House Democrats work to extend war funding for another year

[Auggie]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

April 28, 2008:

Headline: House Democrats work on huge Iraq money bill

House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

The bill, which could be unveiled as early as this week, signals that Democrats are resigned to the fact they can't change course in Iraq in the final months of President Bush's term. Instead, the party is pinning its hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.

<snip>

The bill is expected to provide $108 billion that the White House has requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lawmakers who are drafting it say it also will include a so-called bridge fund of $70 billion to give the new president several months of breathing room before having to ask Congress for more money.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/28/MNCU10BATO.DTL

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. ...

:argh:

[ixion]

2. pathetic

truly.

This from the so-called "opposition" party. :puke:

[Auggie]

3. Makes me sick

[saigon68]

161. Pissing Money Away

[izquierdista]

4. Not one more dime!

It was 33 years ago that the Democrats stopped the Vietnam War by not spending one more dime on it. No bridge funding, no breathing room, just say no.

On April 10, 1975, President Gerald Ford requested an additional $1 billion for the War in Vietnam. Congress refused. Twenty days later, U.S. Marines evacuated the U.S. embassy in Saigon. All U.S. troops left Vietnam.

[Kolesar]

10. We were pretty much out of there in 1973

I think the "defunding" was for a few years before 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war
The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, the Vietnam Conflict, and, in Vietnam, the American War, occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975.

[izquierdista]

11. Oh no we weren't

You don't want to argue this timeline with me. I am VERY aware of what happened when, since I became eligible for the draft in 1974.

[davekriss]

32. Sounds like you are the same age as my brother

1974 was the last year for the draft lottery. My brother was very nervous as his birthdate was 25th on the list. Luckily, he never got called.

[Gman]

33. We were pretty much pulling out by 1973

my draft number was like 152 that year and I was freaking out as had been pretty much a given that if you were 150 or below you were going. They ended up only taking up to like 65 as the war wound down.

[SOS]

54. Draft ended July 1, 1973

The number of inductions during the last two years of the draft:

1972-49,514
1973-646 (draft ended)
1974- 0

Paris peace Accords were signed in January 1973
Combat operations ceased on March 31, 1973 (McCain released)
Church Amendment passed June 19, 1973
Church Amendment prohibited combat funding after August 15, 1973

This timeline is correct.
Congress did not end the war by defunding it.

[izquierdista]

69. Hair splitting

You write like a historian, who, not having witnessed something, nevertheless uses dates and numbers to pontificate about what transpired.

I KNOW that I was relieved when my draft number was >300; even if the peace accords fell apart and the war was back on, I would not be called up right away.

I KNOW that Congress tried many times to cut off funding and the Church Amendment was one of the attempts, but Jerry Ford was still paying the tab for Pentagon requests to stay involved and until Congress said "not one more dime" in April of 1975 was the flow of funds truly cut off.

I KNEW, when I saw the overloaded helicopters leaving Saigon on April 30, 1975, that the war was indeed, over.

Tell me, Mr. Historian, when will you KNOW that the Iraq war is over??

[bahrbearian]

72. My lottery number was 11 in 1971,

Tell me, how do you flee the Nazi's, can you help me? It's lunacy I tell ya.

[P0pEye]

175. I was 6

years old

[gorfle]

24. Hear Hear!

Exactly. Not one more dime.

[saigon68]

156. It has to End

This Fiasco of an Adventure will Bankrupt this Country

[Dr.Phool]

5. But...But....We don't have the votes.

But we have some money. Here, take it quick before anyone notices!

[Phred42]

6. The Demorcats OWN the illegal Occupation now

Are are becoming War Criminals themselves.

It's over for Democracy kids.

[H8fascistcons]

7. Keep thinking like that Democrats

EERRRR.... I mean republicans because there is not much difference between the two corporate whore parties. You absolutely make me want to vomit you filthy criminal Fascist enabler Nancy Pelosi. You and your Ilk, Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy all go to Hell!!!!
Please never forget until these criminal Democrats are all voted out of office. Let's send Nancy Pelosi to the Hague along with the Fascist republicans, she does not get to pick and choose which crimes against the constitution to ignore...........

[P0pEye]

8. Where is Cindy Sheehan when we need her?

[davekriss]

34. She registered for her Independent run against Pelosi...

...just last week.

[P0pEye]

174. too funny!

[stimbox]

66. We also have Progressive Democrat Shirley Golub in the June 3rd primary.

http://www.shirley08.com

[OhioChick]

9. Many people voted for Dems

in 2006 believing that they'd put an end to this war.

[gorfle]

25. I did.

I voted Democratic for the first time in my life in 2006 to vote against the war.

I still believe that this is just politics. The Democrats will not rock the boat until they secure the White House.

They don't need to. Why stir up controversy and give ammunition to the Republicans about those lousy "soft one defense" Democrats?

Just sit tight another several months until we control the Congress and the White House.

Then pull the damn plug.

[balantz]

26. So, is it "politics" that keeps them from using the hordes of evidence

against the cabal and begin impeachment of the criminals that currently occupy our White House?

[gorfle]

30. Yes.

Like I said - they Democrats don't need to do anything to win the White House - the Republicans are doing it for them. There is no "win" side to rocking the boat right now. All it could possibly do is energize the Republican hold-outs.

Now if the Democrats continue to stay the course after they win the White House, that's another story.

But I'm betting that we have seen no action since winning the Congress because they don't need to act to defeat the Republicans - they are melting themselves down in this war crucible.

[balantz]

38. We'll see. n/t

[Stevepol]

120. With the voting machines, there's no telling who will win the White House.

It won't matter how much the pre-election polls have the Dems leading or how much the early exit polls have the Dem candidate leading, once the totally secret, unaudited, privately programmed vote counting starts, it's anybody's guess how it will turn out. 2004 was just a foretaste of all the elections to come. 2006 was even more tilted than 04, tho because the Dems had such a huge landslide nobody noticed.

All you can be sure of is that there's no way to be sure that the votes were counted accurately. There's no way to be sure of anything really, except that the pundits will all claim that A is the reason the Dems lost or B is the reason or a combination of A and B or maybe it was X that was the reason. Nobody will mention the voting machines of course since that would be a conspiracy theory or amount to rocking the boat.

And please don't speak too loudly, somebody might hear you.

[davekriss]

36. How many will die...

...for Bush's War while Democrats avoid "rocking the boat" to secure the White House. Doesn't anyone at the top of the party realize they are demoralizing their base and will see many either not vote or vote Green or similar? This "strategy" could lose them the White House at a time when a turnip should be able to win.

[gorfle]

56. So you see my point.

Look, I agree with you - I'd rather turn off the war tomorrow.

But you see my point - if a turnip can win the election why do anything that could cost you voters? Democrats are probably going to vote Democratic no matter what. My guess is the risk of losing a few extremists to the Green Party or similar is less than whipping up the Republican voting block.

[davekriss]

150. I think the risk of losing voters is much greater...

...then you suggest. We will not just lose "a few extremists". Frustration with the lack of Democratic action on core issues (impeachment, war) will leave many voters home; some will defect to McCain, others to the Green Party or a Nader independent run. The "few" could be significant enough to leave actual vote counts close enough to allow the Republicans -- through election fraud, voter disenfranchisement, black box count manipulation, etc. -- to steal yet another election.

[AlbertCat]

50. Helloooooooo.....

Just sit tight another several months until we control the Congress and the White House.

Tell that to the troops and civilians who will be killed in the next several months, why don't you?

[gorfle]

58. Look.

Tell that to the troops and civilians who will be killed in the next several months, why don't you?

Look, I'd just as soon turn off the war tomorrow.

I'm just telling you what the political reality is as I see it.

There is no need for the Democrats to whip up and polarize the Republican voting block.

[treestar]

85. Right, and if McBush wins, there will be a far greater number dead

than those that would die in the next few months.

Plus, giving no funding wouldn't mean the war would stop. So it would only be a political risk with no benefit side.

[pokercat999]

143. Yes there is! That one solider or marine who is going to

die, He or She is worth it all. Fuck the rethug voting block we should send them all to the chopping block!

[gorfle]

162. So let me get this straight.

Yes there is! That one solider or marine who is going to die, He or She is worth it all. Fuck the rethug voting block we should send them all to the chopping block!

So let me get this straight. You would rather the Democrats risk blowing their shot at the presidential election over the life of one solider or marine?

If the Republicans win this election there will be a lot more soldiers and marines dying, I can promise you that.

[pokercat999]

178. When yo put it that way I guess you're right, but I'm not gett'n

on my knees WITH YOU !

If the dems would lose the next election because of impeachment or witholding war funds or any of the other no-no's then the hell with the majority in this country, they would get what they deserve and come to think of it that may be the only justice we ever see.

I'm totally sick of dems doing the wrong thing just so they can be elected/re-elected :puke:

[guruoo]

94. What do you suggest?

[Lautremont]

123. You're talking as though wanting to end the war were some daring, controversial position.

It is not.

[pleah]

12. "Democrats are resigned to the fact they can't change course in Iraq"

These assholes never intended to end this illegal war. They should all be voted out of office!

[Better Believe It]

13. Ya .... Give Them Whatever The Hell They Want

We must accept the fact that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress will continue to support the war effort, rhetoric aside.

They could have stopped it once they won control of Congress.

Some good folks seem puzzled by this bahavior and don't understand why the Democrats in their great majority continue to fund the war.

The explanation is very simple. Just listen to their justifications.

They support the war!

They are Republican enablers!

Do you get it now?

[pleah]

22. These assholes never intended to end the war.

I think that pretty much says that I get it!

[Breeze54]

14. I'm so fucking angry I could spit!

"...breathing room before having to ask Congress for more money."

How about giving the Iraqi's and the soldiers more breathing TIME?

How many more will be dead by the time the new president's "breathing time" is up?

:banghead: Stop Funding the Fucking War!!!! :grr:


:kick: & Recommended

[fed-up]

15. "Pelosi is plotting a "guns/"BLOOD"-for-butter" strategy to try to force Bush to accept"

okay, so she really didn't state "blood for butter", but how many more lives will be lost due to continued funding of this clusterf*ck

I have lost faith in almost all politicians


from the story

Guns-for-butter

Pelosi is plotting a "guns-for-butter" strategy to try to force Bush to accept some new domestic spending in exchange for the money he needs to fight the war. The speaker is floating a proposal to extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks for those whose benefits have run out. The package also could include a new GI Bill benefit to help veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan pay for college.

[PapaWhale]

39. Nancy

Pelosi is just f*cking insane and shameful.

[balantz]

16. I can't wait to see which Senators approve of this message. n/t

[Better Believe It]

17. More GI's Deaths In Exchange For More Unemployment Compensation!

What A Deal!

So how many more soldiers deaths is Pelosi willing to accept in exchange for 13 weeks unemployment compensation?

[SlingBlade]

18. Democracy Died On December 12th, 2000

No one stood up in the Senate for that fair lady, No one !
She died at the age of 224

And it Continues....

"Get over it. It's so old by now."
Anthony Scalia (SCOTUS)

Translated:
You Shuta you face, or I get my boy’s to fuck you up real good !
Fat Tony Scalia (Bush Crime Family Consigliere)

:nuke: We have to take our nation back, We CAN do it !

K & R

[fed-up]

19. Pelosi's numbers-[phone] in SF and [phone] in D.C-I just called nt

[PapaWhale]

40. pelosi's number

Thanks for posting that--it's about time we bombed her with some real truth about her complicity in this death/destruction.

[2Design]

20. not my representative - they seem to work for gop - too bad we don't even

have a two party system anymore

[bdamomma]

21. sickening.

prolonging and enabling the PNAC agenda. What the hell is wrong with these people? :grr:

they are banking on the election to change the course of action, which falls right into Dems laps, and more of our sons, daughter, mothers, fathers to get killed needlessly. Sickening, how immoral.

Pitchforks and torches time yet????????????

[Obamanaut]

23. And this is why I make an effort to avoid voting for incumbents. nt

[truebrit71]

27. This is a BRILLIANT strategic move. Think about it. The Dems will have taken "support the troops"..

...and made it their own for the upcoming election cycle.

The rethugs will be totally unable to attack them for not funding and supporting the troops, the ONLY thing they had going for them...

It is a BRILLIANT move and is to be applauded...unless you wanted to lose again in November..???

[nodehopper]

46. by your logic Zell Miller is brilliant., as is joe liberman

"brilliant" for democrats to become republicans. what a bunch of insane orwellian crap.

[truebrit71]

53. You are missing the point. The soldiers were not coming home this year ANYWAY....so why give the GOP

...another arrow in their quiver?

Take the issue off the table, pre-emptively "support the troops" (because delaying it would have made the Dems look bad) and leave the gop stammering as they try and figure out what on earth they can use from their old playbook to get re-elected...

This is a one-time deal, is going to pass anyway and the Dems may as well take credit for it....or do you think the GOP will all of a sudden start calling for a REDUCTION of funding for the troops this election cycle?

Nope..I didn't think so either...

Good strategic move on the part of the Dem leadership (for once)

[nodehopper]

135. I am not missing the point

let's try it this way--torture will be approved anyway--why shouldn't Dems support it? Otherwise they will come off as unpatriotic.

[truebrit71]

144. There you go again....missing the point...

...this is about the elcetion cycle and taking the advantage away from the opposition...

Now is NOT the time to be pissing in the people's cheerios...

Fund the troops and take away the rethuglicans favourite whipping stick...

[Better Believe It]

57. Will The Families Of The Dead & Wounded GI's Call It "Brilliant"?

Do you think that the families of the dead and wounded soldiers will think the war funding to keep them in Iraq is "brilliant" when the bodybags come home?

What a lame excuse for funding the war!

No.

It's not a brilliant move at all.

It's a very clear political statement on the war.

I guess you just haven't figured it out yet.

I'll tell you why most Democrats will continue to fund the Iraq war and occupation.

It's not a secret or very hard to understand.

Now this may be shocking news to you so hold on to your seat!

Most Democrats continue to fund the war because they support the war and occupation!

Now do you get it?

[balantz]

60. They'll eventually get it.

After they see this war, and companion wars go on and on and on, year after year.

[truebrit71]

67. You are wrong on everything you have written except one. It IS a clear poltical statement on...

...the war...and that statement is 'we will no longer allow you rethuglicans to frame the "support" debate anymore'...

You obviously are having a hard time dealing with the reality of the situation, but a funding fight with Dubya and Dick still at the controls is a lose-lose proposition.

This way the Dems get to frame the debate, disarm the gop AND get credit for keeping the GI's funded...

That's known as a win-win.

Does the war suck? Yes. Will more people die? Yes. Were they going to do die whether we sent the money or not? Most likely, yes. Does this funding bill change anything with the end game? Most likely, no.

It is better to be a pragmatist at moments like this than to stand there yelling into the storm for the umpteenth time this cycle and expect a different result.

[Better Believe It]

70. Pragmatic B.S.!

Your pragmatism can only lead the the deaths of many more GI's and Iraqi's.

Can the Democrats stop the war if they didn't support the occupation? Of course they could.

Just stop funding the continuation of the war and occupation.

And if they incapable of standing up and effectively fighting any right-wing attacks from Republicans on this matter, what good are they .... to the troops and the anti-war majority at home?

They could say, but won't: "Too many of our soldiers have lost their lives and been wounded in a war based on a mountain of lies. Enough! We're approving 10 billion dollars to bring our soldiers home now. If McCain and other Bush supporters in Congress want to keep our troops in Iraq for another hundred years let them vote against bringing our soldiers home!"

I'm sure brilliant strategists in the Democratic Party could say that in a more forceful and effective way.

[balantz]

71. And they could have impeached as well.

It's not like evidence and approval ratings wouldn't help them.

I think it's all B.S.!

[truebrit71]

76. Sorry but your dreams of ending the war just like that, are still only dreams..

...or do you really believe that all it would take is for the Dems to vote down the spending bill and Lt Awol would just bring the troops home?

You are not living in the real world if you believe that...

The Democrats will stop this war and hopefully end the bloodshed but only AFTER we have taken back the WH and not before...that's not just pragmatic, it's a reality...

[Better Believe It]

81. Reality Versus Weak War Funding Excuses

"do you really believe that all it would take is for the Dems to vote down the spendning bill and Lt Awol woul djust bring the troops home?"

Yes. It's not nearly as complex or difficult as you suggest. When Congress refused to grant any more funds to continue the war in Vietnam, Nixon had to pull out ALL of the troops from Vietnam. You didn't know that?

What do you think Bush would use to fund the war if the Democratic Congress refused to fund the occupation .... monopoly money or voluntary donations to an Iraq war fund?

[balantz]

83. Exactly!

It's really very simple: NO MORE WAR FUNDS! IMPEACH AND PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS!

Didn't they hear us a long time ago?!

[truebrit71]

87. It's really very simple. Get into a funding fight this close to the election and you will LOSE...

...Does no-one around here pay attention to the real world?

You CANNOT win in a fight like this...UNTIL you are the top dog...and that happens when you have the WH...

Unless and until we have a Dem in the WH this war will not end, is is as simple as that. No matter how many letters you write, no matter how many demonstrations you take part in, no matter how many bumper stickers you have on your car, as long as Smirk and Unka Dick are in the WH with their obedient lapdog presstitutes this war will continue...Fight the funding if you choose, but understand it will cost you in November.

[balantz]

90. Because of their unwillingness thus far to end this war and impeach and prosecute

I don't really think they are operating out of a brilliant strategy. They lost my faith in having any scruples a long time ago.

They should have come out like warriors in 2007 with justice blazing and carried forth the will of the people. Now we are supposed to trust that this is some kind of brilliant strategy? What happens in the next few months when we are commiting more funds to remain entrenched in the M.E. for another year or more and shrubby and zany jump on over to Iran?

[truebrit71]

92. Up to this point they have been a HUUUUUUUUUUUUge disappointment...No argument there...

...However, it appears as though they have FINALLY learned from their previous media canings that a military funding fight this close to an election is just BEGGING to get your arse kicked yet again...

This play disarms the republican talking point before it even gets off the ground. What else does the gop have to run on? The economy? Unemployment? Not bloody likely..the ONLY thing they had was the military and the Dems have just taken that away from them.

As soon as we increase our lead in the House and the Senate, and take back and fumigate the WH we can set about ending this long national embarassment and nightmare...and bring the troops home...

[Better Believe It]

98. Elect 100 Democratic Senators & Ya Might End The Funding!

Well, maybe not .... unless you also elect 435 members of the House and win the White House with 85% of the vote.

Well, still might be enough!

Has everyone forgotten the fact that Congress refused to fund the Vietnam war anymore and forced a Republican President to bring ALL of our troops home?

But that can't be done today because Republicans will say bad things about Democrats!

Ooooooo scary!

[truebrit71]

103. Yeah, the media back in the 70's was EXACTLY like today's right?

Riiiiiiiiight :eyes:

Apples and oranges...the M$M is merely an extension of the right-wing political machine today, nothing like it was back then...

I also think that the NVA might have had something to do with the troops leaving toute suite back then as well...

[Better Believe It]

109. Wrong Again! It Was Worse And More Pro-War Than Today

You must mean the 1960's, because by the early 70's the anti-war movement had accomplished its objective, the total withdrawl of all US troops from Vietnam.

The major mass media was entirely corporate run media (3 TV Networks, local newspapers) which constantly attacked the anti-war movement as one voice .... they portrayed the anti-war movement as a bunch of lazy and crazy hippies and never supported the anti-war movement when the Vietnam war was led by a Democratic President, later a Republican President and supported by a Democratic Party controlled Congress under both President Johnson and Nixon.

Only 2 Senators (Democrats) voted against the war resolution (Tonkin Gulf) which President Johnson used to escalate the war.
23 Senators voted against the pro-war Iraq resolution (Hillary was not one of them).

Today we have a growing and stronger non- corporate run media using the internet where tens of millions of people now go for their news which we didn't have in the 60's and early 70's.

And much of the corporate run media has even expressed reservations and criticisms of Bush's war policy. Wish we had seen that back in the 60's and early 70's!

[MisterP]

138. they've been pulling out that "brilliant strategy" sawhorse since the 2002 IWR

to prove that we owe any and all Dems our votes--never mind that conservative Dems might act, y'know, CONSERVATIVE and engage in a little browbeating and Straussian perception management to keep the schmucks (that is, the American citizens) from saying "no" to them

[Yukari Yakumo]

134. One false premise.

Nixon at least had one moral fiber in his body.

We can't exactly say the same thing about the Chimpenfurher.

[mudesi]

104. Yes, it's brilliant

Too bad about 400 more American soldiers will die from now until then.

:eyes: :puke:

[The Straight Story]

169. Then we have the midterms to worry about, so we need to keep funding after that

and then the next presidential election....

[sakabatou]

28. *facepalm*

[whistle]

29. That adds up to another $178.0 billion for a war in Afghanistan that will have

...dragged on for over seven years and the war in Iraq which should never have been allowed to begin

[Solly Mack]

31. Oh goody...more coffins, more death, more death benefits paid out, more prosthetic limbs

more TBI, more PTSD, more torture, more illegal detentions, more KBR contracts, more lies


YAY!!!!

America is such a blessed country!!!

[cstanleytech]

35. Calm down people.

The dems had little choice but to fund it for now.
After the election and if the control both houses and the whitehouse as well and they dont start plans for a withdrawl to start after 6 months with a new president then is the time to complain, till then all you will end up doing is supporting the republicans if you push at the wrong time.

[Auggie]

41. There are a lot of congressional seats up for grabs though

Why should people vote for Democrats if they vote to prolong the war?

[cstanleytech]

42. What, you going

to vote for a republican?
Pretty much your only choice usually other than the odd independant which is a rare thing.

[Auggie]

47. A lot of fringe voters voted for Democrats in 2006

with the understanding there'd be change. Worst case scenario is that they won't vote at all out of frustration, which is just as good as a repuke vote.

[cstanleytech]

74. Change still takes time, say if

for example if Obama or Hillary win and become president, they will need time to setup any changes involving Iraq.

[Auggie]

89. Then end the funding on January 31st, 2009. This war is immoral and has to stop ASAP.

The new president can hash out a withdrawal budget with the new Congress.

[Deep13]

45. They could have voted "no."

For the sake of, well, I don't know what, they have essentially put the last nail into the coffin of Congressional primacy.

[truebrit71]

55. It was a BRILLIANT move on their part. What part of "Democrats don't support the troops" do you NOT

..understand?

If you vote AGAINST this bill in THIS election cycle that is ALL you would hear about.

This way the Dems pass it, they spend more than is being asked for, and they do it BEFORE it becomes a political football. That way they get to take ALL of the credit for supporting the troops, and actually get to bash the gop for not asking for MORE money...

It is a qute brilliant strategic move and IMHO is long-overdue...

People REALLY need to come to grips with the fact that NOTHING is going to change until the present war-mongers in the WH are removed from office. It is a simple fact that the war was NOT going to end in this budgetary cycle, the troops were NOT coming home by year's end, and this WOULD have been a HUGE issue used by the GOP in the fall...

[Zodiak]

75. Haven't you noticed

That no matter how much Democrats fund the war, they are still called unpatriotic and lacking in their support of the troops.

You are not going to change the Republican slime machine one bit by appeasing them.....by appeasing them you only let them know how cowardly you are, which will embolden them further.

And more deaths and many billions more of national debt poured down the toilet is NOT a brilliant move by any stretch of the word. It is a cowardly move that will be noticed as such by the entire country.

[truebrit71]

77. I disagree....this is MORE than they asked for, EARLIER than the wanted it and it COMPLETELY..

...removes the "support our troops" plank from under their feet...

This is not appeasement...it is launching a full-frontal assault against the GOP and it completely disarms them...

[Zodiak]

80. How has that worked out in the past...out-hawking pukes?

The answer is that it hasn't....and never will.

So in order to look good for an American public that hates this war, we have to show that we are willing to pour more money and souls into this failed venture than the pukes?

I am sorry, but this Stockholm syndrome style strategy is not only cowardly, it is a disaster for this country.

[truebrit71]

88. As long as the rightwing own the M$M the majority of the american people can go pound sand...

...the criminals in the WH know this and will continue to use it to their advantage until they are thrown out of office...

You can either fight the funding and get labelled as weak on national defense, or you can call their bluff, out spend them and make THEM look weak on nat def....

I don't know about you but I'd rather be inside the tent pissing out than the other way around...

[Zodiak]

91. I'd rather someone stands up for these poor soldiers stuck in this war

Or stands up for the 2 or 3 generations of future Americans who just had their hopes and dreams poured down the drain to fund this colossal failure. What do you think their future will be like with this level of debt put upon their shoulders?

Billions cost us. Soldier's lives cost us. The benefit you propose is a little spin that will never be spun our way....never. As I told you before, you cannot out-hawk the Republicans....they will always find a way to paint the Dems as unpatriotic with their bought-and-paid-for media. There is very little opportunity for gain, but the cost of this is billions and more lives.

You may think this is brilliant, but I think it is yet another abrogation of their public responsibility. We have watched the Dems try this over and over, and it never works.....but if you think it will this time, more power to you. I vehemently disagree.

[truebrit71]

96. Feel free to disagree as much as you like but the reality is that if they DON'T get funded...

...the troops AREN'T going to be coming home any sooner and the only people that get hurt are the Dems....

Of COURSE the congress was going to hand over the money...what is the alternative? So you might as well grab it, make it your own and stiff-arm your opponent at the same time.


Win - win

[Amonester]

117. Who's gonna want to vote for the war crimes' accomplices now?

Lose - lose

[Better Believe It]

124. The Reality Is If They Don't Get Funded They Will Be Brought Home

How do you think Bush will otherwise fund the war .... use monopoly money or ask for voluntary war fund donations?

[truebrit71]

173. He will simply fund it anyway...

...

[Better Believe It]

121. This Part: Democrats Who Vote For War Funding Don't Support The Troops

They clearly support the occupation and want to keep the troops in harms way in Iraq or they would cut off war funding.

Now what part of this don't you understand?

[Blue_Tires]

130. i think that is why bills like this keep coming up

the gop is always counting on dem leadership to be image-conscious and take the road of political expiediency...but the dems always lose more than they seemingly gain because: 1. the gop will always find some other way to use the label 'godless america haters' 2. the gop gets what the wanted from the beginning...

and what if mccain wins in november? then it was all for naught, and they missed a chance to take a stand for once in the first place...and what happens when six months into the next president's term, the dems use the same rationale to approve more funding??

[jonnyra]

115. I'll say it again

To those who seem to think this election is in the bag...what makes anyone think the GOP will not steal another election. Why does anyone think for one minute that this time the GOP will play nice, or their tricks wont work, or the supreme court wont come to their rescue?? Giving in on this because we are so cock sure we'll win in November os to ignore history. History says it dont matter who votes for who...its how the votes get counted, whos doing the counting and who the fascist media support. NoW tell me we are gonna win this thing.

Sad to say but my money goes on the republican criminals stealing another 4 years in the white house with typical smear campaigns, lies and inuendo, hacked voting machines and a media that is on message. Then we will be stuck...this occupation (its not a fucking war...its a war crime!) will go on...insane McCain will never allow to stop.

I personally would advise against any strategy to end this evil disaster, that assumes a dem victory in November.

[Sam Ervin jret]

37. They should at least stick on it provisions for no pay for Blackwater unless it forks over the info

congress wants, follows the rules congress wants and puts several more provisions in there.

Like 1. Rove before congress under Oath
2. passage of the Real Vet Bill, (the Non-McCain one)
3. (Filll in the blank)

Make the president and his friends work for their money, it will be a new experience for most of them.

[AlbertCat]

59. They want more money?

How about only funding a withdrawal....or at least there must be a plan for withdrawal before any funding is approved. If you're gonna put conditions on the money, at that price I think there could be a lot more than some minimum wage crapola! DO SOMETHING besides just waiting it out!

[Deep13]

43. As Congressional authority comes to a close, so does our Republic.

Hail Caesar.

[nodehopper]

44. cue to the apologists for the sniveling pathetic spineless nancy pelosi

[ooglymoogly]

51. She should be home in a rocking chair knitting shawls for her grandchildren

she is a senile fossil

[balantz]

48. When the Senate votes

which way will be best for Clinton or Obama to convince voters that they want to end this war?

Will they vote against the House Dems.?

Or will they approve spending to keep the war pumping along?

If shrubby gets us into Iran in the midst of this vote then the Senators will be seen voting for funding that six months into the new administration.

I just don't see more funding as being a good move.

We need to stop killing and ruining lives, like NOW!

[bean fidhleir]

49. "Resigned" my arse. That reporter should get a good kicking.

Only a fool or a shill would imply that the Dem leadersheep are in any way opposed to that rolling crime against humanity.

[logosoco]

52. so much for checks and balances

oh. i'm sorry i guess i forgot what has become of the constitution.

[spanone]

61. FUCKING INSANE

[stimbox]

62. Called to express my opposition for whatever good it'll do.

Pelosi is part of the problem.

Time for her to be sent home.

Vote Shirley Golub in the June 3rd primary.

Please donate your time and/or money to Shirley, she won't sell us out.

http://www.shirley08.com

[Xenotime]

63. How is this happening?

[TBF]

64. Nice job, Pelosi. Remind me who voted for this idiot?

[Freddie Stubbs]

112. 110,989 San Fransisco voters did:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/CA/H/08/county.000.html

[stimbox]

133. And we've been regretting it ever since....

She's not getting such an easy race this time.

[Freddie Stubbs]

147. We'll see how difficult of a reelection battle she has

The big-time Kucinich supporter who is challenging her doesn't even have Kucinich's support.

[stimbox]

149. Where did you get that info? Post a link please.

That's the first I've heard of that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

152. If he is supporting her, she is keeping it secrect

There is no mention of Kucinich supporting her on her website.

[stimbox]

154. Just as I thought you got nothing. nada. zilch. zippo. null.

nice try.

i'll ask her thursday when i see her and get back to you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

159. I look forward to learning why she would keep Kucinich's support a secrect

[stimbox]

164. Maybe he hasn't endorsed anyone yet. Simple huh?

[Freddie Stubbs]

165. One would think that he would want to help such a loyal supporter, especially considering

the stark contrast between the two candidates.

[stimbox]

167. One would think that huh? We'll see. n/t

[stimbox]

180. She hasn't approached him yet about an endorsement.

That's what she told me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

181. Wow. She must already have so much support that she doesn't need Kucinich

I'm sure that it is a wise campaign strategy.

[stimbox]

182. She's got plenty. On the ground here in SF I see a lot of support.

Kind of hard to see that from Florida.
I'll keep you posted. Ok?
:hi:

[stimbox]

145. The impeachment proposition got more votes than Nancy did!

Proposition J
Adopting a Policy Calling for the Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney
City of San Francisco
Majority Approval Required
Pass: 133,042 / 58.53% Yes votes ...... 94,282 / 41.47% No votes

[Freddie Stubbs]

146. Pelosi's district does not encompass the entire city. She recieved a higher percentage of the vote

She received 80% of the vote, but the referendum only got 59%.

[stimbox]

148. SF wants impeachment no matter how you Pelosi apologists spin it.

It may not encompass the entire city but it is entirely in the city of San Francisco, and SF voted for impeachment.

[Freddie Stubbs]

151. But they want Pelosi as their Representative even more

She announced that impeachment was off the table months before the election.

[stimbox]

153. But we also voted for impeachment.

We figured that she would do the right thing as the evidence became greater.
She fooled us.

[Freddie Stubbs]

158. She made a promise and kept her word

I realize that this may be confusing to some people.

[stimbox]

163. A promise to the Bush administration. Yep, she promised that she wouldn't hold them accountable.

That's just great for you in Florida where you don't get to vote for her, huh?
But that doesn't fly well here in her district with her constituents.

[Freddie Stubbs]

166. It was a promise to all VOTERS. The voters who went on to elect a Demcratic majority to Congress

In my state, we elected two new Democratic Congressmen for that majority.

[and-justice-for-all]

65. So they are all warmongering assholes!!

[BrklynLib at work]

68. How pathetic they all are........just plain pathetic.

[Dukkha]

73. DINO Pelosi at it again

Her arrogance is right on par with the war criminals she's now in alliance with. She clearly is vehemently oppose to the people she allegedly represented at one time.

[Truth2Tell]

78. Recommended with full fury.

Real justice would mean a very full dock in The Hague - fascist Republicans arm in arm with their complicit Democratic enablers.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[balantz]

79. Let's see, it was 2006, and we all voted for them under the impression

that they would end this war and impeach the criminals.

It is now 2008 and they are still going in the other direction!

[stimbox]

82. With Democrats like this who needs Republicans!

:puke:

[pberq]

84. How Can We Stop Congress From Surrendering Again On Iraq Appropriations?

Received via email from: The Pen ([e-mail])

Only Removing Pelosi NOW Can Stop Congress From Lying Down Yet Again

The latest indications are that Congress is determined to cave in yet
again to the constitutional criminals in the White House, still too
cowardly, even after 5 years of lies upon lies, war crimes upon war
crimes, to put their foot down on the endlessly escalating debacle in
Iraq. Not only are they talking about coughing up another 100 billion
of debt for our us, our children and our grandchildren, they are
talking about making it 170 billion.

Not even bothering with the fig leaf of meaningless so-called
benchmarks, apparently they are just planning to surrender without
even a token fight this time, as if this entire two year session of
Congress was just about kicking the will of the people down the road
like a can. If we believed for one second they would to ANYTHING to
stop the vain lunacy in Iraq we were played for total fools. Even now
they have total power to control the funding and they are still too
scared to exercise it.

But the good news is that there is something enormously effective we
can do to stop them in their cowardly tracks. And that is . . . to
defeat Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic primary in the 8th district of
California on June 3. There is absolutely NOTHING else that will have
any real impact at all, until we can demonstrate that even the
Speaker of the House can be removed within their own party if they
are perversely determined to be derelict in their duty to we the
people and our Constitution.

Remove Pelosi Ad: http://www.shirley08.com/donations_radio.php

[dkofos]

86. Thanks Nancy for PISSING AWAY ANOTHER 100+BILLION OF THE PEOPLES MONEY.

[Maestro]

93. Pathetic, disgusting, cowardly

I am now working for major not only in the White House but in the Democratic Party! Fucking DLC Democrats and other Dinos!

[Initech]

95. Most useless Congress in history? YES!!!!

:mad: :argh: :nuke: :grr:

[dpbrown]

97. Why?

Don't they know who they represent?

[DaDooRonRon]

99. Aw c'mon

Just elect Obama or Clinton and everything will change!

Yea, right.

Are you/we finally waking up to the fact that NOTHING will change, save for superficial trappings to make you party-blind folks believe the "good guys" won?

It is Corporate Blue and Corporate Red, and I feel for all of you who actually think it is anything but.

Tell me, how many more will have to die until you realize that the whole fucking thing is wink, wink, nod, nod as BOTH sides play you for fools.

Hope. Ready to lead. All work together.

Bullshit.

The change will NEVER come. The fucking DEMOCRATS are giving the death money this time.

Blank.Check.Death.Money.

Wake up, people, it's two-party fraud.

What more do you need to make you believe?

[fascisthunter]

100. People Die for Politics, While Others Take Advantage

Disgusting no matter how anyone tries spinning this. A part of reality some seem ok with.

[Javaman]

101. The problem is...

It's too late now for the dems to grow a spine. if they don't approve it, then the next pres (probably a dem) will be faced with the fact that even if they wanted to pull the troops there will be no money alloted to fund the withdrawal.

If the money is approved now, they will have the money in place to do that.

this is all more bullshit brought to you by the repukes. They know with this bill the dems are put between a rock and a hard place.

HOWEVER...

if they dems had had a spine last year and told moron* to go fuck himself and cut the funds, moron* would be the one in deepshit now.

but alas, that would require a spine.

[balantz]

102. I still want to know what people think

when it comes to the Senate voting on this bill how should Obama and Clinton vote?

[lebkuchen]

105. This is an exercise in watching the U.S. go down the tubes

tent cities due to foreclosures, 17% of the population w/o health insurance, high schools graduating less than 50% of their population, $4.00 for a gallon of gas w/a population with a long way to drive to work, a large bulk of the population suffering from crushing credit card debt, tens of thousands of vets stuck in a broken system....

while the military industrial complex rakes in the taxpayer bucks.

It's really sad to see this, but maybe a country has to be brought to its knees before it can learn, rebuild and thrive again. At least the GOP and dems seem to apply that logic.

[dixiegrrrrl]

106. Dems are playing the "wait until" game

Just like Repugs..

"Wait until the 2006 elections, then we can change things"

" Wait until we have hearings, then we can change things"

"oh, no, wait, we can't change things until the 2007 budget is passed"

" Wait until the WH responds to our 120th letter, then we will act...really, we will. Honest"

"Oh, wait until we win the WH in 08, then we can change things"

Well, my name is not Charlie Brown.
And I am done waiting.

[DaDooRonRon]

111. Good for you

Waiting for the impossible is a fool's game.

The only way to stop the false hope is to once and for all refuse to enable it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. They will go down in history as craven, cowardly enablers

with a few shining exceptions.

[lonestarnot]

108. Motherfuckers!

[liberal N proud]

110. Democrats? - What Democrats

There are no Democrats in Washington, they all lay down and join the enemy.

Chicken shit bastards

[DaDooRonRon]

113. They are NOT chickenshit

They are doing EXACTLY what they are told to do, by the folks that matter the most to them.

Here's a hint - it ain't you or me.

Here's another one -$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[liberal N proud]

118. The Constitution has been changed...

A government for the corporations by the corporations

[DaDooRonRon]

125. Sounds about right

I"m just waiting for the "sponsored by" tag right before the Preamble.

[Auggie]

129. It wasn't changed. They discovered the loopholes technology created.

It's an antiquated document that needs updating for the 21st Century.

[katty]

114. of course they are - 2 party system? surely, you jest!

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madrchsod]

119. looks like the depression will happen a lot sooner than expected

200 billion is one hell of a lot of jobs in this country...

[Preston120]

122. Tell Me Again the difference between a Democrat and Republican.

[DaDooRonRon]

126. One is evil with a straight face, the other is evil with a crooked smile

Damned if I can tell the difference.

[western mass]

142. Republicans lead...

Democrats follow.

[Megahurtz]

127. FUUUCK!

:argh:

:banghead:

[booley]

128. Unfortunately the dems know

That their base has no where else to go.

Or at least that's the perception.

Third parties are out. They don't have the power to get elected and anybody who who supports third parties gets blasted as helping the Republicans.

And then we have the enablers among the Democrats, even here on U who will say that we have to support any Democrat because it's all about the number sin Congress. OF course, how many times have we had Democrats cross the aisle to the Republican side? IF we put Democrats in that vote like Republicans, then the Conservatives win regardless which party is in power.

Nope, i am afraid the Democratic leadership understands they don't have to do anything. IF they just sit back and do nothing, they figure Shrub will go away, the Demo voters will just hold their noses again and the next Democratic President will have all of this new power thanks to the Shrub presidency.

It's getting harder and harder to justify supporting these people.

[ebt12]

131. Just WHAT is their problem?

What will it take to get them to stop the war? So many people descending on Washington that they will stop it out of fear? A revolution on par with the one that created this country?

[balantz]

136. Can't really do that this time.

Two hundred years ago fighting and defeating imperialist bastards worked.

Today they have all the power.

It would be like ants to anteaters.

[Yukari Yakumo]

132. For all of you whining about this

Even if the Dems cut the funding, what do you think the Chimpenfurher would do? Do you seriously think he'll end the war?

Hell no he won't. He's probably the most amoral President ever. He'd keep them there with just sticks and stones if he had to. And he and his handlers would spin this to the M$M as "Dems hates the military" and/or "Dems loves the terrorists" and the M$M would lap it up without question.

The only way to end the war is to win in November. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

[Better Believe It]

137. Quit Whining About Republicans .... Oppose Them!

"Even if the Dems cut the funding, what do you think the Chimpenfurher would do?"

I know exacly what Bush would have to do and so do you!

He'd be forced to bring all of our troops home from Iraq and do it pronto!

You suggest that Bush would "keep them there with just sticks and stones if he had to". Was that a serious political explanation on how he would keep the occupation going without money? I sincerely hope not.

I suppose Bush could try using monopoly money or take up a collection for a voluntary war fund. But, that's almost as silly as your sticks and stones idea.

You wrote that Bush: "would spin this to the M$M as "Dems hates the military" and/or "Dems loves the terrorists" and the M$M would lap it up without question."

Well, I suppose they just might lap it up if you and Democratic Party war enablers are unable to respond effectively to such right-wing Republican attacks. And if Democratic Party leaders are clueless on how to respond to those kind of Republican attacks what good are they?

I think the anti-war majority would rally behind a "Bring Our Boys Home" movement if the Democratic Party would attempt to build,or at least support, the building of such a broad based movement. Hell, the people might even elect a bigger Democratic Party majority in Congress this year if they actually thought the Democratic Party would end the war funding and bring ALL of our soldiers back home from Iraq.

You can whine all you want about the Republicans might do, but that doesn't help bring our soldiers home from Iraq.

How many more GI's deaths do you think Democratic Party politicians should accept before ending the funding?

1,000?

Another 4,000?

Perhaps 10,000

Well?

[ohio2007]

139. They must be up for re election.

Campaign soundbytes that will show they are tough on defense and will not waffle ?


I voted for it.... before I was ....

[Jack Rabbit]

140. Vote for Shirley Golub

That's all I can say now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

168. Five weeks until Primary Day!

:9

[DemocratInSoCal]

141. We're A JOKE Of A Nation

And to think, all you people actually believe Either Obama or Clinton will make a difference?

LOL!!!!

What a bunch of gullible Amerikans we all are. The joke's on us, and we ain't going to do a thing about it.

[Lost4words]

157. I am afraid you might be correct

8643

[Lost4words]

155. More good work from the democratic side of the GOP!

:sarcasm:

[Vidar]

160. Traitors--every one of them. They deserve to hang with Bush & his crew.

[lovuian]

170. 108 billion which could go to health care and schools

and finding other energy sources

how much are we going to throw down the toilet

and then watch them come out and say NO HEALTHCARE for you

Dems you are looking real bad here

[ckramer]

171. Pelosi should give up the seat

She hasn't done anything to stop the war funding, has she?

[KakistocracyHater]

172. Till the money runs out

that's how long they'll occupy Iraq, this is about making Nation_States obsolete, not about 't3rror!sm'. They fully intend to bankrupt the American Treasury & they are succeeding, by pulling money out of America from nearly all directions.

[Infinite Hope]

176. Iraq has $100 billion in reserves!!! Let THEM pay for the fucking war. n/t

[stimbox]

177. Shirley's new ad...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=125529&mesg_id=125529

[KamaAina]

179. "and for nearly six months into the next president's term"

Remember this when the eventual Dem nominee starts saying things about "the first hundred days"! :grr: