Don't know how this will shake out, but Ms. Pelosi making a good argument

[pinto]

for Democratic funding re: veterans' benefits, training and health care on the floor now.

Saying this debate is not over, an opportunity has been missed, calls the bill(s) a gesture, a baby step.

:shrug:

[pinto]

1. Vote is up.

[Coexist]

2. you think so? I thought she sounded tired and defeated.

I didn't really glom onto hope for anything from her speech.

[pinto]

6. Yeah she seemed a little shaky. Her talking points were laid out well, though. Walking a line,

I presume. I can only guess what's gone on behind the scenes here.

[endarkenment]

Bunch of bullshit.

Mucking the war funding up with this stuff was a dishonest sham to begin with. The vet benefits should be in their own bill, not used for cover over enabling another year of war crimes.

[LSK]

5. thats how the system works

The money for the war and the money for vets and Walter Reed come from the same place.

And Bush would gladly steal money from Vets to keep the occupation going.

[endarkenment]

8. Uh no. That was a deliberate choice to provide cover.

There is absolutely no reason why vet funding had to be in the same bill.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Is she voting for it, or against it?

[Disturbed]

4. Pelosi lost my respect when she threw in the towel by

declaring, "Impeachment if off the table." She is a weak person.

[pinto]

7. I favor separating impeachment from the funding bill in this case.

They are two different issues, imo.

[KingFlorez]

9. Why impeach when there is no chance to convict?

It's not even realistic to think impeachment would lead to anything.

[Telly Savalas]

10. Bush would have vetoed a stand-alone veteran's funding bill?

If that's the case they should have made him do it so that the "Support the Troops" bumpersticker crowd could plainly see how full of shit he is.

If he wouldn't veto such a bill, then it's dishonest to say that it's part of a compromise.