WHY did Pelosi vote for continuing to fund this illegal war??

[ailsagirl]

Does anyone know?? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3907034

[xultar]

1. I'm going to say that you'd have to be in her shoes. I'm sure some

of the folks in her district have children, spouses, and other family and friends fighting.

I know I'd be pissed if she voted against giving my loved one what they need while they are over there fighting.

As much as I hate the war I'd want my loved one to be taken care of.

[LiberalEsto]

2. California defense contractors?

Otherwise I have no idea.

[ailsagirl]

3. Makes no sense to me

[quiet.american]

4. 2006 elections coming up - Repub extremists would distort a "no"

-- Would distort a "no" into "the House Democratic Leader doesn't support the troops" -- although any thinking person knows that maybe $2 of the billions approved by the House make it from the corrupt Repub cronies' hands into actual supplies and support for the troops.

[ailsagirl]

5. I'm confused-- Pelosi voted AYE yet I just read the following:

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California called the war "a grotesque mistake," and said the Republican-led Congress has failed to oversee the administration's conduct of it.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050621/pl_nm/arms_congress_dc

[Jack Rabbit]

10. The problem is there is no plan for an orderly withdrawal

Cutting funds off would be more likely to hurt the troops than have any beneficial effect. That is why there were only 19 votes in favor of the amendment. Obviously, there are more than 19 members of the House who oppose Bush's policy in Iraq and would agree with what Ms. Pelosi said on this matter.

Unfortunately, when the President gets his way initially, as Mr. Bush did, he has Congress over a barrel. Furthermore, with a Republican-controlled Congress willing to give Bush a free hand in the matter, it is unlikely that there will be any plans to withdraw troops anytime soon.

It is one more reason why we should work to get a Democratic House in place by January 2007.

[bemildred]

11. Cutting off funds is how the VietNam boondoggle was ended.

It is most likely how the current Middle East boondoggle will end.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. I don't quite agree with that

Congress did not cut off funding for the war until 1974. That really assured that President Ford would re-involve the US at a time when the Saigon regime was facing demise and there was talk that renewed US air support would give the regime a fighting chance. Otherwise, the US was out of the war by that time and a Communist victory was a forgone conclusion which renewed US bombing would only have postponed at the unnecessary cost of Vietnamese lives.

The major congressional initiative to end the war prior to the 1973 Paris Peace Agreement was the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment of 1970. This would have forced all US troops out of Vietnam by December 1971. The amendment failed.

The difference between the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment and a cut off of funds is that the former directed the President to withdraw troops by a certain date and gave the President time to comply with the directive while the latter would leave the troops high and dry. A directive to remove troops is what is needed now.

The Draft Expansion Bill was passed in 1971 with the Mansfield Amendment attached. This made withdrawal from Vietnam the official policy of the US government, but the amendment in its final form simply called withdrawal without setting a definite date and was, therefore, toothless.

The War Powers Act, in which Congress reasserted its role in war making authority, passed over President Nixon's veto in November 1973, after the Paris Peace Accords were signed. This was designed to make it difficult for future Presidents to wage undeclared wars like Vietnam. Congress needs to reassert that role again, but a Republican Congress, especially one led by the likes of Tom DeLay, is unlikely to do so in confrontation with a Republican president.

[bemildred]

14. Cutting off funding "assured that President Ford would re-involve the US"?

I just said it forced us out of VietNam, not that there was anything immediate about it. As you point out, there were lot's of efforts before that which had little effect.

Otherwise I don't disagree with much that you say. Certainly a reassertion of congressional authority and responsibility is to be desired, and the reduction of the Presidency to the role provided in the Constitution.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. That highlights the difference in the situations in 1970 and 1974

It's one thing to cut funding to prevent the president from sending troops somewhere, which was the situation in 1974, but it is something else to cut funding when they're aleady there. Funds will still be needed just to withdraw troops in an orderly manner that will not unnecessarily endanger their lives.

[Double T]

6. Bush has put everyone in a very uncomfortable place....

how can you not vote to fund a war when you still have your troops occupying Iraq. You just can't pull the plug and leave the troops twisting in the wind. I would like to know where the HELL all this money is going??? It is time to seriously begin to plan an exit strategy; unfortunately the outcome or end result will be nothing like it was advertised by the chimp and his cronies.

[ProudDad]

7. Makes me proud

that Barbara Lee is my Congresswoman...

[bemildred]

8. Cowardice? Shallow self-interest? nt

[MaryBear]

9. Huh?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Perhaps she is just following Barbara Boxer's lead

Everyone knows that Barbara Boxer is the most honest, principled politician out there.