Every Democratic Senator just voted for more war funding

[welshTerrier2]

the only power the Senate has to voice its disapproval of the war is to cut-off funds to pay for it ...

Democratic Senators should have voted "NO" until such time as the wording of the bill directed any Iran and Afghanistan spending for the sole purpose of protecting the troops as necessary while they are being withdrawn from those two countries ...

This bill votes for more war ...

And for those who have called for immediate withdrawal if the Iraqis don't form a real government by May 15, it's hard to understand voting for more war funds without that being a stipulation ...

[TayTay]

1. Because it wasn't a stand-alone bill with just that in it.

The bill also contained funding for the victims of Katrina and had money in it for veterans and other really good things.

And it may be the only supplemental that comes up this year.

It's not always cut and dried and easy. A No vote would have also screwed over a lot of people who have already been screwed over too many times.

[welshTerrier2]

2. they should not have given bush more war funds

of course republicans will tie this hideous funding to other things to make the Dems look bad ...

sometimes you just have to stand up and say i will not be bullied like this ...

this bill will sign a death sentence for a whole lot of people ...

[ShortnFiery]

3. "this bill will sign a death sentence for a whole lot of people ..."

But none of those killed in this immoral invasion and occupation mean a rat's ass to any of these blessed Senators, Republican or Democratic.

I'm disgusted ... they could have abstained. :puke:

[TayTay]

4. Republicans are the ones who voted against it.

I don't think there was a Dem vote against it. The Dems forced the Repubs to put funding back into this bill for a lot of good things.

This is the bill that the Prez has said he would veto because it is over his spending limit. It's not just a vote for funding the war. It's not that easy. (I wish it were, but it's not.)

[emulatorloo]

24. look at these additions, per AP

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050406J.shtml

The bill is now about $14 billion more than President Bush wants. That means items such as $4 billion in farm disaster aid and $1 billion in state grants not requested by Bush may have to be dropped during House-Senate negotiations.

Also at risk are Senate add-ons such as $1.1 billion in aid to the Gulf Coast seafood industry; $648 million for port security; and $1.9 billion to secure U.S. borders and waters. In trouble, too, may be Bush's effort to boost the budget for New Orleans flood control projects to $3.7 billion.

The bill now totals $108.9 billion. But that includes $430 million for veterans' medical care that would become available only if Bush submitted an official request.

<snip>

Ten Republicans joined most Democrats in passing a plan by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to provide $289 million to compensate health professionals, emergency responders and other early recipients of experimental flu vaccines in the event they are injured.

The overall bill contains $65.7 billion for war operations and $28.8 billion for hurricane relief, including grants to states to build and repair housing and $3.7 billion for levees and flood control projects.

During action last week in the full Senate, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., succeeded in diverting $1.9 billion in Pentagon funds to border security needs such as new aircraft and patrol boats.

On Tuesday, lawmakers added about $1.7 billion for levees and other flood control projects in the New Orleans areas.

But unlike Bush's request last week, this money for flood control would not be offset by cutting the government's chief disaster relief fund.

Kennedy also succeeded Wednesday, over the objections of the State Department, in directing that $105 million in economic aid go to private U.S. groups that help Iraqis build democratic institutions.

The Bush administration says it already has substantial dollars going to such organizations. Kennedy's move probably will not survive the House-Senate negotiations.

Also Wednesday, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., added $60 million for U.N. peacekeeping efforts in Sudan's Darfur region. His plan was financed by a companion cut to money for the huge U.S. Embassy project in Baghdad.

<snip>

[welshTerrier2]

25. i'm not sure what point you're making

are you pointing out that there are numerous other line items beyond the lion's share going to Iraq and Afghanistan?

my point is that Democrats should not be voting more funds for war ... period!!

this is not only a horrible use of funds but it endorses the bogus policy of bundling all kinds of bad things into one bill ...

it's time for Democrats to stop putting up with this nonsense and it's time for them to say "NO" to more war funding ...

[emulatorloo]

27. There is NO WAY that this appropriation would have not passed

No matter what Dem Senators said or did.

There are at least 3 dem proposals out there re getting out of Iraq. But this appropriation would pass no matter what.

While that sickens me, It looks to me, that given that fact, they added some much needed and interesting provisions -- provisions that Bush has NO INTEREST in promoting at all, ex Danfur.

And of course when Bush vetos it, I will happy to say "But President Bush doesn't support our troops!" just as Rove's flying monkeys said it re Kerry 87 Billion vote in '04.

[Debau2005]

5. I thought

* was threatening to veto it, if it passed. Which will make him look like the heartless bastard that we know he is.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Remember...They wrapped Katrina into that bill on purpose

If they vote "No" it will be the same old tired 'you're against the troops!' with the added hit of 'hurting victims of Katrina'.

It's a win-win for GOP, unless the DEMs get out there in front of the microphones toot-sweet! When the Cons do this crap, the DEMs need to start and endless echo of "After 5 years, it's nice that this Republican led Congress is finally listening to our ideas from the Democratic side of the aisle and helping us move forward."

[Catrina]

22. That won't work anymore, invoking the troops. A picture of Bush's palace

is all we need to counter that argument ~ not to mention all the other evidence that billions of dollars are missing, that what little did go to the troops, was no way near enough.

They should shut down the Senate until these frauds are totally exposed and an accounting is given of every tax dollar they have been given. The casual acceptance of missing billions of dollars while they cut all programs here, is mind-boggling.

[Mass]

7. I agree, but it would have taken more political courage than the

dems have these days.

I never thought they would do it, so I am not surprised at all, and it was particularly clear when all but 4 Democrats voted for cloture. Nobody was going to risk being labelled anti-war just before an election.

Unfortunately, the GOPers who voted against it did it for bad reasons too. They are against everything except the funds for the Iraq War.

[blm]

8. Except there would be no funds for massive withdrawal efforts, either.

And any senator on board for withdrawal would be eviscerated for not funding the troops to even get them to the point where they can more easily withdraw.

"Well Senator, you demand withdrawal, but you vote against the funds that will help the troops to reach a point where they CAN withdraw."

The money for Katrina recovery was also a dastardly political move placed in that bill that NO DEMOCRAT had any possibility of controlling.

But, I am quite sure you know that. Of all the spending bills, this one was the most difficult for ANY lawmaker to vote against. We saw that while the amedments were being added and voted on.

[Mass]

9. I have to disagree - They gave the money NO STRINGS ATTACHED

But, once again, this would have taken courage, and the courage was not in the Democratic camp this week!

They could have voted against cloture, for once, and insisted that one of the amendments asking for troops withdrawal be voted upon. But of course, it is so much easier to vote for the bill.

At least, let hope they will start attack McCain as anti-troops and anti-Katrina.

[TayTay]

12. Well the amendment that said no permanent bases passed

and is attached to this bill.

To provide that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

I would have voted for this.

[Mass]

15. Actually, the amendment says that NO money in THIS bill

will be used for permanent bases.

The money for bases was already allocated in the previous bills, so it is not really meaningful.

[TayTay]

16. Putting the Senate on the record for no permanent bases is

very meaningful. A similar thing passed in the House.

Sigh!

[Jacobin]

17. Clue phone is ringing

The new bases are already built and the part about 'no permanent bases' is just a 'sense of the congress' fig leaf which is quite obviously UTTERLY meaningless, seeing as how we have already built massive bases and won't leave anytime soon.

Why do we all buy into these meaningless gestures that congress makes....'no permanent presence in Iraq' so easily? The Iraqis know its a goddamned lie? Why don't the american people?

[TayTay]

18. Then answer it.

We need to establish these things:

1. That is Iraqi oil out there in the dessert and the American's don't own it.
2. We don't want permanent bases in Iraq.
3. We need to set a deadline and begin to withdraw.

Perhaps the person on the other end of the clue phone can tell you that getting the Senate on record for all three of these things would be a good idea. We got one today.

In case you haven't noticed, we don't control any branches of government. Of course this is being done in Sense of the Senate resolutions. Do you actually think the Rethugs are going to volunteer to get out of Iraq? The Democrats are not in control, they are not the ones who can set the legislative agenda. The REthugs do that. It was a good thing to get this passed. It shows progress.

[Jacobin]

19. Gee, calm down

I read your post.

Just because the democrats don't control anything doesn't mean they can't be the opposition and vote that way. That's my point. I understand that the Vichy Dems don't agree and corporate contributions are much more likely that way :-)

And these 'sense of the congress' resolution word games are FIG LEAVES for the invading barbarians to USE to PRETEND we aren't staying there and to try to fool the american people.


For the life of me, I don't see how anyone thinks that's at all helpful.

But that's just me

[TayTay]

20. Because it puts the Senate on record

and shows who supports this and who doesn't.

It's not rocket science here.

[Jacobin]

21. IMHO its a Fig Leaf

That give aid and comfort to the warmongers and will likely fool the majority of americans into thinking that the junta actually plans to leave IraqNam.

It is less than a meaningless gesture. It is an overt attempt at obfuscating what the administration is doing...which is turning IraqNam into a colony, and an attempt to hide it from the public by saying: "See? we passed a resolution saying we aren't doing it, so we're not"

They did the same thing with the torture thing. Passed a law saying it was not our policy. Bush even says torture is not our "policy".

Word games are dangerous. This a word game aimed at obfuscating our true intentions, and accordingly I view it as worse than overt support for the warmongers...it gives the warmonger cover.

If they were earnest in their desire to stop the war they would turn off the money spigot, or at least vote to do so, even when outvoted.

Those in congress during the 1970's did that...a few at first, then then more until the cut off the funding for that disaster. They DID NOT pass 'sense of the congress' that VietNam was not going to be a permanent war. They stopped the money for the conflagration and finally that stopped the war.

[TayTay]

23. WHO is doing this?

I bet that 98% of the people who write on a progressive board like DU are not in favor of this war and want the US to come up with a strategy to get out. They would like no permanent bases there and would like to see the US stop being an aggressor nation in that region of the world.

Now, short of simply comlaining about it, what is your solution? A resolution was put forth that stated that the US has no desire for permanent bases. We have Dems and Repubs on the record on that. We know who is for it and who is against it. It can even be used at election time to give voters more information.

That is a good thing.

Whatever the hell it is your talking about sounds like rambling. This was a concrete action that put votes on the record and that someone now has to stand with as part of their record. That is a good thing.

BTW, the war in Vietnam went on for 14 years. 14 years of hard work educating people and educating Congress. It happened in incremental steps that meant something. That is how things get done.

Or, perhaps you can point to some action, some thing you can think of now that has a chance of happening in the real world that will end this right now. Otherwise, the mid-term coming up and the votes that people can point to in Congress to do things like say, 'no permanent bases' are steps that show a positive change. (Nothing in electoral politics happens all at once. Nothing. There are no shortcuts, just hard work.)

[welshTerrier2]

26. "we have to vote for it or they'll gain a political advantage"

is that the defense we should accept from those who voted for this hideous legislation?

Democrats need to start doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing ... "those mean old Dems voted against those poor Katrina victims" ...

we need to stand up and tell the American people that we are 100% behind the Katrina victims but that this what not a bill that deserved support ... the war is draining the national treasury and making it less and less likely we will be able to respond to national disasters in the future ...

it's time for Dems to stop cowering in the corner and get out in front on issues like this ... and, it goes without saying that voting more funds for bush's war, funds without any strings attached whatsoever, is absolutely unconscionable ... once again, the Democratic Senate has disgraced itself ...

[emulatorloo]

10. worth looking at this thread before growling and foaming at the mouth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1100634

[Mass]

11. Except that the bill is going to go in conference and that

many things will be taken out of so that Bush does not have to veto.

[emulatorloo]

13. damn - n/t

[Radical Activist]

14. Paging Mr. McGovern, George McGovern please report to the Senate

sigh

[liberaliraqvet26]

28. The war is going on you cant cut back now....

it will only hurt troops at this point. they should have voted against it two+ years ago

[sampsonblk]

30. I disagree humbly

The war in Iraq lasted a few weeks. This is the disastrous, failed occupation that ensued. Put in those terms, I definitely suppport decreasing funding. At the least, we should certainly expect our party leaders to press for less and less funding, to put pressure on Bush to get our guys out of there sooner rather than later.

This is Bush's mess. There's no reason why our side should be helping perpetuate this disaster.

[welshTerrier2]

31. exactly ...

this has nothing to do with not supporting the troops ... that's the great republican myth ...

this is about providing more funding ONLY IF that funding is clearly earmarked for withdrawing the troops ...

i also don't accept the argument some have offered that this bill could never have been defeated ... 20 republicans voted against it ... it we got every Democrat to vote "No", it would have lost by a 2-1 margin ... and even if the bill passed, when the hell can we expect Democrats to really stand up and do everything they can to end this insane war?

giving bush a blank check for more of the same sure does not earn my admiration ...

[Blue_Tires]

29. remember when the GOP used to always say...?

"XXXX is a money pit! The goddamn tax-and-spend liberals just want to send more good money after bad!! Why is it that the only solution liberals in congress see to XXXX is throwing MORE money at it????"

[jerry611]

32. Democrats will never kill a war-spending bill

It would create too much political ammo for Republicans to use. They would claim that Democrats don't support the troops.

Plus the Democrats are not calling, nor have ever called, for a withdrawal of Iraq. All the Democrats have done was criticize the premise for going to war and how the war is being managed and fought. But Democrats have never, and never will, call for an immediate withdrawal.

[welshTerrier2]

33. well, i pretty much agree ...

i think the party is much to worried about the political flak to do the right thing ... it's shameful and i think the public sees it as weakness ...

but you're not quite right on the immediate withdrawal thing ... the McGovern bill, supported by numerous Dems in the House, calls for a cut-off of funds except those needed to get the troops out of there ... and Kerry's most recent offering calls for an "immediate withdrawal" if the Iraqis fail to form a real government by May 15 ... it will be interesting to see what Senator Kerry does and says when they fail to meet the condition he specified ...

[jerry611]

34. I dont know if we can withdrawal

If we pull out, Iraq would fall into civil war and there is no gurantee that Iran won't try to take it over. That could send oil prices well above anything you have imagined and completly alter the world economy. I do agree with the experts that this is not a vietnam where we can just throw up our hands and say "the hell with this crap" and wash the blood from our hands and move on like it never happened. If a stable government isn't formed in iraq, this has the potential of biting us in the ass for decades to come no matter what we do.

I was reading an article by an economic expert that says even if we went to an emergency plan, we cannot get off mid-east oil dependancy until at least 2025.

30 years of failure of our government to develop a plan on energy has forced America into a corner. We are literally being held hostage by the mid-east and world oil corporations. We are stuck.

[welshTerrier2]

35. we need to get out NOW

this whole madness in Iraq is about oil ... do you think that staying longer will somehow make things better for the US? it won't ... our troops are being sacrificed everyday as Big Oil racks up record profits ...

the idea of staying until we "fix things" sounds great ... the problem is, it hasn't happened and it will never happen ... if we were ever to "succeed" in Iraq, it would result in a puppet regime that wouldn't last very long ... and all the while, oil profits would soar as we rape Iraq and steal their oil ...

we are indeed "stuck" ... staying longer will do nothing but get a whole lot more people killed ... all the other progress some are hoping for is a pipedream ...

[jerry611]

36. Then get ready for $8 a gallon gas

Because that is what will happen if we allow the mid-east to fall into a regional war. Oil will shoot up well above $100 a barrel.
We can't get off mid-east oil dependancy for another 2 decades. Jimmy Carter had the right idea, he saw this coming back on the 70's. But Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush's all dropped the ball big-time.

Had we put an energy plan in place back in the 70s...we wouldn't have this problem today. Energy would be cheap and clean. And no one would be dying for it. Now, we have a major problem on our hands.