How would you vote on the $81 Billion Supplemental appropriation for Iraq?

[welshTerrier2]

The Senate is likely to vote today to provide an additional $81 Billion to continue the Iraq "war". The funds are a "supplemental" because they are not included in the national budget and are not reflected in budget deficit estimates provided by the White House.

Virtually all of the money will be used to pay for the continuation of operations in Iraq. Some of the funds may be channeled to Afghanistan (or other clandestine operations in Iran, Syria, Lebanon), but most will be spent in Iraq.

The argument that this money is needed to buy protective gear for the troops in Iraq is, of course, absurd. Do the math! With roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq, you could spend $10,000 on every single troop and only run up a tab of $1.5 Billion. That's a whole lot of protective gear ...

There's also money set aside for tsunami relief. How much? $1 Billion ... Helping to rebuild Indonesia is a very worthy goal. Spending $1 Billion is chicken feed.

Anyway, here's the poll ... you're either in or you're out ... there is no "other" ...

I encourage all who answer the poll to elaborate on why you voted as you did. Thanks ...

Also, please help keep this kicked ... I'd really like to get a read on where DU stands on this issue.

[Todd B]

1. I don't think I'd be inclined to support the resolution.

I really don't think that I would support it, should I have had the option to vote. I think by supporting this reckless spending, we are simply enabling the Bush Administration to have a blank cheque philosophy in regards to foreign affairs.

Not to mention the fact that we already have a record deficit and billions of dollars invested and unaccounted for in Iraq already.

Congress should show some restraint instead of shelling out billions of dollars for Bush's failures every time.

[welshTerrier2]

2. intentionally prolonging the "war"

the spending argument you raised is obviously very important ...

bush is running massive deficits ... not only are we mortgaging our nation's future and our financial stability, but other critical needed programs are being under-funded or worse yet, un-funded ...

but still even worse than the budget arguments is the reality of what is actually bush's strategy in Iraq ...

since the initial phase of the invasion ended and the occupation began, bush and the neo-cons have been pursuing policies to intentionally prolong the "war" to provide a justification for continued US occupation in the region ...

and why is this ???

first, the primary objective has always been to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East ... reason one is all about power and control ... you might call it empire-building ...

and second, oil and profits for bush's corporate friends ... the oil industry has been reporting record profits since the invasion began ... the oil markets are very unstable and when the price of a barrel of oil rises because of that instability, the consumer gets screwed and the oil companies make billions ...

now if you had half a brain (and absolutely no conscience or commitment to the American people) and your party and your campaign were being largely underwritten by the oil industry, what policy would you pursue: one that destabilizes oil prices or one that wraps things up as quickly as possible?

bush is intentionally prolonging the "war" because he needs a justification to continue pumping billions into the bottom line of big oil and establishing a permanent military presence in the region ... and to hell with any Democrat who votes for this bill and should know better ... those Democrats are selling out the American people and they do NOT represent our best interests ...

[cestpaspossible]

3. I don't have enough information to vote

with all due respect to your characterization of what is in the bill, I don't believe I really know what's in it. If I were a Senator, of course, I'd have a whole staff to help me on it.

[dhinojosa]

4. I would vote only for what is needed, and 81 is too much.

and also I wouldn't vote on it, unless they separate Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget.

[Zynx]

5. NO! - Enough of Bush' bootstrapping the country!

[welshTerrier2]

6. what's up with this ???

more than 60,000 DU'ers and only a couple of humvees worth of votes ...

and KUDOS to the person who voted "no" !!!! it's not easy to be so wrong and still vote for what you believe in ...