|
|
Tags for This Article:
Iraq Exit Strategy (767) Iraq Exit Solutions (602) Iraq War Funding (407) Iraqi Refugees (132)
|
Add to My Group
You know, it's the damndest thing. I've been a Democrat all my life, but recently I have thought about leaving the Democratic Party to vote as an independent. Why? Because I am so disgusted with the Democratic Party failing to fulfill their promise to end this war. I voted for Democrats to end this war. Democrats ran on their promise to end this war; yet Democrats have decided to continue this war. Why is that? Unfortunately, these pro-war Democratic politicians have managed to convince Democrats they cannot stop this war - that stopping this war requires President Bush's signature or it require 60 votes to end this war. Joe Biden claims it will take 67 votes to end this war. Sen. Biden says folks ought to pressure more Republicans to help the Democrats end this war; otherwise, the troops aren't coming home. This is Joe Biden's message to the American people, as Biden stated during the debates. The problem with all these politicians' excuses is, they aren't excuses - they're Big, Fat, Stinking Lies! I'm talking 100% pure dee bullmanure. We're talking Megalies Deluxe. I don't know about you, but I'm very offended when so-called trustworthy politicians lie straight to your face - with a smile and a creepy laugh. But who cares about me being offended - I care about our sons and daughters and aunts and uncles fighting and dying over in Iraq. I know in my heart they should and could be home right now, if it weren't for these lying, lying politicians, lying to keep our troops in Iraq. Why are these Democratic politicians lying to keep our troops in Iraq? Why? I'm sure more than one of you will say, "They aren't lying! Nancy Pelosi said Democrats cannot bring the troops home without President Bush's signature or 60 votes." Shameless lies. Shame on Speaker Nancy Pelosi for blatantly, brazenly lying to the American people. How is she lying? Here's how: It takes only 41 Senators to kill any bill in the Senate. Each party has more than the 41 Senators needed to block each other's bills. Currently, the Senate has two partys - each has 49 Senators with two "independents" leftover. THEREFORE, I reiterate: 41 Democratic Senators could have already ended this war by preventing Bush's war appropriations bills from even coming to the Senate floor for a vote. THE PROBLEM IS, the Democratic Party refuses to cut funding to this war. Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi flat out stated that, "Democrats will not cut funding to this war." The problem with this Democratic Party zero-sum position is history - American history; The ONLY WAY our troops have been brought home since the inception of the War Powers Act is when Congress completely cut ALL funds to the war or military action in question; and each time, it was AGAINST the sitting U.S. President's will. Hillary, Obama and Edwards - all three VOWED never to cut funding to the troops. Obama just voted AGAIN, to continue funding The Big Red War Machine, yet his campaign is going on another, "I'm different from Hillary" mediablitz. It's truly amazing how Democratic politcians have CONvinced Americans that to REMOVE American soldiers from Iraq would be MORE HARMFUL than TO KEEP THEM IN IRAQ! Unbelievable pro-war doublespeak. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden and others, love to tell the Big Fat Lie to the American people that Democrats do not have the votes needed to stop this war - that it is the Republicans' fault - we need more Republican votes, otherwise, we're dead in the water, stuck in Iraq. The silence would be deafening........or not. Maybe Hillary would auto-waltz right into Pre-Fab Excuse #798: "We can't cut funding to the troops because it would leave our troops unprotected in harm's way." Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers http://www.RonCorvus.com Ron Corvus wrote the Independent Voter Platform;
See, http://www.RonCorvus.com/ivp.htm
http://www.RonCorvus.com
A concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.
Democratic Majority Magic: Now you see it, now you don't! All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. That is in the Constitution. Democrats hold a clear majority in the House and those Democrats could just refuse to allow a spending bill such as would be required to continue funding the war. Fillibusters in the Senate need have nothing to do with the issue if the Democrats in the house were of one mind. Ah, that is the rub. Did anyone ever think that Democrats in the House would ever be of one mind? There is still a contingent of blue-dog democrats who will side with Bush and if you subtract these blue dogs from the Democratic majority there is no longer a Democratic majority. Of course a strong leadership could make a difference, but the Democrats don't seem to have anyone like Tom Delay. Actually, I think I am glad of that, but it does have its down-side. by
PrMaine (8 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 284 comments)
on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 6:47:49 PM
The author of this commentary makes a good point I was writing about this, trying to expose this deception shortly after the first war funding bill (i.e., HR 1591) came up since the Democrats took over Congress. The fact of the matter is the Democrats do have the numbers to the end the war, as the author correctly points out that President Bush's signature is not necessary to end the war. All of the excuses used imply that Bush has a right to the war by default, therefore, legislation must be PASSED in order to STOP the war. If that were true, then, yes, that would mean the Democrats either need a veto-proof majority in the House, or a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. However, it isn't ending the war that requires legislation, but sustaining the war. To stop the war, then, it only takes a nominal majority in the House or enough Senators to sustain a filibuster (i.e., 41). The Constitution created a system that would not require super majorities to stop things. It is a lie, then, that the Democrats need a super majority in order to halt the war. The truth, then, isn't that there is an insufficient amount of Democrats, but there is an insufficient amount of pro-peace Democrats, because they are sellouts just like their Republican colleagues. So, the author's point stands - i.e., the sellout is bipartisan. by
Mark Anderson (8 articles, 2 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 46 comments)
on Sunday, October 14, 2007 at 9:33:42 PM
|
|
