Do you support the Supplemental war funding the dems passed yesterday?

[mike_c]

DUer cali and I collaborated in phrasing the choices below. I edited the wording of choice #3 slightly while posting the poll.

Question: Do you support the Supplemental war funding the dems passed yesterday?

oops-- edited to correct a spelling error.

[mike_c]

1. please vote and recommend...

...so that the poll stays on DU radar for longer. Thanks!

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Kick

tnis will be an interesting one to follow

[cali]

3. kick

I'd love to see hundreds of votes in this poll.

Thanks Mike.

[mike_c]

4. Nader was right....

:kick:

I just thought maybe stimulating some discussion would be good.... :hide:

[cali]

6. LOL

I think people are feeling emotionally exhausted by everything that's gone on the last few days.

btw, check out the post I just put up about Rumsfeld.

[Alcibiades]

5. That's not the right question!

The right question is why did 212 Republicans stab our troops in the back by voting against funding for the war.

[mike_c]

7. yeah, why did it take republicans to do the right thing...

...and vote against funding crimes against humanity?

[The Magistrate]

12. That Is A Very Odd Statement, Sir

You actually approve of the actions of House Republicans in this matter, and not of the Democratic nmajority in the House?

[mike_c]

13. regardless of their motives I certainly approve of anyone...

...who votes to sink a pro-war appropriations bill.

[The Magistrate]

22. Are You Really Thinking This Through, Sir?

Do you seriously imagine the Republicans in the House are voting against continuing the administration's conduct of the occupation of Iraq, or wish to see it brought to a halt?

The Republicans did not vote against a 'pro-war' Bill, as everyone knows full well: they voted against a Bill that shows promise of forcing the administyration to reverse its course in Iraq, on pain of running out of money.

[mike_c]

26. on pain of running out of money?

Pelosi's bill fully funds the war until the end of Bush's term. Yup, I'd call that a great victory for the democrats. If they want to continue the war against Iraq, that is. And do you honestly believe that if the pentagon comes to congress for more money they'll be any more likely to deny the request? Based on what past performance?

[The Magistrate]

28. The Problem With Your Line, Mr. C

Is that you know the bill will never become law: it will not be signed while it incorporates deadlines for withdrawl and benchmarks. If it is not signed, funds for the ocupation of Iraq will become too scarce for the matter to continue. That is what the administration courts. The Democrats in the House have only to hold ranks behind this measure, and fight it out on this line all summer long. There is every reason to believe the administration will push to and past the breaking point; they are not reasonable men.

[mike_c]

30. then we shall have to wait and see whether that is what comes to pass...

...since in doing so Bush will cut off his nose to spite his face. I don't think he'll have the cajones in the end. He'll take the money if that's the only way to get it. But we'll see.

[Morgana LaFey]

8. Honestly?

I'm just happy *I* didn't have to vote. I don't know.

All I know is I think Congress isn't doing enough, but that doesn't mean I think they don't have a difficult job of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. kick

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Stopping the war by funding it is like killing for peace. K&R

It's downright Orwellian with a good dose of P.T. Barnum thrown in.

[bigtree]

16. Even the withdrawal plans of Rep. Lee and others have "funding'

The Iraq Accountability Act is a direction by Congress for Bush to end his occupation by a date certain. The money is directed to achieving that end, and directed as well toward other pressing needs which have been neglected by the republican majority as they put their ambitions in Iraq ahead of the American people and their interests and concerns.

Even Rep. Kucinich, in his acceptance of Rep, Lee's amendment conceded the need for additional money to effect the withdrawal envisioned in their proposal.

Clever as your statement sounds, it obscures the direction that Congress correctly asserted in their funding bill. It replaced Bush's priority for an open-ended, unaccountable escalation of his occupation in Iraq with a roadmap to an exit.

[Sybil_23mist]

24. Consider

Hillary Clinton made clear in an interview with the New York Times last week if elected she would keep a large force of American troops in Iraq indefinitely to secure “remaining vital national security interests” there. She elaborated on these “national security interests” by noting that Iraq is “right in the heart of the oil region.”

Similarly, the House Democrats’ bill upholds the war aims of US imperialism by listing as one of the benchmarks the passage of an oil law that will open up Iraq’s vast reserves to exploitation by US energy conglomerates.

The bill also requires the Pentagon to observe standards for training, equipping and resting troops before their deployment and limits the duration of Army tours of duty to 365 days. With the military already stretched to the limit, these provisions could actually create obstacles to the further escalation of the war under Bush’s so-called troop “surge” in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Consequently, the bill allows Bush to waive these requirements in the name of “national security,” giving him a free hand to send as many additional troops as he desires.

[bigtree]

37. That "waiver" is a point of accountability where the Congress is charged to act again

Not just "waive" Bush on. Those who oppose that provision will need to step forward and demand accountability after Bush reports under the requirements. As the bill states, Congress will be responsible for continuing oversight.

[bigtree]

41. the bill does not preclude Congress from acting at that point

The waivers in the legislation are points of administration accountability, not loopholes for Bush to continue his occupation. This administration already asserts some right they imagine to do what they want in the name of national security with each bill Bush signs. The provision in the Act requires Bush to come back to Congress and explain, on a unit-by-unit basis, why he needs to extend their tour of duty beyond the military standards already in place; instead of the automatic escalation Bush is taking advantage of now.

here's the provision:

( SEC. 1902. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the extension of a unit's deployment in Iraq beyond the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

SEC. 1903. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the redeployment of a unit to Iraq in advance of the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's redeployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1591

The standard in the legislation for extending their tours is whether 'national security' is at stake. It should be easy enough for Congress to make that determination whether national security is threatened by limiting these soldiers' tours to the military standard. At that point Congress will be challenged to either 'waive' Bush by, or act to restrain him. This isn't the republican rubber-stamp majority. I expect those members who have objected to this provision to step up and demand congressional action to confront Bush at the point where he attempts to bypass the bill's restrictions.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1591

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Funding for withdrawal not for the war.

[Sybil_23mist]

31. Isn't funding for withdrawal unnecessary

That money is already in the piepline. 70 billion.

Well anyway more cash for Halliburton.

124 billion. Just think what our communities could do with that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Yeah. You'd think the geniuses in the Pentagon could scrape the money together.

But, they seem in the habit of losing it or squandering it on shiny new toys.

[Swamp Rat]

34. I'm thinking about the levees we could rebuild.

[bigtree]

43. there would still be military operations going on in the 6 months they had given for the exit

so it's a thin straw you are hiding behind in characterizing their plan as troops immediately laying down their arms, immediately getting out of harm's way, and immediately ending the occupation.

[mike_c]

29. Kucinich has condemned this bill....

http://kucinich.us/node/3795

Congress has just voted to give President Bush the money he needs to keep the war going through the end of his term.

So where do we go from here? Well, this is the moment that all of us must come together, in communities across the United States, to insist that our nation take a new direction -- now -- in Iraq.

We must go into the town squares. We must meet in libraries, and on university campuses across the country, to cause the policies of the United States to merge from right from the grassroots, and be heard in Washington.

Unfortunately Washington has not listened. Washington has said More War.

You're the ones who must stand for peace. And join with me in this effort to just Change America.

It's not satisfactory that Congress has voted to keep the war going.

Congress had the power to end this war.

And you and I know that.

more@link

on edit-- to clarify, since every single republican in the house voted against the bill, it isn't just "Washington" that has "said More War," its the democratic members of the House. They will not be able to hide from this ever again.

[cali]

32. I think you're wrong

This is being portrayed as a bill that puts a deadline on withdrawal and increases oversight. I think that's how the majority of Americans will see it. You may wish for the dems to be cast as war mongers in the bushco mode, but it's highly unlikely that that will happen.

[mike_c]

35. as I said to The Magistrate, all we can do now is see how this plays out....

My preference is clearly for an unambiguous call for immediate withdrawal, followed, quite frankly, by war crimes prosecutions for all involved. Of course, I'm not under any illusions about the likelihood of that-- but I'm going to continue advocating it nonetheless.

At the moment we'll just have to see whether the Pelosi bill does the trick, or whether it's just another transfusion of treasure into the military industrial complex to keep the death machine ticking over for another 18 months or so. I suspect the latter. If I'm wrong, and you're correct, then I'll be very happy to see events confirm your views!

[bigtree]

38. that doesn't negate the fact that the bill he supported "funded" his withdrawal

the details were certainly different, but it's not accurate to say that providing funds is merely "funding the war." This is a withdrawal bill.

[The Magistrate]

11. Yes, Mr. C

It was a good piece of legislation, and certainly the best that could command a majority in the House.

The political effects of this will be most salutory, though they would be improved had an even more solid bloc been demonstrated by the Democrats. There is, indeed, every prospect this could muddle its way into an actual lapse in funding: the administration is not going to sign anything with a deadline, and there is no reasson at all for the Democrats in the House to put forward anything that lacks same. The onus for lack of funds then falls on the administration, if it refuses to accept a condition that is widely popular among the voters, and accurately refelects the predominant sentiment of the people of the country. The administration does not have the prestige to win that confronmtation today, and has less prestige with each passing day, so that it will be even weaker in the weeks and months ahead when this comes to a final head.

[mike_c]

15. nah, after some blustering and chest pounding Bush will "compromise..."

...and take the money. He'll work on undermining any conditions that give him any wiggle room at all, and he'll just conduct war as usual, courtesy of the Congressional democrats.

[bigtree]

17. They will not be cast in concrete. There is nothing in the legislation which precludes future action

The bill, in fact, encourages and mandates congressional oversight and administration accountability.

[mike_c]

19. yeah, along with committing crimes against humanity....

What are a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis among honorable ladies and gentlemen, after all?

[bigtree]

39. Those dead and dying would still be in jeopardy without action on this bill

This bill intends to end the occupation, despite the representations to the contrary. It's not as quick a withdrawal, or as clean a withdrawal as other plans, but it is clearly a direction to Bush to end his occupation by a date certain.

[The Magistrate]

27. Well Said, Mr. Tree

Every 'certification' by the administratuion would of course be fraudulent, and a fresh occassion for Congressional action to restrict its freedom of action and funds. Matters like this tend to escalate, with both sides hardening their positions. There is no question the people are ranged against the administration in thsi matter.

[The Magistrate]

23. My Advice, Sir

Is that you avoid like plague poker games in which money actually changes hands....

[meldroc]

14. I support this bill, but...

only as long as Bush will veto it. :evilgrin:

[Sybil_23mist]

18. No

In straightforward language it is hypocritical. It is the typical case of PoliticalSpeak triumphing over principle.

If one would suspend their judgment or allegiances and just think of the words that were used followed by the actions which ensued you could only conclude that it was pure illogic that prevailed. The likes of which you might expect from young school children that are trying to rationalize their behavior on the playground. Big difference here is that hundreds of thousands of people are being slaughtered.

Lets keep the context in mind also. The Clinton years with the murderous sanctions killed over 1 million Iraqis so with that in mind we can see a consistent pattern. And of course it goes back further than that starting with Lord Curzon.

124 billion added to the US war machine. Who can stand behind that? Well we're seeing aren't we? And the rationalizations are rather transparent.

[mike_c]

20. indeed....

Well said, and welcome to DU!

[cali]

21. I think you're completely wrong

And what you term as rationalization, I consider rational thinking. It's all the prism through which we view it.

[Pastiche423]

36. Voted funds for withdrawal only

K & R

[scarletwoman]

40. It's almost moot, anyway, isn't it? This wil NOT be the final form of the bill.

It has to be reconciled with a Senate bill first, before it ends up on bush's desk for signing, right?

The final version isn't likely to look like the House bill, no matter what. So how much of a "victory" this bill represents won't be apparent until the Senate finishes with it.

I voted "no -- didn't go far enough", btw. I think it's a fantasy to think that passing this bill will do ANYTHING to "rein in bush"

sw

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. kick

[tiptoe]

44. Support the political strategy...and expect investigations will expedite alterations to substance nt