Supporting our troops meant doing the only thing that Congress could do: cut the war funding and begin bringing them home. Instead, they are embroiled in a civil war. Many congressional Democrats are playing a craven political game with our courageous troops lives. The point you are not getting is that supporting the troops does not mean supporting this immoral, illegitimate war.

I am not happy that Congress was forced to give in to Bush. But what I do understand is this; We had 3 missing soldiers, one was found in the Euphrates river beaten, tortured and brutally whipped. The other two have been found but it is so grusome as to what they went through before they died, is unbarable to look at. Last year 3 others were also abducted and tortured. They were all barely 20 years old. When the other soldiers were interviewed about these abductions the answers were, "there was never enough troops placed on the ground in the beginning for proper field opoations to take place and ambushes were imminate". Now the soldiers who spoke out have obtained attorneys to protect themselves for speaking out. This was a built in scam or funding move from the Chaney /Bush / Rummy Military complex, so they could use the torture of these young soldiers to sell us out to get us to all give in to their demands. They probably order it to happen at this perfect time. WE are all going to "OUT CRY" for more troops, equipment, etc. and any help we can get them Right when funding is being deliberated. They just need to be Impeached...all of them.

People who can not see how these torturous attacks on these babies and their families are all about the time money is being deliberated must be so unaware of the reality of it all or stupid is the word I find appropriate. The big picture "OUT SIDE the BOX" which most do not care to lift their heads to look out that narrow ditch they lay in, ........is apparent.

Tiger. Welcome to the site. I see you are from Ky too.

I can see what she is trying to say. Bush is a psychotic liar. Do you think he would have minded one bit our troops doing without what they needed? Congress should have shown more backbone but do we really believe Bush would've cared if they got funding or not?

What you need to consider Tiger, is that we wanted Congress to fight Bush. That is what we worked so hard get them elected for.

War-weary? Many troops have yet to fight

WASHINGTON - Even as troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are serving longer and more often — three, four, even five times — roughly half of Americans in uniform have not been sent at all.

That’s partly chance, partly a matter of timing. It also illustrates the massive organization on the home front to support an army in the field.

Whatever the reason, it didn’t seem fair to Marine Sgt. Matthew Clark, who sits behind a desk in Illinois but has asked to “go to the fight” instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18988292/

I believe this raises a lot of questions with our Pentagon and the Department of Defence.

Why would you send the minimal amount of troops to Iraq and then ware them out by not doing proper rotation unless you had a pre-meditated reason?

The Senate has a lot of Conservative Democrats.  There would be

no way some of them would cut funds.  I never expected they would win.

As long as  GWB  is  Commander in Chief,   he will   have the  last

word.   My Way or the Highway.  For Once they at least went down

fighting.  To my weird way of thinking, they should have gone

on TV  EnMASSE  and proclaimed to the world --Clearly and Strongly

 The Republican Party and GWB  are continuing the war over our

best efforts to stop them.

Do I get angry at them over other issues-- heck yes.  Trade Policy

 Globalization.   H-1B  Visas.   Doing dirt to the Middle Class.

 This statement puts it all in context for you:

By David Swanson
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22671

I object to the idea that the Dems should accuse Bush of "abandoning the troops." If we don't FOR CHRISSAKE STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL PRETENDING THAT WARS ARE FUNDED FOR THE TROOPS, WE WILL NEVER EVER END ANY WARS. Sorry for the caps, but I don't know how many times this has to be said or how to make it any clearer.

Pelosi promised the media today that "Our troops will be funded." This is UNADULTERATED FATALLY SELF DEFEATING BULLSHIT. Nobody is ever going to abandon the troops. They are either going to be left to kill and die and be wounded and traumatized in Iraq OR they are going to be brought safely home. There is no third possibility called "abandoning" or "not supporting" or "not funding" them.

If the peace movement keeps talking about "funding the troops" there will never be peace. Believe it or not - and I know this seems insane - there are some things we should NOT accuse Bush of.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-Abraham Lincoln

"end the war issue"  was brought to table for discussion.

 Very Very early on Duncan Hunter started this "Democrats want to 

cut funding for troops."  He started this in his campaign.

 I am not saying this true, right or correct.  The Republicans in

Congress picked up on this and started repeating it over and over

on TV. 

Once again I am saying the Democratic Party(my party) has not yet

learned  the importance of identifying immediately Accusations which

Must Be Stopped and Diffused.  They have not yet learned the importance

of getting people on TV right away to put up the good fight to dismiss

the false allegations.  Television is  the main source of information for

average Americans.   The idea that Democrats wanted to cut supplies

and money for the troops was firmly planted.   THE DEMOCRATS

IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE should have been on TV defanging that

message--the minute it started.  Yes, the Internet and Netroots

are important and their influence has grown untbelievably fast,

but we now have to bring Joe and Jane Sixpack(TV Viewers along)

The Republicans realize this.  Here is proof.  I believe the Democrats

won the last election.    Yet, on the daily programming on the 24 hr

Cable News Programs,  the Republicans are more representative

and their message is put out more forcefully.  I repeat the Dems

are in charge.  I do not know what is going on , but I ask this

question.  ARE the Dems unaware of the importance of TV PR??

I wiped the sleep from my eyes, but I still maintain the reality

that we could not win.  No one had made the case that the

Democrats were ending the war to save the troops.  

My own personal views were not mentioned in previous post.

My observations.   I could be all out Defund the troops and

still understand reality.  Conservative Democrats will not

let themselves be called Cut and Runners  and God knows

they will fund the troops..  I also say  the Defund Argument

should have been fought out and made clear.  The Media

is now saying over and over--It is the far left who wants

to end the war  .   Somebody should have been on TV

this week--Saying  it is not just the far left, it is the American

People who believe this war is a mistake and we should get

out.   This should be just as strongly pushed as the

the Republicans" we want victory'.

Democrats need to be on TV, not just guests on Sunday

AM Shows. 

l 

Conservative Democrats will not

let themselves be called Cut and Runners 

 What the hell is a Conservative Democrat??

Sounds much the same as "Not Funding the Troops"

Your post proves David Swanson's point.....keep dancing while the barn burns...

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-Abraham Lincoln

Are you pulling my chain or kidding.

If you believe God Guns and Rays is the only thing that makes a conservative

I can see your point. For many of us, a person's position on Fiscal Conservatism is more important because it affects our lives every day of the week. Example, tax policy, trade policy, Globalization, social justice issues.

These same persons will tend to be in Hawkish category of Foreign Policy.

Joe Lieberman is the ultimate Conservative Democrat. DLC, Blue Dogs New Dems ---all have members who are Conservative Democrats.

The Mistake, if any,  was made by Congress and Senate not being straight with Activists and saying ---It takes 67 votes to override the President. The only way we can stop the war is having all of our own members plus 17 Rebulicans. to stop the war. We are giving it the best fight possible.

Here is another example of a Conservative Democrat.

Ben Nelson, Nebraska explained to a reporter(CNN) that on one vote he voted with the Dems on the War. He knew it would not pass so he considered it a throw away vote. In other words Nelson is a conservative Dem. who suupports the war and will not cut funds when it really counts. He will vote with the Dems if it does not matter.

I am surprised that you do not know there are Conservative Dems. They do not hide it. Think DLC, New Dems and Blue Dogs. 

67 Votes needed. 17 Republicans Needed

All I am saying is that the statement  "Conservative Democrat" is as redundant as saying "You are abandoning the troops by not funding the war"  That is the discussion we are having.

There are some areas where things are more black and white than most folks wish to admit....it makes their rationalizations seem less digestible.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-Abraham Lincoln

I watched the Democratic Debate, which I am sure the rest of you also did the same. Joe Biden voted "yes" on funding. I can not speak for every one, but I will speak for my self and how I feel. Joe Biden said EXACTLY how I am torn. I didn't want them to say yes to the funding, but I wanted the troops to have the technology that would be shipped over with this funding, because we need 17 more votes on the democratic side or we are at a stale mate and 2 months later still fighting Bush's vetos. No money, still at war; they never put enough troops over there to begin with which I feel were premeditated actions to put congress in a position to deal with continous funding; a setup that began with the previous congress and those who were in the seats before this congress took office and still reign in these seats attempting to keep the funding going (hidden Bushies). Almost like a perpetual "BLACK MAIL" to the Military families and to the Anti-war movement and the current democratic congress. Now this is just my personal view, as I have made it clear we are going to have to clean house or cull cattle, to get rid of all the bad apples.

I thought it was interesting they asked everyone what they would do with "Bill Clinton" simply because of the connection between Clintons and the Bush's and the Leo Wanta story. Some of you may have read about that or have some knowledge of it.

Another question was what would you do right now.....I liked Bill Richardson, which I was at one time one of his constituites and I have a high reguard for his knowledge and his work as a Governor of New Mexico. Yet one of the things I liked the most was when Joe Biden said the first two things would be "PUT AN END TO THIS WAR...... CHANGE FOREIGN POLICY" ...............there is not doubt in my mind that he said all the right things for me. Those two things will be the first on Ron Pauls list. That is exactly what he was saying to GULIAINI...which the poor ole fool just didn't know enough about history, this foreign policy............. I don't get the feeling Guliani knows to much about our backlash issues with other countries particularly the Middle East. He needs to get educated. This new President is going to have to understand what this foreign policy has done to our country and how it has dishonored us as a whole. It does not reflect how "WE THE PEOPLE" really feel when it comes the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It does not reflect us as a whole. What is does reflect is Bush's Government and their corruption.

in last night's debate.  Joe Biden helped himself also.