Someone forgot to tell our new Congress.
They're afraid to buck Bush 'cause Rove might call them bad names presently.
Representative government, un-huh.

one hopes Dems will pay attention to numbers like these...

Only about one in three Americans (33%) say they are more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who "supports legislation that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq," while 60% say they are less likely.

Just great.

The failure of [deleted] to address the facts has had a powerful impact.

Thank God for Edwards and Dodd telling the truth.

Best, Terry

Nice, the timing for this poll couldn't have been better vis-a-vis Edwards vs. Giuliani. Notice Giuliani never tried to deny that he wants Four More Years, for Bush's Policies and the Iraq War.

This should also be a memo to all of the "very serious people" in Washington, the American people are pretty serious about this too.

The reason Schumer say this is because he thinks the republicans will force the president to commence withdrawals. I don't see how he comes to that conclusion. I don't see 18 Republican senators ready to do that.

Wait, wait, what does Bob Shrum have to say?!?!

Aren't American voters always pro-war?

Isn't opposing a war always a losing political position?

/snark

I believe I remember that Schumer wouldn't meet with Cindy Sheehan but sent his spokesperson to say that Sen. Schumer thought the Iraq War was "good for America."

So the vast majority of the American people agree with Obey, Pelosi and Reid. They don't want an immediate cut off of funding, they want an orderly withdrawal. That sounds about right.

It'd be nice if their most outspoken critics would acknowledge that they are doing the will of the people.

So the vast majority of the American people agree with Obey, Pelosi and Reid. They don't want an immediate cut off of funding

That's not what the polls say.

Pelosi incidentally voted right - er, left.

Best, Terry

Schumer has never said a 50-state strategy is a bad idea.

He said you can have one, and that it would be a good idea, but you can't give the same amount of money to a challenger in Nebrasker polling at 20% as you do to someone who is just within the grasp of winning the election in a more purpler state.

Both Dean and Schumer have given each other due credit for the successs in '06.

The netroots gets Tester and Webb. Mad props there.

The beltway gets McGaskill and Casey. Props there as well.

This is a petty (and old and divisive) grudge over a few heated arguments that were made in the heat of battle.

I would like to see a cite for that as well.

On the Huffingtonpost
Cindy Sheehan
War-Hawk Republicans and Anti-War Democrats: What's the Difference?
October 4, 2005

"The War-Hawk Dems I met with were equally, if not more, disheartening. Although my meeting with Sen. Clinton (D-NY) went well, I don't believe she will do anything to alleviate the suffering of the Americans in Iraq or the Iraqi people. I don't believe that sending more troops is the solution, it will only aggravate an already untenable situation. We met in NYC with Sen. Charles Schumer's aide, who told us that the Senator thinks the occupation of Iraq is a "good thing for America" but he wouldn't elaborate on why. The aide was asked if the senator had a vested interest in keeping this war going, because the senator is certainly not stupid enough to believe that this misbegotten, misadventure in the Middle East is good for anyone. I don't think the people of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi would agree with the senator that this illegal occupation is a "good thing."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/berman
"Holbrooke, who's been dubbed the "closest thing the party has to a Kissinger" by one foreign policy analyst, even tacked to Bush's right, arguing in February 2003 that anything less than an invasion of Iraq would undermine international law."

Thats from an article titled "Strategic Class." I would sure like to see all those folks confronted with their responsibility for this disaster, which was inevitable from invading Iraq. Biden is getting off easy, too. I remember so well the way he dismissed antiwar people and how it infuriated me.

There are 21 republican senators, from Susan Collins to Ted Stevens, up in 2008. One, Wayne Allard of Colorado has said he will not run. There are rumors that Warner may not run. All these Senators, in my view, are in trouble, some more than others. Pressuring them now and often is our best hope of getting out before 08.

Show me some cold hard numbers then. You are free to cite polls that say the majority of Americans want an immediate end to funding if you can find one. I don't care how you couch it, they say they overwhelmingly don't.

I'm not interested in more Hillary or Obama bashing.I want you to back up your position with facts.

Kuwait is the way out of Iraq. It's where we came in from, it's where we'll egress from. I'm not suggesting we "occupy" Kuwait though we do have bases there and the vast majority of Kuwaitis don't mind. There would be no Kuwait if not for the 1991 Gulf War. What's my proof they don't mind? Look how many attacks there have been on our soldiers in Kuwait.

You're not likely to convince Americans or anybody else that WW11 didn't end in 1945. When you use language like that, you're not helping your argument. If you're an isolationist that's fine, say so. But I think you'll also find that you're in a tiny minority of Americans there too.

BTW, Mark8, Edwards and Dodd and Kucinich plus the vast majority of American voters aren't the only ones seeking to end the occupation of Iraq. Some others have been infected with that desire of leftist fringe elements:

Headline:

Iraq passes resolution to end occupation

http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=8844

Maybe MoveOn has fooled the Iraqis too you think?

Best, Terry

Agreed. They do not want "American soldiers left unarmed, starving and naked while being shot at." That is exactly why poll numbers show overwhelmingly they do not support an immediate end to funding of the War in Iraq.

So then it is your contention that American soldiers would have been left unarmed, starving and naked while being shot at if Democrats had refused to given Bush a blank check to continue getting them killed?

I think you will be hard-pressed to find anyone to agree with you.

The fact is Terry the people of the US side with Dems in congress.

The fact is, Mark, the vast majority of voters side with only those Democrats who want to end the nightmare.

[From our own ELECTION CENTRAL:]

Approval Of Dem Congress Slips In Two New Polls

By T. W. Farnam | bio

New Pew poll out today: Approval of Congress has slipped from 39% in January to 34% today.

New Fox News poll, also out today: Approval of Congress has slipped from 32% in January to 29 percent.

One very interesting footnote: In the Fox poll, less Democrats than Republicans approve of the Dem-Controlled Congress, 28%-33%. Could that be because of Congress' failure thus far to stall the Iraq war?

Don't you bother reading this website?

You're the one who said WW11 hasn't ended.

I said our occupation troops stationed in Germany after WWII are still there.

Did they move out when nobody was watching?

Our troops are still in Korea.

Do you think they moved out without notice?

Do you think American troops in Germany and Korea ever served a purpose?

Once they did indeed.

Long past time for them to be gone I think. The wars are over.

Or haven't you heard?

We are serving no purpose in Iraq either but rather keeping the situation even more inflamed than it otherwise would be. Meantime Americans and Iraqis both are suffering many needless deaths and disability.

Most voters agree with me.

Republican politicians nearly unanimously and many Democratic politicians agree with you.

I am happy to be on the side of the voters. They are not always right but they surely are this time.

Best, Terry

Terry go look in your inbox for my reply.

Well I was gonna reply privately but you don't accept email on this system. Oh well.

So then it is your contention that American soldiers would have been left unarmed, starving and naked while being shot at if Democrats had refused to given Bush a blank check to continue getting them killed?

I think you will be hard-pressed to find anyone to agree with you.

Congress with a majority of Repubs and a minority of Dems in both houses actually approved about $100 billion that will pay the occupation bills thru the end of this fiscal year which ends on Sept, 30 2007.

As destructive as Bush/Cheney are what do you think they'd do if Reid and Pelosi had just refused to bring up a bill? Tuck their tails between their legs, admit their mistakes and use what $$ they have left to end their favorite war? What makes you think Bush and Cheney would just cave in and say ok the jigs up, the people have spoken, we're bringing the troops home instead of upping the ante by doing something even crazier? You apparently have a lot of faith in them doing a 180 and suddenly becoming rational actors that I don't share.

I said our occupation troops stationed in Germany after WWII are still there.

Um, no you said:

I would personally like to see WWII ended with our troops retrieved from Germany. Think Americans might like to end WWII if given their druthers?

Here's something else you said:

Look at any poll you wish, except possibly some garbage from Fox.

And then you go on to promptly quote some garbage from FOX.

I'd like to see more polls (preferably not from FOX) on the breakdown of reasons why the left and right are angry with congress. I'm sure a lot on both sides are angry about the war funding bill. A lot on both sides are also angry about the immigration bill and the lobbying bill
that while pretty good and far beyond anything Repubs would even consider last year got lousy press. Repubs hate Dems, Dems hate Repubs and everybody says they hate congress. That's not very specific.

Long past time for them to be gone I think.

Haven't seen any poll numbers for removing US troops from Germany and Korea. I doubt most Americans agree with you that we ought to remove them. How about the Balkans, do you think we ought to bring 'em all home from there too? How about Afghanistan?

We are serving no purpose in Iraq either but rather keeping the situation even more inflamed than it otherwise would be. Meantime Americans and Iraqis both are suffering many needless deaths and isability.

Agreed.

Most voters agree with me.

Depends on your definition of "most". A majority agree with that statement as do I.

Republican politicians nearly unanimously and many Democratic politicians agree with you.

I am happy to be on the side of the voters. They are not always right but they surely are this time.

I've cited two specific polls that show
the American people want an orderly end to the war not an immediate cut off of funding. Reid and Pelosi's job here is very tough. It's like trying to land an airplane when you only control the fuel supply. They need to get help from Republicans to break into the cockpit and wrest the controls away from Bush before he crashes the plane. Cutting off the fuel will only crash the plane sooner.

You've cited two polls that are vaguer, that say people hate congress more than they did last month.

Now what say we quit arguing about who is more in touch with the voters and discuss what ought to be done about Iraq from here? I think we ought to work to convince Republican House reps and senators that they can kiss their political careers goodbye if they don't vote to end the occupation this fall. And then boot their butts out in 2008 anwyay. If you have a better strategy let's here it. And try to keep the glaring foolishness to a minimum please.

If you go look it up I think you'll find our military presence in Germany is mainly support and logistics for other theatres of operations these days. It's substantially diminished form what it was pre 1991 partly because places like Romania and Kosovo are cheaper to operate from.

Yeah, I think a refusal of Democrats to fund the occupation would end it and voters would be overjoyed.

The original polls I cited say that is fundamentally wrong. That has been the whole point of this discussion.

It is all theoretical since most Democratic politicians as well as Republicans actually support the occupation.

That is also wrong.

That's the problem with thinking rather than reacting. Inertia is the main driving force in history or there probably would be no history. Bum policy normally only gets changed when it becomes catastrophic. OTOH I ask you why we should continue occupation from long ago wars. No need to answer. Most just accept.

It really must suck being the only smart one in the room all the time. How do you stand it?

Different questions in regard to time

No idea what that means.

I think Afghanistan is lost too

It's getting there but of course if we ended our occupation of Iraq we'd have the resources, though right now not the leadership to make some kind of success out of that mess.

After decades of war with the Soviets, civil war and the booby prize of crazyass Taliban rule most Afghanis still are willing to give the real coalition forces we have there a chance instead of going back to being Madmaxland or the dour rule of the Taliban insaniacs. And that's despite Bush treating them like unlovely stepchildren compared to his favorites in Iraq. I guess letting them become the biggest exporter of opium again makes up for the lack of his malevolent attention. Of course capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden would be nice too.

and the folks in the Balkans seem quite capable of handling or mishandling, as the case may be, their own affairs.

You must have missed the 90s. You also must have missed Putin bragging the other day about he "dismissed" Kosovo's independence vote with a UN veto. Kosovars are bound and determined to have that vote and Serbs are adamantly opposed to it. Wouldn't take much to get them fighting again.

Hey I'd like to see a couple B-52s or an aircraft carrier's air wing spend an afternoon destroying Sudan's 12 helicopter air force. I think we could end that genocide without committing US troops we don't have anyway much like we did the Serb atrocities in Kosovo.

But that's just me, I'm not an isolationist.