Nancy Pelosi against Impeachment, but *for* another 124 Billion Supplemental for Iraq??

[BlueCaliDem]

Nancy Pelosi, the so-called "San Francisco Liberal" is threatening, pressuring, and intimidating the REAL Liberals in The House to get the 218 votes she needs for another 124 billion dollar "supplemental bill" for Iraq!

Speaker Pelosi is hardest against her fellow Democrats (the most liberal in The House, I believe) with threats and committee seat "arm-twisting".

Can someone please explain to me WHY Speaker Pelosi wants MORE of our taxpayer money to be thrown at Bush's Iraq debacle when they have all the money they'll EVER need??

Read details here:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/its-tough-to-get-218-votes-so-speaker-gets-tough-too-2007-03-20.html

[merh]

1. Nancy Pelosi is the one to take office when Bush and Cheney

are booted out or resign. For her to be "for impeachment" would take away from the efforts to impeach, it would look like her attempt to grab power.

[robinlynne]

6. interesting way of looking at it.

[merh]

14. Can you imagine the stink that would come if Pelosi was pushing

for impeachment? The MSM and the right would be screaming that she just wanted the office, the power. She has to continue to be removed from any inquiry that could result in impeachment, that doesn't mean that she isn't aware that the impeachment proceedings are necessary and likely. She did, after all, appoint the chairs to the committees that seem to be intent on investigating the abuses of the admin.

She must oversee the House and in so doing, keep her focus on what is good for then nation, not what is most beneficial for her career or the party.

[Dr Fate]

27. The old "the media will be unfair to us if we do that." Excuse # 126.

A true classic.

[merh]

45. It's true, just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

As I have pointed out and as you have obviously ignored, she gave the chairs to those who are willing to persue the investigations that can lead to impeachment. If she were truly opposed to impeachment, wouldn't it have been prudent for her to put meek and mild members as chairs, those that wouldn't challenge the admin, those that wouldn't investigate and stand up to the admin?

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Understood, but why is she fighting so hard for more money...

...when Bush himself has admitted they "have all the money we need", and didn't she get the clue that the American people voted hard to surpass election fraud even in order to give the Democrats the power to end this war as fast as they can?

Or is she afraid that it might look too political too?

[merh]

12. If I were Pelosi, I would have difficulty supporting a bill that

cuts the funding to the troops, that would foresake the troops serving now.

And yes, imho, it does look too political. Foresake the troops to make a point and not get the votes needed to override a veto? What good would that do for the troops and/or the efforts to regain some control of the government?

[Dr Fate]

26. Excuse #763. n/t

n/t

[merh]

48. your response is boring

n/t

[pampango]

57. Do you have in-depth responses somewhere else?

These little "Excuse #___" ditties do not exactly qualify as convincing discourse. At least throw in a sentence or two to add to the discussion, even if you can't spare a couple of paragraphs.

[Frances]

2. If you can count, then you can understand

why Pelosi is making the decisions she's making. In order to pass legislation, you have to have the votes. This bill starts the ball rolling. If you have loved ones in Iraq, this bill offers some hope. There is no hope for your loved ones in Iraq if Pelosi puts forth a bill that cuts off all funding for Iraq now. That bill would not have a breath of a prayer of passing. I am thinking of the students I used to teach who are over in Iraq now. I am in favor of this bill.

[Robbien]

8. This bill offers no hope at all. This bill allows for neverending warmongering

This is a very bad bill.

See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/21/162616/546

What's wrong with the Iraq Supplemental:

* It will keep the war going well into 2008;
* It omits Cong. Barbara Lee's amendment, which would have fully funded withdrawal by the end of the 2007;
* It gives the President the right to waive requirements that troops sent to Iraq must be properly trained, equipped and rested;
* The funds can be used for attacking Iran, since the final version removed language saying the president had to get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran.
* It gives George Bush another $100 billion for war when there is no military solution to the violence in Iraq.

Even Senator Russ Feingold is warning people against the bill.

There is a long list of progressive orgs. against this bill.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Likewise, if you'd paid attention you would've heard Bush tell the press...

...that they have all the money they need for Iraq as it was back then--back then, when the press were all speculating that the Democrats just might cut off funding as Congress's sole power to end this debacle.

Pelosi is NOT, and has NEVER put forth a bill to "cut off funding for Iraq". She is twisting arms, and threatening with taking away committee positions from the most liberal Democrats in her caucus to do as Bush wants--MORE money for Iraq when they haven't even spent the money they've already appropriated in dozens of "supplemental bills".

And you actually favor this?

[Frances]

18. Yes I am

Are you willing to face the parents, spouses, and children of soldiers in Iraq and tell them you want to hold out for a bill that has absolutely NO chance of passing?

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Well, I don't favor more money for more war and death.

Are you willing to face the parents, spouses, and children of soldiers in Iraq and tell them you want to hold out for a bill that has absolutely NO chance of passing?

Of course not, but that's not at issue here, is it--unless you're trying to get "off topic", that is.

What's at issue here is, that we Americans need to STOP the funding of perpetual war and occupation, and instead, pass a bill like Rep. Kucinich's proposal which would provide funding for the withdrawal of our troops out of Iraq, and the Middle East.

Have you even read the important points of this bill??

Try linking to DailyKos where hopefully, you'll see "the light":
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/21/162616/546

[Frances]

35. Mayabe you read a different Kos, but this is what I found:

"The House of Representatives today began debate on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. Although many of us, myself included, wish the bill set stronger limits on Bush and argued for bringing a more strongly-worded bill to the floor, today the question comes down to yes or no on this bill, which does, for the first time, set a withdrawal deadline.

"In a recent online survey, nearly 85% of MoveOn members expressed support for this bill, at least as a "first concrete step to ending the war." Chris Bowers similarly argues for understanding it as a first step, and as a stronger one than what will follow if this is defeated:

"The simple fact is that if this bill is defeated in the House, then there will be another--weaker--funding bill. The strategy that many in the anti-war community are pushing, to defeat any new Iraq funding bill in at least one branch of Congress, has no hope of success at the current point in time. It might be successful at one point, but not right now. If this bill is defeated in the House then, as Rep. George Miller has made it quite clear, another bill, without any strings attached, will come up for a vote. Even if Miller did not make that clear, it should be fairly obvious. While a dozen or so progressives are currently the main swing votes on whether or not this bill passes, the overwhelming majority of people who will vote against the bill will be Republicans. Two hundred Republicans, a handful of Blue Dogs, and a dozen progressives does not equal a progressive majority. The debate between this bill, and a stronger bill, is unfortunately currently over on Capitol Hill when it comes to the supplemental. As inadequate as this legislation might seem when it comes to ending the war, right now, it is either this bill, or something...."

[BlueCaliDem]

53. The DailyKos article I was referring to was the one posted by Robbien:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/21/162616/546

I think your DailyKos piece came right after the above one.

Although I am still vehemently against more money for war and death, I can understand why the Democrats needed to pass some bill with some sort of withdrawal date (although August 31st, 2008???) but word is, Bush is going to veto this bill too, so it's basically a waste of time, although now the Democrats can say, that they've tried.

To be quite honest, I'm confused as to why Speaker Pelosi was pushing this bill so hard. I can't follow her strategy since Bush and the Repubes in Congress have already threatened to stop any bill that has any kind of withdrawal date attached like this one does.

Why would Speaker Pelosi pursue a "lost cause" supplemental bill? Stalling for time? :shrug:

[Frances]

55. This is what Kos said:

How it looks from the outside
by kos
Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:00:50 PM PDT
With all the hand-wringing over the details of the Iraq supplemental, one of the arguments many are making is that the bill "doesn't go far enough" and that it'll make the Democrats look "weak" for caving the to Blue Dogs and "watering it down".

I'm actually quite proud of the progressive caucus -- it's time House progressives start flexing their muscles a little. And the concessions they've won are important ones. Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

At the end of the day, this is a message battle. It's a chance for Democrats to show that they are interested in ending the war and getting our troops safely home, while the other side wants to escalate the war and get our troops killed.

To that end, look at the headlines the Supplemental is generating:

US Democrats press deadline for Iraq pullout
Iraq pullout measures moves with war bill
US House opens debate on US withdrawal from Iraq
House Democrats seek votes for Iraq exit timetable
Dems labor for sure majority on pullout
Iraq pullout measure moves ahead
After 3 decades, Congress again tries to end a war
Dems seek votes to order pullout from Iraq



You get the point. Few care about the details. The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq.

That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.

So the particular of the bills matter little. Whatever we pass, no matter how weak or strong, will be vetoed and we won't have the votes for an override. The war will go on until we get some sane people in charge of the joint.

So we use this as part of the message war.

If we can't end the war right now (and we can't, thanks to King George), then we lay the foundation that will ultimately accomplish that goal.

Permalin

[loudsue]

33. Then they need to get off their asses and write a new bill.

One that fully protects the troops that are there, until we can get them out.
One that does NOT allow bush to go into Iran w/out congressional approval.
One that moves the deadline for withdrawl closer to NOW.

One thing is, however, true: If this bill got to the Senate, they might kill it anyway. I'm not sure how all that takes place.

:kick:

[Frances]

34. It's obvious that you don't see how it all takes place

You can have a bill that you love and think is perfect, but it doesn't do any good whatsoever unless you have the votes to pass it.

[sampsonblk]

39. Oh, the immediate gratification view of politics

I beg to differ. If a bill is put forth and does not pass, that does NOT mean it doesn't do any good. If we put forth a strong bill, repeatedly, it could have the effect of pulling the public in our direction, and could potentially crush the Republicans who will consistently vote against it. Doing the right thing could put us in the majority for decades. Doing what you suggest could put us . . . actually nowhere. A two-year pullout plan is nothing less than an endorsement of the status quo prior to the election of 2006.

[Frances]

41. Read Post 35

The people at Kos explain the situation very well.

By the way, did you support Nader in 2000? I think the people who supported Nader would agree with your argument 100%. I'm not a purist so I voted for Gore. I support this bill for the same reason that I chose Gore over Nader. Of course, if the Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore, we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

[sampsonblk]

51. No, I was not born yesterday, thank you.

nt

[EFerrari]

25. If you can count, you can understand that a stronger, clearer

bill that defunds the war would force the Republics to vote against their constituents' wishes.

Let us keep our integrity and let them hang themselves. They excel at it.

[Frances]

36. Unfortunately many of the Republics

represent districts that are heavily Republic and would be most unhappy if the representative did not support Bush. (The majority of Republics still support Bush.)

[EFerrari]

38. Do we really know that?

:)

[Frances]

42. Bush support among Republics

is in the 60 or 70s now. It has fallen a great deal, but it is still well above 50% according to the last polls I saw. Maybe a smart DUer can find a link for us.

Unseating an incumbent is extremely difficult because of the way redistricting has been done in this country. Many of the seats are "safe" seats for either Republicans or Democrats. The best chance of winning a seat is to run for an open seat. Or to run for a seat in a district where the demographics are changing. Or to run in a district where the rep is of the opposite party. Or, as happened in 2006, run in a district where the incumbent is tainted by a major scandal.

I worked very hard for a Dem candidate to unseat a popular moderate Republican in a Democratic district in 2000. My candidate lost mainly because the Republican was so "nice" and provided excellent constituent service. In 2002 the state added more Democratic voters to the district and the Republican lost by a narrow margin.

[EFerrari]

43. Bush's numbers are in the sewer even among his nutcase base.

I'll try to find some and post them here.

[Frances]

47. I would appreciate those links

I haven't seen any poll where a good majority of Repubs were not supporting Bush. I wish it were otherwise.

[EFerrari]

56. Bush's influence with Republicans waning (AP, not a poll)

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2MDcmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTcwOTcwOTQmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky

I'm not finding a straight up poll but check these link out for a composite picture. Here's a Gallup poll about a potential Libby pardon:

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003559062&imw=Y

AP poll from earlier this month. Doesn't give a partisan breakdown but a satisfying read:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll_2

The Numbers in Ohio & Pennsylvania
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070322/cm_rcp/the_numbers_in_ohio_pennsylvan_1

Four years on, war costs Bush at home and abroad
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/pl_nm/iraq_usa_bush_dc_1

A Cheney protest at Y.?
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660205616,00.html

Aha! Found this:

Bush s support wavering even in red states
Columbus Telegram - Mar 19 5:10 AM

but, it's been scrubbed:

404 - File Not Found !

The requested document , http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2007/03/19/news/news4bush.txt, could not be found!

Please return to the front page or contact the webmaster .

* * *

It looks like there have 3 recent polls: AP, Newsweek and Gallup. I'll see if those can be dug up and see if they give a breakdown. The "Four Years On" article quotes someone who has studied Bush polls.

[EFerrari]

59. Here's a new article in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2777819&mesg_id=2777819

[zulchzulu]

50. Exactly...

While not a PERFECT bill, it has the troops redeploying and coming home by the spring of 2008. That sure beats having a bill that won't pass that basically might look good on paper and make some people happy.

The bill offers reality. Reality that troops start coming home. Reality that the IWR is declared illegal, hence making the war illegal...then you take next steps.

Some people think that all this is like playing chess and winning by turning the game table over. You don't win that way. You make your moves before you checkmate.

We could just waste our time and energy by making a bill that makes the troops leave Iraq tomorrow...but guess what, unless we storm DC and take over the government, we have to do it the democratic way: pass bills that have enough votes to be veto-proof.

[Monkeyman]

3. Cannot explain it at all

but what I have seen strings include. Troops leaving by end of this year. Troops being trained before going to Iraq since they are sending kids in from boot camp. Equipment has to be ready. Bush says if that happens he will veto it

[grytpype]

4. Why oh why will she not miracle the troops home tomorrow?

I mean tonight, sorry!

Why oh why????

And why will she not impeach Bush tonight too?????

[Monkeyman]

5. Don't have the dam votes

[BlueCaliDem]

11. C for effort, but your nonsensical sarcasm wasn't even near humorous. Try again. n/t

[stillcool]

9. it is what it is...

black gold.

[man4allcats]

13. Can't explain her reasoning, but

this March 18 CODEPINK email certainly shot some holes in any justifications Speaker Pelosi may have for advancing this bill (not to mention MoveOn's support of it - ultimately 84.6% of MoveOn members polled agreed that MoveOn should support the proposal. Go figure!):

Today, Monday, March 19, marks four years of war in Iraq. We hope you attended one of the hundreds of actions this weekend against the continued bloodshed. Today you have another opportunity to attend rallies, call and visit your congressperson before they vote this week on the supplemental bill that would allocate another $100 billion for war. Tell them "No More Money for War."


You also have an opportunity to pressure one of the largest on-line activist groups, MoveOn.org (emphasis mine). MoveOn has not taken a stand against this Supplemental. It asked its members to take a vote on whether or not to support the Supplemental, but failed to explain how disastrous this inside-the-beltway compromise really is:


• It will keep the war going well into 2008;


• It omits Cong. Barbara Lee's amendment, which would have fully funded withdrawal by the end of 2007;


• It gives the President the right to waive requirements that troops sent to Iraq must be properly trained, equipped and rested;


• The funds can be used for attacking Iran, since the final version removed language saying the president had to get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran.


• And finally, MoveOn neglects to tell its members how absurd it is to give George Bush another $100 billion for war when there is no military solution to the violence in Iraq.


The Democrat leadership says this is the "best bill" they can get passed, but admits that President Bush is likely to veto it anyway. We need to tell Congress to stop the political machinations and use its Constitutional authority to end war by cutting the funds. We need to tell MoveOn to join the rest of the peace movement with the clear, principled call to Congress: Vote No on the Supplemental. Don't Buy Bush's War.


This week, your leadership is crucial. Call your member of Congress at 800-828-0498, and inspire your friends to do the same. Attend a MoveOn candlelight vigil tonight with the real message: No Money for War.

[mtnsnake]

15. Good gawd! Imagine if that was Hillary instead!

She'd be tarred and feathered by now, DU style!!

So Pelosi is twisting arms of the liberals to accommodate the wishes of the more conservative Blue Dog Dems, according to the article. What I'd like to know is why the hell can't Pelosi twist the arms of the friggin Blue Dog Dems to make them see eye to eye on impeachment with the rest of us!

[BlueCaliDem]

16. I'm afraid you're absolutely right--Although not an HRC fan...

...I'd never condemn her for supporting this unnecessary supplemental simply because, if anything Hillary's been consistent throughout, and it's no secret that she's a true "Blue Dog Dem"...

But Speaker Pelosi?? I mean, for literally months on end, the media all had worked hard to pin the "Liberal" label on her lapel (while I've read here, and heard on Air America from Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Thom Hartmann that her constituents don't think she's liberal at all), and then to read that Speaker Pelosi has wiped Impeachment off the table while fighting really, really hard to have this incredibly bad bill pass???

This is what's gettin' to me.

[Rusty MacHenry]

17. I have no problem with this bill

The bill is a start, it gets the ball rolling to get forces out of Iraq by 2008, if the Repukes were still controlling Congress money would be apporitated for the war WITHOUT a stipulation for some type of withdrawal. As for Russ Feingold not supporting the bill, who cares? so what i'm not a good Dem because I don't support everything the good Senator does. I will stand together on Pelosi on this one.

And as for impeachment well, as much as I would like to see the Bush crime family it just simply won't go down. We don't have the votes to go through with it, even though without conviction it still sends a mssage to the WH saying "don't fuck with us or you'll pay"

Anyhoo I am a SUPPORTER OF THIS BILL.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. As a progressive and a liberal with common sense, I have a MAJOR prob with this bill.

The bill is a start, it gets the ball rolling to get forces out of Iraq by 2008,

Really? Just how? By getting the forces into Iran? Because the bill doesn't have any provisions that would stop Bush if he were to "redeploy" the troops into neighboring Iran, and if we are to believe Sy Hersch who's been writing about this since April 2006, Bush and his AIPAC friends are committed to the invasion of Iran. 124 billion is a nice start for that too, ain't it?

if the Repukes were still controlling Congress money would be apporitated for the war WITHOUT a stipulation for some type of withdrawal.

Yeah, but they're NOT. The Democrats are, and that's because the American people are sick and tired of being sick and tired about the Iraq Occupation, and want OUT. And throwing more billions at the problem without any restrictions is, according to you, going to make help facilitate getting out as fast as we can?!

As for Russ Feingold not supporting the bill, who cares? so what i'm not a good Dem because I don't support everything the good Senator does.

I don't know about you not being a "good Dem", but you're certainly not an informed one, or have you already forgotten that it was Sen. Russ Feingold who had filibustered the reauthorization of the Patriot Act because of the chance for abuse, and the majority of Dems in Congress were against him, and worked harder than even the Republicans to discourage him?

Now, FF to today...Who was right? Russ Feingold, or the other Democrats? Likewise, who voted against, and for the IWR, as well as against or for authorization, and REauthorization of The (Un)Patriot Act? Hindsight being what it is, and in defense of Senator Feingold, who was more informed? Russ or the rest of the Dems?

[Rusty MacHenry]

23. I was againist the Dems who didn't support Feingold

When he filibustered the partiot act cause i'm againist it. I am informed about this whole damn thing, your just angry cause i'm for something your againist.

And what the hell does this have to do with Iran? this bill if about funding for Iraq.

I am about this close away from leaving this board, every time I post something I have to get attacked from all sides cause i'm saying stuff no one likes, like how i'm againist cutting off funding for this war.

I come to talk politics and all I grt is a boatload of critism.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. I apologize. I didn't mean to attack you...it's just that I feel so disillusioned...

...after our so hard-fought-for victory last November; seeing how hard the Repubes with the help of all the media, are trying to keep Bush, and his regime "credible" while simultaneously making the Democrats look weak, and ridiculous---which they're NOT.

Although no excuse to treat a fellow Democrat this poorly, I hope you'll accept my apology. No hard feelings, k? :pals:

"And what the hell does this have to do with Iran? this bill if about funding for Iraq."

Well, it's actually supplemental funding for Afghanistan, Iraq, and "other military needs". It's that "other" that bothers me since there is no provision; no language whatsoever in this bill that explicitly prohibits Bush from his desired "excursion" into Iran*. There are disturbing reports that there is an already heavy military build-up a la pre-Iraq invasion, around Iran as we speak.

According to Sy Hersch, Bush and his Neoconmen are determined to declare war against Iran. He wrote about this back in April 2006: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

Oh, and please don't leave the DemocraticUnderground. You'll miss out on so much vital, and necessary info that it would be a real shame. Really. :hi:

*had to edit to correct from Iraq to Iran.

[pat_k]

19. Insanity. She better be prepared for the blame that will be heaped on her. . .

. . .when Bush attacks Iran. And you can bet the Dems will be blame, with her at the top of the list as the women who didn't just refuse to impeach (the ONLY thing capable of stopping them), she used her power to shut up any Member of the House who who dared to even utter the word.

Shear political insanity. It's as if she wants to lose lose in '08 by demonstrating weakness and cowardice.

[MLFerrell]

22. You can burn in Hell with your new friend Bush, Madame Speaker...

Or should I say Ms. Impeachment-is-off-the-table?

WE NEED LEADERS, NOT POLITICIANS!!!

[SlowDownFast]

24. Good grief.

Get a fucking clue.

[Rusty MacHenry]

31. I have a clue

[zulchzulu]

44. OK...

Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi. And I'm for impeaching Bush and Cheney. Oooh! Guess what! That makes ME President! Yay!

Is that what you want her to say or imply? She's playing poker.

[LibertyorDeath]

28. Middle East Oil & the control of it.

The rest is smoke & mirrors for the monkeys oops I mean the masses....

[LibertyorDeath]

29. The rape of Iraq's oil

The rape of Iraq's oil
The Baghdad government has caved in to a damaging plan that will enrich western companies.

Michael Meacher
Guardian

About Webfeeds March 22, 2007 1:30 PM | Printable version
The recent cabinet agreement in Baghdad on the new draft oil law was hailed as a landmark deal bringing together the warring factions in the allocation of the country's oil wealth. What was concealed was that this is being forced through by relentless pressure from the US and will sow the seeds of intense future conflict, with serious knock-on impacts on the world economy.

The draft law, now before the Iraqi parliament, sets up "production sharing partnerships" to allow the US and British oil majors to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years. While Iraq would retain legal ownership of its oil, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP that invest in the infrastructure and refineries would get a large share of the profits.

No other Middle Eastern oil producer has ever offered such a hugely lucrative concession to the big oil companies, since Opec has always run its oil business through tightly-controlled state companies. Only Iraq in its present dire condition, dependent on US troops for the survival of the government, lacks the bargaining capacity to resist...cont'd

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_meacher/200...

[A wise Man]

30. Why aren't they trying to find

the missing "11 BILLION", all ready allocated to these thieves.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. Maybe HE threatened her?

[zulchzulu]

37. A vote AGAINST the Supplemental is a vote to CONTINUE the War

I hate the wars, but there are not enough votes to make a veto-proof piece of legislation to pull troops out immediately. If you don't have the votes, you may as well write a bill declaring that the sky color shall now be officially purple with pink polka dots.

If you don't have the votes, you get jack. Get it?

Also, in the Supplemental, there is writing that makes troops have to start leaving by the spring of 2008 as well as makes the original IWR of 2002 illegal. That's pretty cool if you ask me. Legislation (like during Viet Nam days) has to be incremental. If you don't think so, then you have a lot to learn.

In terms of Pelosi not being for impeachment, you HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION. If Cheney and Bush are impeached, guess who becomes President...guess...who is it? Correct! It's Pelosi.

Pelosi has said she is not neccessarily for impeachment but wants to make sure that all that Bush does is held in account. What that means if you can understand politics at a rudimentary level is that she certainly would want subpoenas to get to the bottom of many issues.

[goodhue]

46. A vote to fund the war, is no way to end war

It's going to be vetoed anyway, or else you haven't been paying attention.

[zulchzulu]

49. OK...let's just waste time doing bills that NEVER get passed

Meanwhile, the war goes on...and on...and on...

Passing bills to end the war have to happen incrementally. The problem with the Supplementary bill NOT being passed was partially due to self-important asshole Democrats who don't have a clue how to end the war. If these people had voted for the Supplementary bill, it WOULD BE veto-proof. And gee, guess what. The troops would start coming home by next spring AND the IWR would be declared illegal. As it stands now, they are there to stay. Bumpersticker politics is a deadly game now. Yes, we want the war to end FUCKING YESTERDAY, but until you get legislation that passes WITH ACTUAL VOTES, it's a fantasy.

Thanks to people like Kucinich, the war will continue. The troops will stay there LONGER. Thanks Dennis and all the other dumbasses that couldn't take time to read the Supplementary bill and see that it would have been a hell of lot better than....NOTHING!

:crazy:

[goodhue]

54. If there were no supplemental, the war would end sooner than later

[zulchzulu]

60. How's that?

So if Congress doesn't pass bills to end the war, it will just magically disappear?

Pass me some of that stuff you're smokin'.

[goodhue]

61. without the $100 billion, bush will have to curtail war efforts

symbolic votes to end war are of little consequence; it is all about the benjamins

[zulchzulu]

62. ...and based on Bush's wonderful respect for the law of the land...

Nope.

Like you, I hate the wars with all I can muster...but the only way to end the wars are to put in legislation making the IWR illegal and go from there. To sit back and say that no laws will be passed to further pay for a set of wars going on now is simply not looking at the realistic situation we are in.

Bumpersticker politics works in parlor talk and perhaps through a megaphone, but it's a LOT more complicated than that.

[Dr Fate]

40. "DRY POWDER" "CHESS" "ROPE-A-DOPE/ROPE TO HANG WITH"

"THEY NO MORE THAN WE DO"

"WAITING FOR THEM TO FALL ON THEIR SWORDS"

"WE DONT HAVE THE VOTES"

"WE AGREE WITH STAYING IN IRAQ-er...no, scratch that one...ROME WASNT BUILT IN A DAY!!! Yeah!!!"

[job777]

58. Vote

Sure will be interesting to see how they vote. Friend or Foe?

[Sparkly]

63. I'm not sure you understand the bill... nt