Comments on: Federal Deficit Shrinking In 2007

So Far, Government Debt Is $157.3B, Nearly $80B Improvement From Last Year, Treasury Department Reports

[history_101]

The democrats MUST have real control of the House and Senate (which they do not) or they must have help from moderate republicans to successfully stop this war and/or impeach the president. That is the realistic truth.
Posted by RandalDS at 09:54 PM : Aug 10, 2007

So what you're saying is that all this talk is completely pointless since the House leadership is already concerned about losing blue dog democrats because the surge is working and the politics are shifting towards Bush's side. Which means the Democrats will support the war in '08, which is what I have been saying all along.

[randalds]

A veto proof majority is not needed for an impeachment that's true, but 2/3 majority IS needed for a successful impeachment and an unsuccessful impeachment would be worse then no impeachment at all. Any move against a sitting president that has no hope of success is worse then no move at all as the republicans showed in trying to impeach Clinton. The American people don't like the House and Senate playing politics with impeachment. The democratic congress did cut off funding to South Vietnam, but they had the votes to make it veto proof and many republicans were voting with them. The democrats do not have that now.

The democrats MUST have real control of the House and Senate (which they do not) or they must have help from moderate republicans to successfully stop this war and/or impeach the president. That is the realistic truth.

[history_101]

And what about impeachment, no veto proof majority needed there. Many Libs (Cindy Sheehan et al) have demanded it and when they are rebuffed and pledge to run against the Dems they are booted from the partisan websites (Daily Kos et al). So it is apparent when anti war groups like Code Pink begin to disassociate themselves from the partisn groups like MoveOn.org that the war is just a political tool for the Dems.

[history_101]

Remember, congress cut off funding the South Vietnamese against the wishes of President Ford. Where there's a will , there's a way. The problem is no will.

[history_101]

And Nixon said he would get us out of Vietnam when he ran in '68 and he did, after he was reelcted in '72 to his SECOND TERM. Trust me, its about the politics, not the war.

The could cut off funding in a heartbeat by not including it in the budget. Bush can't veto something that's NOT paid for.

[history_101]

No, I remember them saying majority, I think they lied to us all and will keep the war going as an issue that brings in the campaign $$$.

[homespunlady]

RandalDS seeing is believing.
The new balance of power allows for more investigations on some of the more blatant abuses of power but which candidate actually openly states they WILL carry out what you believe will happen?

[homespunlady]

Time for a NEW perspective before things get worse but WHO has the stones to defy the entrenched power structure in Washington DC and will he survive longer than Robert Kennedy in such a campaign?

[history_101]

I see were your confusion is coming from RandalDS but the first paragraph of my 7:22 post was someoneelses post that i was responding to I just didn't get the poster in with my cut and paste.

[randalds]

No, I distinctly remember the Democrats saying that if the Aerican people gave them control of the house and Senate that they would get us out of Iraq. What happened Dems, was this all just political rhetoric to gain power?

And I don't think we should get out of Iraq, I agree with Senator Durbin (D - Ill.) and Senator Casey (D - Penn.) that the surge is working.'

Just letting you Libs know that the Dems are manuevering for a 180 degree turn on Iraq so they can continue to fund the war past the '08 elections.

Posted by history_101 at 08:41 PM : Aug 10, 2007

Well then you distinctly remember wrong because they did not say that. They did say if they had control of the House and Senate (which they need more then a simple majority to do) then they would get us out of Iraq. they do not have control of the House and Senate. Also yes, some democrats do agree (as do I) that parts of the military surge are working, but they do NOT say that means we should stay in Iraq, because the political solutions are not there. There is a big difference between the two things. As you know, but will not point out. When the democrats gain control of the White House and full control of the House and Senate, they will end the war just like they said they would.