Update: House Dems give Bush blank check

[Red Knight]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll418.xml

And yes--tonight, they will apparently try to hide that they did it.

Disgusting.

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/05/24/update-house-dems-vote-for-iraq-blank-check-senate-dems-still-mum-on-filibuster/

UPDATE: House Dems Vote For Iraq Blank Check; Senate Dems Still Mum on Filibuster
To update my post earlier today, House Democrats passed the key rule vote - the most important vote, because it deliberately sets the stage to give president Bush a blank check for the Iraq War. The Roll Call vote can be found here. Those Democrats with the courage to vote no were: Waters Harman, Clay, Moore (WI),McNerney, Kucinich and Stark. Democrats not voting were Cardoza, DeGette, Engel, Gutierrez, Jones (OH), Lewis (GA), Oberstar and Shea-Porter. Democrats are expected to deliver speeches tonight on the House floor claiming they oppose giving Bush a blank check because they will be voting against a Republican amendment. The effort, however, is an attempt to confuse voters. Though many Democrats will oppose the GOP amendment, the rule vote deliberately created the situation whereby the GOP is now able to pass the blank check.

In other news, Sens. Kerry and Leahy are the latest Senate Democrats to issue statements saying they will vote against the blank check in the Senate, but to date not a single senator has indicated they will filibuster. This all happened just as the New York Times put a story on its website announcing that “Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the war began, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.”

[annabanana]

1. And there it is. . ..

Hiding in the weeds... the blank check. . And only those who have the leisure to REALLY REALLY REALLY pay attention will know...

shameful

[Richard D]

2. I'm astounded.

Even Waxman voted for this.
Uggg. Need a barf bag badly.

[ChiciB1]

5. John Conyers Too! Whoa Hossey! n/t

[Sherman A1]

3. Looks like Clay MO1

Voted against it. He's my Rep so I will have to send him a Thank You.

[partylessinOhio]

4. Well, the war is safely in his pocket,

now the Decider will certainly go after your (and I mean all of you who are collecting or think you will in the future if you live long enough) social security check. The weak Democruts will let him too.

These are times to be strong not fold like a deck of cards.

We're screwed!

[MadHound]

6. Well, it looks like Kucinich is the first of the Dem candidates to vote against this cave in

It will be interesting to see if he is the only one.

[CRH]

7. Impeachment off the table, ...

Caving in to fast track free trade, caving in to a 30% president of a very unpopular war, and then, trying to hide the vote from history's judgement. I've been a voting democrat since McGovern, but never again. This is not party I want to be a part of, governing in stealth with republican flavor.

[sallyseven]

8. Lets let them vote. I trust

very little of what I read here any more. It seems that everyone is hysteical and saying things that are nonsense. I know my rep will vote against this but I don't see him on the freaking list.

[pat_k]

9. Even if they could have overridden the veto. . .

. . .it would have been a matter of indifference to the Bush syndicate. Bush could just nullify bill with a signing statement or invoke the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power to raid whatever part of the budget he felt like raiding to do whatever he pleases. He'd probably even see it as a great chance to gut some government agency that actually serves the American people.

Attempting to hit Bush with the Congressional purse was doomed to be an impotent gesture from the beginning.

How many times do Bush, Cheney, and the minions they have installed throughout the executive branch have to prove that the laws we pass mean NOTHING to them. When will the Democratic leadership finally get that the outlaws in the WH don't play by the rules. That they don't care about being "exposed" as long as they are not forced to stop.

With the exception of impeachment, there are no victories -- no bills or resolutions -- that can "make" Bush or Cheney do ANYTHING they don't want to do.

Every week that passes, more people are finally getting it. If we want to end the occupation, we need focus ALL of our efforts on impeaching Bush and Cheney. It is NOT "all about Iraq." It is "all about" the insanity of Bush and Cheney -- insanity that is killing 20 servicemen and women a week, injuring 20 a day, killing and maiming countless Iraqis and driving those that have the means to escape out of the country.

The ONLY fight capable of rescuing our Constitution from the war criminals in the WH is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney.

The ONLY fight capable of rescuing our troops from the disastrous quagmire in Iraq is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney.

The ONLY fight capable of enabling Congress to "accomplish things" for the American people is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney.

The ONLY fight capable of redeeming the USA in the eyes of the world is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney.

The ONLY fight capable of restoring our self-respect as Americans is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney.

The ONLY fight capable of rescuing the Democratic Party from impotence and ridicule is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney.

The ONLY fight capable of proving that Democrats have the courage, fortitude, and commitment to principle that our fellow Americans respect is the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney.

[dweller]

10. something stinks here with this vote

7 D's and 194 R's voted NO?

dp

[jgraz]

11. What. The. Fuck.

Barbara Lee? Lynn Woolsey? Did I just step into some parallel universe?

This travesty passed by 17 votes? There weren't 17 freaking Dems who would stand up and do what's right? What the fuck is going on here?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Can somebody tell me what's going on?

Democrats voted for it, Republicans voted against it.

What's the deal?

[ooga booga]

13. To me, this is an illustration of political calculation.

You may ALL be disgusted, but the Democrats have only just re-captured a majority in Congress, and they're not about to give the Republicans a potent issue for 2008. A strong rejection of war funding would probably put the Democrats too far out on a limb -- at least they seem to think so. I happen to think that their political calculation is probably correct. They want to be anti-war, but not TOO anti-war. "Brave" souls in safe northern and eastern blue states can stand on principle and be totally anti-war. Others who have to actually worry about GOP opposition can't if they want to survive politically.

Besides, every day that this war wears on, every American casuality, every report of the danger and instability in Iraq works against the entire Republican Party. Iraq is seen as their war. If it keep going throughout 2007 and into 2008, it's likely to be a big part of the "perfect storm" that the GOP is dreading.

This is a tempest in a teapot. There's a much bigger game afoot here. "Checkmate" is still many, many moves away.