Only 11 Dem senators oppose the $87 billion - a pitiful showing, eh?

[RichM]

Yesterday's honor roll for integrity:

Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

Jeffords also voted 'No.' In the House, 118 of 205 Democrats voted 'No,' including Kucinich, naturally. Gephardt voted 'Aye.'

This gives a fairly dismal picture of the party's performance, overall. Three-quarters of the Dem senators, and about 42% of the Dem congresspersons caved in to the Bush administration to continue funding a criminal war.

Byrd was absolutely magnificent in his remarks. I saw much of them late last night on C-Span. But anyone who felt proud of him must also feel ashamed of the 3/4 of the "opposition" senators who once again showed themselves to be collaborators with the Bush regime.

[Brucey]

1. Pathetic!

The mainstream of the Democratic party has become a joke. How can we fight our enemies when they are us?

[Deja Q]

11. Some would say "Vote Green!"...

But I wouldn't. Bush is too much of a danger to be given 4 more years in anything. Except a padded cell where he obviously belongs. Sheesh, "God told me to ________" and "I was sent by God" and his other Godly comments prove what a maladjusted psychotic nutcase he truly is. x(

[Rashind]

49. I'd say Vote Kucinich...

Damned if I'm voting for Bayh in the Senate again, though.

[mhr]

2. Here is My Email to Mike Malloy Last Evening

after listening to the show Friday night.

------

Hi Mike,

In listening to the show this evening I hear all of the repeated wishful
thinking that democrats desperately cling to.

Democrats want to believe so badly that things can change they act like
vultures arguing over table scraps.

There are two differences between the republicans and democrats - fire
in the belly and high-level organization.

The democrats do not show the zeal and willingness to win, and the
democrats do not speak with one voice.

When we see rabid attack dog democrats sent out to eviscerate the
president daily then we will know that there is some fire.

When we see democratic talking points disseminated every day then we
will know that the party is organized and focused.

Sadly, when we have only Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy willing to speak
out, this is not sufficient nor disciplined enough to make a dent.

When all Senators and Representatives speak with one voice publicly we
will finally begin to see an effective party with effective results.

[gully]

3. Notice how many are running for Prez???

hmmmm.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. Yup, seems like they are falling over each other to verify

the great leadership qualities of the warrier king, Bush. They just hand the votes over to him, willingly. This is the most depressing of all--I have lost faith in the system--all of it.

[Armstead]

5. Well I take consolation in Kennedy and (sorta) Kerry

My Senators. With Kerry it's hard to say how much was politics and how much was principle.

But Kennedy, as usual, was a stand-up guy and made a blistering -- and totally honest -- speech about why he is voting no. He's an "old-fashioned" liberal Democrat of the type we need more of.

(I know Rich, liberals don't go far enough, but you gotta admit, Kennedy usually acts above the usual "finger in the wind" DLC types.)

[RichM]

12. I do admit that, willingly. Kennedy has been pretty good. If they were all

like him, the national context would be very different.

If I felt more awake, I'd try to type out a connection between your terrific post the other day about the "psychotic wasteland" of contemporary culture, as reflected via channel surfing on MTV etc, and your phrase here about "liberals don't go far enough." There is such a connection...

[Armstead]

15. I'd probably agree with that connection

I'm just guessing but....

Liberals would tend to defend "free speech" without tackling the uncomfortable fact that there is no real free speech when a handful of corproate vultures own most of the media, and when it is treated simply as a "business" with no demands for acountability or open access or public service and otehr trade-offs required.

If that's what you'd type if you were more awake, I'd agree with you.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. I thought Kerry's statement was "full speed ahead" in to Bush's face

He said outright that Bush is now proven untrustworthy. I don't see any politics, just straight up principle.

[George_Bonanza]

31. No-win for Kerry, huh?

If he votes YES, he's an even bigger fraud. If he votes YES, he's a fraud because he's playing political games.

I would understand this position, if Kerry had a history of being a dubious sponge. But take a good look and you will see most definitely that he is not.

[Armstead]

34. I didn;t say "no win"

I just said with Kerry it's hard to say how much is politics.

Kennedy was opposed from the beginning, and he hasn't equivocated at all

[Panda1]

6. Betrayed again.

I feel betrayed as usual by my "leaders" in Washington. (Feinstein voted yes!) Are these people deaf? From what I understand the "loan" aspect will get eliminated in the final version anyway. I'm so damned frustrated with all of them. Grrrrr.
It's just more validation of the BFEE. I can't stand it.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Kerry and Edwards, who are running for Prez, did the right thing

and are well on the way on the road to redemption for their Iraq war vote. As Kucinich in the House, Kerry and Edwards did what they said they were going to do and voted against this bill.

Kudos to all those that voted against greasing the wheels of the Occupatioh!

And boo to Evan Bayh!

[Saudade]

8. PItiful

There is no opposition party left in America.

This is a good definition of fascism.

I don't understand why the Demos have decided to castrate themselves, but only we the people can save our collective ass now.

[Cocoa]

9. Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich voted no

Gephardt and Lieberman voted yes.

If this vote is an absolute litmus test for someone, I'd say there are good choices on both sides.

Don't you love the primary process!

[Zorra]

42. Good point

While I am a Kucinich supporter and have come to expect wisdom and backbone from him, this raises Kerry and Edwards in my estimation.

Lieberman and Gephardt are now history as far as I am concerned.

[Deja Q]

10. While pathetic, I'd like to hear why the other folks voted YES.

We are responsible for the destruction of their country...

Jus' playin' Devil's Advocate...

[RichM]

14. Most of them used the cover of "supporting our troops." This is an old

standby, of course. It was used to justify appropriations for the Vietnam war, & for all wars of aggression.

[rhite5]

58. for the Devil's Advocate, a couple more reasons

There was already enough funding to keep our troops there through April, although they should be brought home much sooner.

Bush has not accounted for the funds already allocated. Without that accounting, it is dead wrong to throw good money after bad.

The fact that Bush wants to keep the same people in charge who have caused the Iraq quagmire (Rumsfeld and Wolfie). They should have been fired, especially after the UN refused to assist if these guys were running things.

The existance of NO BID contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (at what we believe are grossly inflated prices) with no opportunity for Iraqi engineering companies (or European or other ME companies) to participate, is robbery of the American taxpayers and contributes nothing toward stabilizing the Iraqi civil society where good engineering firms could be given support.
Of course we should pay for the damage we have done, but only through competitive contracts.

The longer the troops stay there the more unstable the region is becoming. Troop morale will sink lower and lower.

ALL OF THESE FACTS CERTAINLY ARE KNOWN BY THE DEMS WHO VOTED 'AYE'. I could never buy the fact that they don't know.

[last_texas_dem]

13. What's the logic?

I'm not trying to defend the sellouts in the least, but just trying to figure out why so many voted for the funding? I mean, it's quite odd to me that about half the number who initially voted to oppose the war would now vote for the funding to (essentially) keep us over there. Is the logic, "Well we've royally screwed things up over there. I opposed us going in there in the first place, but now we must we finish what we started." That's really the only justification for that sort of change in position that I can see. I don't think half the Dems who voted to oppose the war would now be jumping ship b/c the Iraq invasion is seen as such a "success" or anything. It could always just be political posturing, but the reason why would be lost on me, considering that right now Shrub's war isn't exactly the most popular issue in our country...

[RichM]

16. The logic = "supporting our troops." Now that the troops are already

there, that IN ITSELF becomes a "reason" to keep funding the whole enterprise, even for someone who might have opposed it initially.

[DemDogs]

41. Agreed

Those who voted for the funding remembered what happened to Max Cleland who was accused of lack of patriotism in the Georgia Senate race last year because he resisted a union-free Dept of Homeland Security.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. One problem, OUR TROOPS AREN'T BEING SUPPORTED

I'm sure most of you who have seen the threads here about troops using Vietnam era equipment know exactly what I'm talking about. The Bush defense department is probably one of the most sickening things ever.

[rhite5]

59. Congress also voted against extra combat pay for troops

who stay on. I think combat pay ended whenever it was decided that the war was over.

supporting the troops? That's quite a campaign slogan. Yuck.

[JNelson6563]

17. Good for the brave souls

who stood up to this!

:toast:

Julie

[Mandate My Ass]

18. Meanwhile, back at the ranch and way under the radar

Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031017-024617-1418r

By Mark Benjamin
UPI Investigations Editor
Published 10/17/2003 3:36 PM


FORT STEWART, Ga., Oct. 17 (UPI) -- Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors.

The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day.

"I have loved the Army. I have served the Army faithfully and I have done everything the Army has asked me to do," said Sgt. 1st Class Willie Buckels, a truck master with the 296th Transportation Company. Buckels served in the Army Reserves for 27 years, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and the first Gulf War. "Now my whole idea about the U.S. Army has changed. I am treated like a third-class citizen."

[IndianaGreen]

21. Ahh, this is the story that Drudge alluded to yesterday.

I am glad to see it. The links to Drudge that were posted in DU no longer worked. Thanks!

[RichM]

23. It's the top story at BuzzFlash right now, as well. n/t

[Karmadillo]

27. Has anyone seen this story covered by any major media outlet?

A google search didn't turn up much action. I guess "support the troops" really is just a stick to be used against the antiwar forces.

[not systems]

19. Happy that Boxer came through...

Feinstein as always disappoints.

Really this is a sad state of affairs.

The last two weeks have me feeling very
un-double-plus-good about the centrist
branch of the Democratic party.

They seem to play for the other side more
often than not.

[Mairead]

44. "They seem to play for the other side more often than not"

You certainly won't get any argument about that from me :(

These guys are not on our side. The more we give them a pass, the further down the river we're sold.

[Nlighten1]

20. Indeed...

[Karmadillo]

24. 81% of all Democrats OPPOSED this in a Sept 13 WashPost poll

So who, exactly, are the collaborators representing? And while the poll is a month old, I've seen nothing since to indicate a major shift in support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7030-2003Sep13.html

<edit>

A total of 1,104 randomly selected adults were interviewed between Sept. 10 and Sept. 13 for this survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A majority of Republicans -- 57 percent -- said they support Bush's $87 billion spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan; but 81 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents said they are opposed. Still, leading congressional Democrats and many of the presidential candidates say they are likely to support the funding. On the question of how to pay for the request, a majority of Democrats said roll back some of the tax cuts while a plurality of Republicans said cut other spending.

The partisan divide on Iraq spending is nearly matched by a gender gap. While seven in 10 women oppose Bush's $87 billion request, a slim majority of men -- 53 percent -- rejects it.

The public's judgment of the way Bush is handling international affairs has never been lower, the Post-ABC News poll found. Slightly more than half -- 53 percent -- approve of the president's policies abroad, a precipitous fall from 67 percent barely two months ago.

more...

[stevedeshazer]

25. My Senator Wyden

Voted yes. I'll be calling his office Monday morning, for what it's worth, which apparently is nothing.

[rhite5]

56. He's my senator too, Stevie

and he got a call and a fax from me this week. And I know about plenty of other Oregonians who contacted him. All ignored. We need to take a good look at where his campaign funding is currently coming from.

[artr2]

26. It just comes down to the same BS

The big money boys control EVERTHING - it doesn't matter if you are repukkk or dem - you toe the line - or the big money boys will not give you bribes oops, campaign contributions. That's why I support Dean. He doesn't take money from the big boys. I & thousands of "little people" pay for his campaign. You wonder why so many people like Dean. It's not politics as usual. WE have a say. Those dems that voted with the repiglans - corporate whores nothing else. When you suck at the big money tit, you become their boy (or girl). Roll over, fetch, bend over ON COMMAND. So I expect the dems to keep on rolling over until WE take it back over and elect candidates that we support with our donations and are not sucking on the big money tit.

[caledesi]

28. Well said art! nt

[George_Bonanza]

29. What?! Kerry is NOT a spineless sellout?!

But IWR!!!! IWR!!!

This is typical Kerry. He stood up against adversity on Iran-Contra, he stood up against the DoMA, and he stands up against the 87 billion dollar grant.

[RichM]

32. He deserves credit for this, just as he does NOT deserve it for the IWR.

To be fair, of course, one can't overlook either vote. If he had voted 'Aye' here, it would have been a sellout. When he voted 'Aye' last year, it WAS a sellout. His insistence, ever since, that last year's vote was "correct" does him no credit.

[George_Bonanza]

33. Fair enough, but

I think there would be a big smear on Kerry's character if he repented his vote. Some would be happy, but I think some would feel that he's a pure political player who, even more so than before, feels the wind before jumping. Maybe a little contrition wouldn't hurt, but fully reversing his vote may do him just as much harm as good.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

51. but Kerry won't do that because he has said he did the right thing

which is consistent with always wanting to do the "right" thing and ignoring political ramifications.

[sandnsea]

64. It's been his view since 1997

You can disagree with the vote altogether, but it was NOT a sellout. If people read his views on Iraq and Saddam, they'd know he has supported stronger confrontation for years. He wanted the situation totally resolved and he wanted it resolved through the UN.

It's the lesson of Vietnam, most people's eyes glaze over, but there should be no war, no loss of life, unless we're 110% committed to the success of the war. In other words, either the military mission is critical enough to lose life over, or it's not. Once we went into Iraq, we set our foot down on the path. The UN did too. In order to make sure people don't forget the lesson of Vietnam, somebody has to keep the pressure on. And the pressure means you went into this thing for a reason. If we don't finish the job in Iraq, it means we weren't serious about the reason in the first place. There is no greater mistreatment of our soldiers, you never sacrifice life under those circumstances. That's why Kerry supported the IWR and why he continues to demand Iraq be a success and be handled correctly. Anything else is killing those Vietnam soldiers all over again, killing the GW1 soldiers again, as well as the thousands of Vietnamese and Iraqi people.

[IndianaGreen]

35. We know Kerry. He has been around since forever.

Despite his bad vote on IWR, Kerry remains a liberal Democrat from the same noble tradition of Massachusets liberalism that gave this country President Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy, and Tip O'Neil.

[Neecy]

30. The American Reichstag

Just rubber-stamps anything der fuehrer sends down.

I have to admit that I watched the 'debates' (what little debate there was) on Thursday and Friday, and while some, like Mrs. Clinton, made clear that their support was for the troops and not for the administration, not one of them said -

a. How we'll pay for this, other than looting the ol' Social Security Trust fund, or

b. Why the American taxpayer is footing the entire bill, or

c. Just who is going to account for these enormous sums of money and how its spent.

Why have a Congress? Let's all just declare * dictator and go home.

[burr]

36. I feel like a minority in my own party..

I have reached the point when it is worth asking...am I in the right political party???

I have voted for Democrats all of my adult life, but what are they doing for me in return? Spitting in my face, and looking for another group of voters!

At least as an independent I could vote for the Democrats or third party candidates that I choose without feeling like a traitor to my party or my principles.

[Q]

37. Facing the truth...

- We should admit that most Americans...and indeed many Democrats...don't give a flying fig about the war profiteering cash for Iraq. They don't care about stolen elections or 9-11 or lies about WMD. They simply don't care. And those who DO care pretty much know there's nothing they can do about it.

- The Bushies won. They've taken full control of our country and have for the most part neutralized all opposition. Those brave enough TO speak out are quickly put down by professional liars and 'conservative' Democrats.

- There's no way out now but to oppose the Bush* regime.

[burr]

39. One other question we must ask ourselves...

Bob Graham voted no, but he also voted no on the IWR.

I can't help but wonder, if Edwards and Kerry were not running for the nomination..would they have voted no anyway?

With Edwards, one could look at Hollings for a positive sign or Bill Nelson for a less hopeful sign. On John Kerry, Senator Kennedy would be the hopeful sign with Senator Reed providing less hope. This is a little like pin the tail on the donkey.

Only time will reveal the truth behind political motives.

[IndianaGreen]

40. War profiteering is bipartisan!

Other than Kucinich, no other candidate has called for cancelling all those juicy contracts that Paul Bremer has signed with corporate America.

[G_j]

63. that's a major problem.. n/t

[Iverson]

43. a practical note

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you conclude that your party has left you. If you call yourself an independent or member of a third party, nothing stops you from voting for those Democratic candidates who do represent your interest.

When you remove your official endorsement from the party apparatus and place it elsewhere, be assured that there are advantages and disadvantages to that. I am sure that you won't undertake such a move lightly.

[Pepperbelly]

38. it is understandable when ...

the money is bundled with bucks for flak jackets, chow, and medical care for the soldiers serving there as we speak. That is too tough a sell for the folks back home who would not understand why a Senator voted to keep those items from the boys and girls serving abroad.

We may not like it but that is the choice they faced.

[Redleg]

50. Good point...

At least the Dems who supported the funding won't be accused of leaving the troops' asses hanging out in Iraq.

I guess this post was another opportunity to bash Dems rather than attack Bush and his Rethuglicans.

[burr]

52. what funding?? huh?

Ohhh, you must mean the borrowing...the soon to be worthless T-bonds which are being used to finance this entire operation.

I thought you were talking real money...you know like tax dollars, revenue that isn't borrowed! As far as I know the problem with this venture is simply that it isn't funded, and shrub nor the Republican Congress will admit that all their taxcuts were mistakes. But who will pay the price??

[LeahMira]

65. Understandable, but sad...

I had hoped that by refusing the $87 billion Congress could force the administration to withdraw from Iraq sooner, but it seems the choice they have is actually whether the troops will be supplied adequately or not for however long they are kept there. How sad.

[mndemocrat_29]

45. I'm really disappointed in my Sen. Dayton

I can't believe that he voted for this.

[knight_of_the_star]

46. Gotta give credit to the Dirty Dozen!

I hope that there were more than that, but I guess that's all we got. Sad state of affairs when the opposition party doesn't really seem to be doing much in the way of opposing anything. Yet another reason I'm Green, and I know that I will NOT be voting for Feinstein when her name comes up for re-election. She has proven that she does NOT deserve my vote.

[IkeWarnedUs]

47. You mean Durbin voted for it? Say it ain't so!

I am generally so proud of Senator Durbin. Why, why, why would he vote yes? I didn't call his office before the vote, but you better believe I will be on the phone Monday demanding to know why he would do such a thing.

Without looking, I know Jan Schakowsky voted no. Especially since they didn't even need the money to "support the troops."

From MoveOn.org (via Daily MisLead), with a link to the report through Jan's website:

A report released October 15, 2003 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says the defense department budget has sufficient money to fund the troops in Iraq through May 2004!

From the Daily Mislead 10/16/03:

<snip>

The (Congressional Research Service) CRS study released yesterday suggests that the recently-passed $368.2 billion 2004 Defense funding bill plus the emergency funding Congress passed at the start of the war provides the Army alone with $37 billion in funding for personnel and operations and maintenance, enough to fund operations through early May.2

President Bush requested the money in September, saying, "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq."3 But even prior to the CRS survey's conclusions, Republican aides said that the administration inflated its budget request in part to avoid having to ask for additional funds the following year -- during the election season.4

more: http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10162003.html

Here is a link a pdf of the CRS report. Note it is provided by Jan Schakowsky's House site:

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/04-Supp-availability_of_Army_funds-memo-15Oct03.pdf

[LWolf]

48. Well one of my two voted No.

Kudos to Boxer. Something else to Feinstein.

And my choice for the presidency obviously voted no; he's led the opposition.

I was also glad to see Edwards and Kerry step up and vote no.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I don't see Daschle on that list...

Which means there is a serious leadership problem. And is it just me or aren't GOP senators raising questions about Bush spending? Hell I'm more conservative than Daschle or most of the democratic senators are and I'm not about to flat out give the Bush administration another $87 billion to play around with. Did somebody rip out our senators' spines?

[shanti]

55. barbara boxer

thank you, sister, for voting against this!!!!

[AnnabelLee]

57. First Feingold voted for

that ridiculous "Sense of the Senate" nonsense about attacking Iraq making Israel more secure, & now he votes for this abomination? The only Senator who voted against the Patriot Act couldn't stand up to this? I thought I'd been betrayed so many times that I'd become jaded to it, but I was wrong.:-(

And Wyden, who fled the Nazis with his parents when he was young...I really thought he would have known better, as well.

[TakebackAmerica]

60. Hmm.....

I find it intresting the two senators you blast are Jewish.
Both of them voted for the loans package. They are good honest liberals.
The leaders of most of the anti war movements are Jewish. Many of the leading pacificts are Jewish. Yet some on here RELISH the oppurtunity to tear apart a Jew. Feingold and Wyden made a terrible mistake. Focusing your energys on trashing this fine men is a waste.

[AnnabelLee]

61. Their religion has nothing to do with my anger at their actions

Your veiled accusation is unwarranted & completely wrong. I have been a strong supporter of Senator Feingold's for years. I couldn't care less what his or Rep. Wyden's religion is.

[Gore1FL]

62. Nah

We broke it, we fix it. The fault goes to bush, but like it or not, he did it in our name and hence it is our responsibilty.

Now--- it could be cut down by opening up a bidding process...

[John_H]

66. Yessssss!!! Dems pass the RichM test

which is if Rich thinks this vote makes dems evil, 99 percent of us not as uh.... smart as him recognize they had no choice, since the reconstruction money was linked to the "support the troops" money on the final vote.

We may or may not remember that, when the two packages were separated, the Dems kicked chimpy's ass, getting eight Republican defectors.

But once again, instead of ranting about chimpy' keeping troops in harms way and forcing a vote on equipping them, the Richster takes an opportunity to blame his "own party" for not committing political suicide by cutting off medical supplies for the guys dying in chimpy's war.

Thank God that, as per always, we've been treated to an all-or-nothing way out in one-percenterland argument, big on self-import and way tiny on common sense.

[RichM]

67. Looks like Byrd, Kennedy, Boxer, Kucinich are also in "one-percenter

land," doesn't it? I'd rather be with them, than with apologists for cowards like you.