Effort to block funds for Iran war fails.

[slipslidingaway]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/effort-to-block-iran-war-funds-fails/

"Yesterday we noted a measure sponsored by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) that would have blocked funds authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used for a military strike on Iran. That amendment was just defeated, 216-202. Twenty-nine Democrats opposed the measure, 6 Republicans supported it."

[emilyg]

1. Shame.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. 29 Dems opposed it.

Damnit to hell! F'n bullshit. Screwed by our Reps. yet again.

[MisterP]

5. a LOT of them are freshmen: J. Altmire (PA), C. Carney (PA),

J. Donnelly (IN), R. Klein (FL), N. Lampson (TX), T. Mahoney (FL), H. Mitchell (AZ), M. Sandlin (TX), Heath Shuler (NC), Z. Space (OH),
all those Blue Dog freaks we were ordered to embrace, especially the "great white hopes" of Lampson and Shuler

[slipslidingaway]

8. Thanks for the additional information. n/t

[UNCLE_Rico]

3. WTFF? Can somebody please explain this BULLshit to me...

I mean, seriously, WTF?

Unless I'm missing something, this shoulda been a no-brain, like, UNANIMOUS PASSAGE by the fucking House, especially in this stage of the game!

I mean, even a shmuck like Trent Lott coulda voted for this and said to his wingnut constituency "You see, Iraq and Afghanistan are the wars we authorized the funds to be used for, so if * wants to use the money to attack a different country, he has to come back and ask for funds for that purpose specifically. I know, you're all disappointed, but that's just the way it works here in the big city ..." without ANYONE batting a freakin' EYE.

WTF are 27 DEMOCRATS VOTING AGAINST THIS FOR?

I mean, WTFF?

[slipslidingaway]

4. Another article with a little more history on prior amendments

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-indicate-they-are-more-united-on-iran-legislation-2007-05-15.html

snip>.

"The White House has refused to commit to seeking the approval of Congress on a potential future conflict with Iran.

Critics of the Iran amendments have said that it would tie the military’s hands, claiming that Iran has provoked unrest in Iraq.

“I think it is more imperative than ever,” said DeFazio. “There are ongoing assertions from the Bush administration that either the Iraq authorization or the 9/11 authorization allows the president a free hand in Iran… Dick Cheney is starting to beat the war drum.”


Roll call

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll364.xml

[nam78_two]

6. K&R.nt

[Greeby]

7. Of course it wasn't helped by 19 reps not voting

Including some, like Nadler, who I know would vote yes

[slipslidingaway]

9. True, 10 Dems did not vote in addition to the 29 no votes. n/t

[MisterHowdy]

10. OMFG

Some Dems actually voted against it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is NO case for war with Iran whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!

The US government has lost its mind!!!!!!!!!!!
The Dems are so fuc@ing weak, its scary!!!!!!!!!

[Blackhatjack]

11. Why don't they ever word amendments negatively forcing members to vote against it...

For example the Amendment could have been worded:

"President Bush may use any amount of funding appropriated by this measure to attack Iran or any other country WITHOUT applying to Congress for funding approval of any such attack on Iran or any other country."

PUT THAT AMENDMENT UP TO A VOTE.... and watch it get voted down.

Then use the fact that such authority was not given to support an amendment banning the use of such funds for an attack on Iran.

Get them on the record... who would vote NO on the first and YES on the second?

Let them explain those votes!

[Rosemary2205]

12. Congress and WH press corps should just dissolve itself at this point.

They should just pass a law that says, Congress is hereby disbanded because we want George W. Bush to be able to do anything he wants to anybody he wants, anytime we wants with no questions and no oversight.

[slipslidingaway]

13. As Senator Byrd said when debating the IWR, just hang a sign

above the doors of congress "Gone fishing"