Why Dems Should Vote No On Iraq Supplemental

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:48:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Bush:

President Bush said he supports a $120 billion war spending bill on track to pass Thursday, ending weeks of wrangling with Democrats on whether to end the war.
The bill funds the war through September as Bush wanted and does not set a date for U.S. troop withdrawals. . . . "By voting for this bill, members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our service men and women in harm's way," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference.

Translation, all of you will sign onto my GOP Debacle. I chuckled at this reaction from Rep. David "There Is No Deal" Obey:

"I hate this agreement," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Vote against it then Congressman. The bill cleared the procedural motion by 218-201. There will a vote on the motion adopting the Senate Amendment later today. Let's see who wants to rubberstamp President Bush this afternoon.

< Bad Day For Congress To Capitulate To Bush: 76% of Americans Say Iraq War Going Badly | The Only Poll That Matters Is Election Day >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why Dems Should Vote No On Iraq Supplemental | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

joint statement four connecticut dems (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by leoncarre on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:08:56 PM EST

"We cannot in good conscience support a bill that keeps our troops in the middle of a bloody and chaotic civil war with no exit strategy and no timeline for redeploying our troops," they said.
Making up their minds today were Reps. Joseph Courtney, D-2nd District, Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, and Chris Murphy, D-5th District. Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, announced his opposition Wednesday.

Democratic Congressmen Band Together On Iraq
2:03 PM EDT, May 24, 2007

Lead a filibuster, Obama or Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by fairleft on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:23:24 PM EST

A real filibuster, not one of those fake jobs.

www.icasualties.org has an article (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by annefrank on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:32:35 PM EST

about a National Guard soldier who lost BOTH LEGS in Iraq. So, I looked up his rep - Waltz, one of our new Dems who is voting with Repubs today, called his office and excoriated him for voting for MORE legs lost. YeeHaw!

Funding first... political incentives second. (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by adamsmj on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:20:27 PM EST

I would like to believe that ALL congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, have the interest and safety of the men and women who are in Iraq in mind when voting for this bill. We all know that is not the case... but I believe no matter what we should not withhold funding for the troops. I know most of you, as you should, would argue that if the republicans had their safety in mind we wouldn't be over there, but we know we're not coming home anytime soon, and there is no way the president is going to sign off on a time table. With that being said, withholding money for the military woud essentially result in suicide missions with the soldiers not only ill-equipped, but maybe even unequipped altogether.

Meanwhile, Al Gore, who admittedly (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:47:03 PM EST

is not a candidate, is not disclosing his position. Disappointing.

How Many House Dems Voted Against Blank Check? (none / 0) (#5)
by MO Blue on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:53:52 PM EST

Seven (7). That's right exactly seven House Dems voted against the supplemental.

Those Democrats with the courage to vote no were: Waters Harman, Clay, Moore (WI),McNerney, Kucinich and Stark.

[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/24/9255/80693]

: That is simply not true (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:05:04 PM EST

I do not understand what David is arguing here.
The Amendment canbe voted down now.
Allowing it to be offered is where we are. If we wanted a battle on the procedural rules, then somebody should have woken us up and then the Blue Dogs and the GOP would have made this the signature vote.
It is not. Tonight is the signature vote. Allowing the CaveIn bill to come to the floor for a SUBSTANTIVE vote seems right to me.
Why do you say it is not? Vote the thing down, if you can. Otherwise, what is to be done. A motion to discharge? I am not buying Sirota on this one.

: Sirota, IMHO, isn't trustworthy (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:21:01 PM EST

I suckered people into a stupid understanding of procedure this morning.

question (none / 0) (#8)
by orionATL on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:24:26 PM EST

from time to time i hear that the iraq invasion has never been funded "properly",

that is, by any other than emergency appropriations.

does anyone know if this is true.

and if true, would this fact provide a route of attack along the lines of fiscal responsibility.

four years seems a long time to rely on emergency appropriations.

does anyone know the basic funding pathways of this conflict?

: It's true (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:47:36 PM EST