I think that's crappy timing, because it sets up a full onslaught of chaos in Iraq RIGHT DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, allowing the R's to say "there, look what they did, we were just about to start winning that war and now look at it". People have short memories.
You left off Adam Smith, who voted Yea.
Not really, Fnarf, because this will probably never pass into law. It's symbolic. Even if the Senate and House passed identical legislation, the White House has promised to veto it.
It's lame that they added so much pork to make the package more attractive - spending for spinach, citrus and peanut farmers, and whatever else.
I'm so glad to see that our friend Sherif Dave is all independent and moderate, and not a shill for the Bush White House.
Another bad Reichert vote.
He had said he was undecided. Often that means he counts up the number of emails he got from constituents to vote one way or another. I emailed him to vote for the bill. I can't believe more people emailed him to vote against it, so this decision would have probably been all his.
Whoever faces him in the 2008 election better stick it to him on this vote.
Fnarf, Iraq will probably be an onslaught of chaos during the election season next year anyway. If we continue as we have there is no sign that the current onslaught of chaos will subside.
@2: Ooops! Thanks, fixed it.
@3 at which point the congress will magically grow some balls and override the veto.
@9 I really doubt there will at any point be enough votes for an override.
Each time these votes come up -- I remember Nader telling all the gullible, oh, there is no difference in the parties.
Take a look, greenies, and Ralph - who likes war? not local Dems.
you could spin a veto as "not supporting the troops".
Daniel K, gee, do you think? But what comes after we pull out will be worse. Much worse.
Most people's understanding of what's happening in Iraq is a couple of years behind the times. Even the pinheads on Fox are talking about the Sunnis and the Shias now. But neither the Sunnis nor (especially) the Shias are monolithic groups; and the divide between them is hardly inevitable. Right now the bitterest disputes are intra-Shia and intra-Sunni; the so-called Mahdi Army is splintering into smaller groups and fighting each other.
My point was, when Iraq finally falls down the shithole we need to make sure the blame gets laid on the Republicans, who deserve it, not the Democrats. Otherwise, that "permanent Republican minority" is going to take back over again.
But yes, Gabriel, you're right; Bush will veto -- or more likely sign it but with a signing statement that says "hey, Pelosi: fuck you, I ain't followin' any of this shit". After all, the President is no longer beholden to any laws.
Bush can't veto. If he does, there's no money for the troops. As soon as the supplemental funding runs out, there's no money for armor, combat pay, new vehicles, or multi-billion dollar, no-bid contracts for companies run by cronies. Blackwater will never allow it.
Stupid, stupid Democrats.
Not pass into law?
It's the budget - if they kill it, no money.
And it's an up/down vote - no holding it up - no super-majority - just straight vote.
@15 - why do you hate America so much? go enlist, Red, if you love Iraq so much.
I suspect that both Democrats and Republicans will be (rightfully) blamed for this fiasco. This war was started with broad bipartisan support. Americans might be slow on the uptake, but can at least remember this fact. This was our war -- all of our war, not just Bush's.
This bill is all about shifting blame to Bush, attempting to paint this as all-his-fault. By veto, signing statement or some other executive privilege we are not going to leave Iraq before the end of Bush's term. Period. All that remains are two years of vapid and ghastly political theater (just like this) rather than an honest discussion of what we can (and cannot) do to mitigate the worst of consequences.
@15. I'm coming to your mind. Shouldn't we at least think about the responsible course? I just don't think a US-lead occupation can do much better than we are. If we were honest and ethical we'd recognize reality: We need outside political AND military support to stabilize Iraq. We need Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Iran. We need to recognize our disaster, put our tail between our legs and cut a deal. I suspect it will take a multi-lateral force, with NON-American leadership to give the occupation the legitimacy and cultural fluency it needs to bring stability. I just don't see that happening until W leaves office, if ever. Nor do I see the Democrats considering anything as obvious or responsible.
I'm strongly anti-war. I wish the Democrats could do more. But look at the Yes votes--218, the bare minimum for a majority in a 435-seat House.
This is literally the most far-reaching legislation that could pass the House. Anything significantly better would have lost at least one conservative Democrat or one of the few GOP votes, probably more than one. Nancy Pelosi deserves credit for pushing this as far as possible, and progressive Dems deserve credit for voting yes rather than sink the whole thing out of a futile sense of purity.
Unfortunately, the conservative members of the Democratic caucus prevented Pelosi from passing something more effective, and the more conservative Senate is likely to vote this down. But maybe some compromise that is better than nothing will be cobbled together. But it's hard to blame the Congressional leadership or our local Congressional Dems when the real problem is that the other half of the Congress is out of touch with the American people.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).