If I were a Senator, would I vote for the $87 billion for Iraq?

[WilliamPitt]

Poll question: If I were a Senator, would I vote for the $87 billion for Iraq?

[StandWatie]

1. I'd make it like Bush's education initiatives

Set up expectations and a timeline for things like security, free elections and disengagement and if they failed the money gets shut off.

[bryant69]

7. This is an issue where you have two competing value

One the one hand, no American should wish harm to those men and woman who choose to join the military; they make enormous sacrifices to protect America. And having destroyed their country, we have a certain responsibility to the Iraqi people to help them rebuild.

On the other hand, I noted a new trope appearing in some Republican commentators mouths; "We are there now, however we got there, and worrying about how we got there is a waste of time." More or less. But that lets President Bush off the hook for the mindless decisions that have put us in this position. Supporting sending this money is, in a way, buying into this war; a war that many opposed.

I'm not sure there is a real good way to negotiate the two sides; I do like the idea of tying support to open investigation into the WMD claim.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[David Zephyr]

2. No. Without Hesitation. Your 2nd Option Is Misleading.

This guy doesn't get to toss a number as large as $87 Billion and expect the American people who are dealing with crappy schools, unavailable healthcare, failing electrical grids, unreachable prices for medicine for seniors and more to just hand over the money.

No.

Let him go the United Nations and admit that he lied about the reasons for war, apologize for insulting our allies and ask them to help him out of this jam. They will join in if they have authority over the region.

Also, I don't think that your second "option" is a correct one since I don't believe that the U.S. is faced with leaving the troops "stranded". Your making it an option suggests that the first option would leave them "stranded".

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. They must put Bush over a rack, demand the resignation of Wolfy , Rummy

and Perle. Demand the Cheney ENERGY papers and force investigations. They must say, Mr President..we will give you the funds you need as soon as Dick Cheney cooperates with the GAO.

YOu must once again make it unlawful for companies that set up off shore shells to avoid taxes to be awarded government contracts. That tax revenue which they would not make BUT FOR THE Federal government is needed to off set these astronomical costs.

[David Zephyr]

15. Absolutely.

It's time for the Democrats who truly were complicit the first time in helping create this mess to act with courage and LEAD.

I am speaking specifically about Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, especially Kerry who wants to have it both ways.

This is Kerry's chance to prove Joe Lieberman wrong when he's called a "waffler".

[Capn Sunshine]

16. YEAH Baby

This provides an opportunity to rake those sonsabitches over the coals; they should not expect the sacrifice of hard working Americans money without giving in return, every item demanded of them by those who foot the bill.

[salin]

17. And tie the aid to full engagement/participation of the UN

force the admin to keep revising their resolutions to the UN until they are acceptable to the UN Security Council (re: France, Germany). Otherwise this is a set up - and we will keep alienating the UN, we will keep going it alone, and we will foot an even larger bill - in less than a year from now.

[Booberdawg]

4. Other

I would INSIST on turning control over to the U.N., I would INSIST on some SPECIFICS on what this money is being spent on, and I would INSIST on a detailed exit plan.

on edit: cancel scheduled tax cuts to help pay for the obnoxious costs and deficits this is causing

[CMT]

5. Yes but

with provisions that 9/11 and Iraq hearings must be held.

[VermontDem2004]

10. That would be a wasted vote

you can trust this administration to uphold their word. Much like the Iraqi vote, Bush was supposed to keep his promise of giving a weekly update and come back to congress before he fully declares war. He was supposed to take up every diplomatic means possible.

[imhotep]

6. is this a subtle

pre-rationalization for when Kerry writes Bush a blank check?

[paulk]

8. is this a not so subtle

attack on Kerry?

[WilliamPitt]

9. Kerry's comments inspired the thought pattern, yes

Your dislike for me brings the characterization of "pre-rationalization." For the record, I voted 'Yes' with provisos about the hearings. Kerry won't do that. None of them will do that, I think.

[onehandle]

19. No "I think"...

None of them will do that. Period.

Remember my former Rep. Cynthia McKinney?.....

[imhotep]

21. A better poll question

would be:
How Many Senate Democrats will vote against giving Bush the money?
1?
2?
3?
4?

}(

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. A better question..have you ever even REMOTELY posted something

positive about a Democrat'''jeez..you would think someone else blocked all those right wing judicial appointments.

[bryant69]

12. You know, it could be just me

But is it possible you don't like that great American who we should all admire, Senator John Kerry?

[dmr]

13. Oh stop it

must we always have belittling comments like this?

[benddem]

11. Not unless they repeal the tax cuts

To give Dick Cheney a huge tax cut for the money he is making from Halliburton is a sin. This is a disgrace.:puke:

[eleny]

14. I would vote no without hesitation...

I would insist that the president repeal his tax cuts before I would budge. I'd also insist he go before the American people and ask us to make major sacrifices as well as go to other nations to beg for help.

In other words, I'd stand firm on insisting that all the well laid plans of the neocons go up in smoke before he gets another penny. And I would insist that he put the safety of the troops as priority #1 since it's evidently not his priority at this point in their greedy oil grab.

[bryant69]

20. How would you respond

WHen you were asked, as you would be, "Why are you playing political games with the lives of our soldiers? That money is needed to protect our troops."

Not trying to lay into you or anything, just curious.

[eleny]

34. I would put it back on the president...

by asking him what was more important - the troops or his friends who benefited from the bulk of his tax cuts; his pride or getting aid from the U.N.?

Thanks for asking! I didn't take your question in the wrong way. This place is like a training ground for deabating with my R aquaintances!

[Donna Zen]

18. Use this carrot

as leverage. Get all you can get out of the bastards including Texas redistricting in writing.

[CWebster]

22. no

not without an international coalition of the willing to assume control -otherwise it just grants Bush more legitimacy for his mess.

[proud patriot]

23. I choose "other"

I would remain steadfast in needing actual numbers
of estimates and future plans ..I might even require
Rumsfeld and Wolfie be removed from their Positions
at the Pentagon.

I would require a new UN resolution , with comitments
and equal leadership role .

I would sign the estimate for "troop only" funds immediately,
but any wording "Elsewhere in the Region" would have to
be deleted .

I wouldn't ever sign a blank check for this FAILURE.
It must be stricly enforced and the leash the Pentagon
would be on would be very short indeed . We must take care
of the troops , but not under failed leadship. We owe
the troops that much .

[ibegurpard]

24. I agree with you.

And I also like the idea of repealing tax cuts to pay for it.

[goobergunch]

26. Other

I would demand the following riders:

1) Full, free, open, and independent 9/11 commission, with LIHOP investigation mandated.

2) Full, free, open, and independent Iraq invasion commission.

3) No D.C. vouchers.

4) NO WH OT rules.

[TheYellowDog]

28. That is sick, goobergunch, no offense.

So you would have our troops wait for their stuff, while you demand stuff completely unrelated to the topic at hand? That would be completely wrong.

[TheYellowDog]

27. Yes, without hesitation

This war is already ongoing, and is is completely immoral to deny the troops the supplies and other eqipment that they need to do their job. It would just be sick to do so. Note that I was against this war, but when this kinda shit starts, you have to vote to appropriate the money. It's the right thing to do.

[Jacobin]

29. why not buy'em a plane ticket home?

The occupation is DOOMed . It will not work. It iw a clusterfuck getting ready to turn into a human killing mosh pit.

Giving Smirk money to pay soldiers to attempt to repress Iraqis is NOT "supporting the troops"

[TheYellowDog]

30. We have fucked up in Iraq

And we can't just cut and run now. That would be terrible. U.N. Blue Helmets aren't trained to handle this kind of guerilla warfare either.

[David Zephyr]

32. Why $87 Billion Without Hesitation...And Not $86 Billion or $88 Billion?

How do you and Bush come up with the same number without hesitation? Curious.

[sandnsea]

31. Yes, with provisions

Strings, as Kennedy said. This is probably the only chance Congress has to get this situation headed in a better direction, I hope they get it right.

[BurtWorm]

33. I'd want to be really clear on how that money was being spent

and be sure that some trigger kicks in when the limit is reached that would force the Bushists to come back to Congress for authorization for more funds. I would also want written into the authorization a requirement that the Bushists be totally transparent with the appropriate Congressional committees on the progress toward an exit--whatever that means--from Iraq. If I couldn't get either of these conditions, I don't think I could vote for it, and my vote against it would be a sign of my disapproval of the Bushists' handling of the situation.

[NewJerseyDem]

35. Yes, with hesitation

I would definitely vote yes because you CANNOT just abandon the troops and the Iraqi people. However, I would always vote on every bill with some hesitation. I would definitely examine the details of the request and if I sat on a committee that was having a hearing with someone like Wolfowitz I would ask questions about the war and why is it costing so much. I would also ask why it took so long for them to tell the Congress and the american people how much it would cost. But, in the end it is irresponsible to vote no. It is ridiculous to just say that we have to abandon Iraq and leave that chaotic place to just fall apart and allow for terrorists and other extremists to move in and take control. My theory is that if you bomb it you got to put it back together again. Particularly, when we started the war.

[BelgianMadCow]

36. I voted no without hesitation

because to me endorsing the bill would be prolonging the stay of Bush* in the WH.

But really, my favourite option was not in there : yes, the US should pay such a bill. But I want a precision : this money should go through the UN, who should proceed on direction of the General Assembly to clean up the mess that is Iraq.

I would also vote yes for the amount needed to make a safe transition from occupation to humanitary intervention. This means getting US troops home ASAP, safely; getting UN troops in place, and prevent Iraq of going down the drain further.


Soooooo I should've voted no, with hesitation at least :wtf:

[Doomsayer13]

37. Yes, with protests

I'd make a floor speech denouncing Bush pigheadedness and the wrong direction this war has taken, but I would not vote to undercut our efforts in Iraq anymore. If we cut the funds and withdraw, it may end up being a bigger humanitarian disaster than the war itself. In addition to that, I would scrutinze the figure to figure how much the troops would really need and if that number came out to 87, I would vote yes. We can't leave our service men and women hanging, and I have some friends in Iraq right now I wouldn't even for a second think of leaving them hanging.