid tells me. The only solution, he insists, is to elect more Democrats this fall. But Reid's allies in the House aren't buying that line. Rangel, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, is livid that the Senate caves in every time Republicans state their intention to block a key piece of legislation — including lower drug prices for Medicare patients. 'We've lost the power to negotiate if Democrats use the 60 votes as a reason to tell us they can't take opposition to a bill,' Rangel says. 'It's important for us as a party to demand that Republicans use the filibuster. I want to see the heart of the Democratic Party in the Senate.' The message from Senate Democrats, he says, should be simple: 'Damn it to hell, we stand for something. The Republicans are not going to hold us back.' Rangel even goes so far as to accuse Democrats in the Senate of having fallen prey to Stockholm syndrome — emerging from their years in the minority with sympathy for their Republican captors. 'They have an extremely cooperative working relationship,' Rangel says."

Quote :

"Harry Reid has a hangdog face and eyes that droop behind his wire-rimmed spectacles. He sits across from me in front of a giant portrait of Samuel Clemens. Ask him about Mark Twain, and he's got the genial affect of a shopkeep at a general store. But when the conversation turns from 19th-century riverboating to 21st-century governance, Reid takes on a wearied slouch. He seems troubled by the responsibility of majority rule. After all, nobody really thought that the Senate Democrats were actually going to win in 2006. 'The House was expected to get the majority, and we weren't,' he says. 'Surprised everyone.'"

Quote :

"The Senate's mystifying refusal to stand and fight — even against the most unpopular lame-duck president of all time — has begun to spill over into the House. Nancy Pelosi may have become speaker of the House by promising an end to 'blank checks' for Bush's war in Iraq, but she now says she has given up on her colleagues in the Senate. Although funding for the war is once again up for reauthorization, Pelosi is done asking her party to peg funding to a timeline for withdrawal. 'It's not going anyplace,' she says sternly. 'We know that. Every time we passed one of these bills with the conditions and the deadlines, the Senate did nothing. So I said to my members after the last time, "I'm never going to ask you to vote for one of these bills again" — no matter how good it is.' Pelosi's surrender in the face of Reid's inaction means that President Bush will soon have another $170 billion to steer this war as he sees fit — perhaps even crashing it headlong into Iran — his course unchanged by a Democratic Congress that has meekly abdicated its constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on the executive branch. The simple truth is, the Senate's agenda is largely dictated by the Republican minority. Rather than force the GOP to go on record as opposing popular measures — such as revoking gratuitous tax breaks for Big Oil — the Democrats have backed down again and again without a fight. Both Pelosi and Reid insist that the only hope for their rudderless majority is to bring more Democrats into the Senate. But the party isn't going to get a filibuster-proof majority in November, even if it is lucky enough to repeat its big gains from 2006. 'Democrats are not going to get 60 votes,' says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. 'They're going to go up three, four, five, maybe six in the Senate — but they're not going to get 60 votes.' In reality, the Democrats have everything they need right now to assert their own agenda and put a stop to Bush's abuse of power — most important, the backing of a wide majority of Americans on issues ranging from the Iraq War to children's health care. But instead of scratching and fighting to make good on the promises that got them elected — or at the very least, turning up the heat of the obstructionism of the GOP minority — they continue to make excuses. Even Pelosi, who has pushed through a variety of bold measures, believes that change will have to wait for a new leader. At the end of my interview in the speaker's office, she tries to sell me on her vision for a 'progressive consolidation' in Washington. It's a lovely future, full of funding for cancer research, alternative energy and investment in American infrastructure. But what she really needs, Pelosi says, is a friend in the White House. 'Soon,' she promises. 'As we get a Democratic president, we have a very visionary, larger view of the world agenda.' But what if that day doesn't come? What if the Democrats fail to win the presidency in November? Will the majority in Congress continue to wimp out, giving the Republican minority free rein over America's future? Sadly, the answer appears to be a resounding yes. With a slight wince, Pelosi offers up the scariest truth of all: an admission that her party has no Plan B. 'I don't know what I'm going to do,' Pelosi says, 'if we don't win the White House.'"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20961789/the_senate_caves/print

Man, when the Senate's liberals have lost Rolling Stone--and even other Democrats in the House--you know they really suck balls. GG.

6/5/2008 2:06:01 AM

This country is led by a bunch of corrupt god damn failures.

I mean, I think it's good for the democrats to change their policy of blocking the war funds. There's good news coming from Iraq, so they might as well try to shift the focus to something else. That business about the standstill in the senate though just pisses me off. It's like we elected a bunch of god damn children to office and the boys don't want to play with the girls, so nobody gets to play at all.

6/5/2008 2:58:30 AM

i'm so glad i can like sift through all this media and decide which facts i find relevant and what not...being educated ftw

6/5/2008 4:10:47 AM

When the current republican leadership is making terrible financial decisions in regards to the money allocated to them from our government, it only makes sense for the democrat leadership to restrict the flow of money to said current leadership as much as possible in order to reduce the collateral damage caused by such ineptitude. However, when the financial reigns are passed to different leadership, it only makes sense to begin the process of giving said new leadership a reasonable chance to correct what the old leadership failed at miserably. In a sense, it's an internal sanction on the current republican leadership that is being lifted in light of the potential of future democrat leadership. Basically, you should expect this to happen.

6/5/2008 8:49:41 AM

Quote :

"hen the current republican leadership is making terrible financial decisions in regards to the money allocated to them from our government,"

explain

6/5/2008 9:22:43 AM