Democrats Fold on Iraq Funding Again!

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	QuickLinks
Diaries	Products
All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Democrat Hypocrisy; Democrat In Name Only; Democrats Conservative; Funding; Iraq; Iraq Exit Strategy; Iraq War; Iraq War; Iraqi Refugees
Add to My Group

December 19, 2007 at 13:11:16

Democrats Fold on Iraq Funding Again!

by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Again the Democrats in Congress failed to stop the funding for Iraq or to get a timetable in the measure, failing in a vote of 70-25 to fund the war without restrictions. The measure was overturned with the help of 21 Democrats. This is not surprising as the Democrats-in-name-only have been in Congress seemingly forever. It’s about time that they were voted out of office. There is no way that you can call it a “Democratic Majority” in the Senate and the House when “Blue-Dog” Democrats vote in lockstep with the Republican “minority”. Ted Kennedy said this;

"When is enough enough?" asked Sen. Edward Kennedy(D-Mass.), who supported an amendment that would have required troop withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of combat funds within nine months. "I urge my colleagues to vote against this gigantic blank check."

These words should be a rallying call to vote whoever voted against the measure out of office. The Presidential Candidates that are members of the Senate should be ashamed that they let their person aspirations become more important that defeating the Bush Administration’s funding of this war.

While the names of the Democrats that voted for the measure are not immediately known at this time, when the vote becomes public, I will ensure that the names of the 21 “Blue-Dogs” will be revealed. I agree with Senator Kennedy and with Senator Edwards who has stated that the Democratic Party needs to “grow a backbone”. Too bad they haven’t done so.

That’s the way I see it.

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com

Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site. Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

7 comments

Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
Richard MynickRichard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.

Who could expect anything else, by now? Betrayal of their

own voters has been a constant for the Democrats for many years, now.

Here's an article that spells out the details of the Dems' latest sell-out. Note that just as they did last May, they're once again using the ploy of dividing the spending into two parts -- one domestic, & the other for war. As the article explains,

...With the Senate having carried through its part of the bargain with Bush by adding the $40 billion to continue the carnage in Iraq, the two separate pieces of legislation—domestic spending and war funding—will go back to the House. In this elaborately choreographed charade, the bulk of the Democrats will then be able to vote against the money for Iraq—thereby attempting to boost their sagging antiwar pretenses—while the measure would be assured passage by a solid Republican “yes” vote backed by an adequate Democratic minority.
Once completed, this cynical arrangement will mark the third time since assuming control of Congress nearly a year ago that the Democrats will have provided the votes to continue funding the war in Iraq after proclaiming their determination to bring it to a halt....

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 915 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 1:59:29 PM

Former computer/communications marketing and product strategist. Currently teaching part time in retirement.
Alan MacDonaldFormer computer/communications marketing and product strategist. Currently teaching part time in retirement.

Democrats are not gutless

Many, like me in the past, think of the Democrats as purely GUTLESS ---- but this is actually not the case.

The Democrat Party is 'out of whole cloth' an integral and willing part of the ruling-elite global corporatist Empire hiding behind this facade of democracy --- which by all that is holy can only be called 'Vichy America'.

The Democrats, and the MSM which hides their fully complicit role in this 'Three Card Monte' scam of the American people, have turned in an Oscar-winning performance of appearing simply gutless and incompetent ---- but this is entirely an ACT.

The Democrats well acted role in this 'Vichy American' tragicomedy Three Card Monte scam (where ALL the participants, other than the 'rube' citizens, are fully engaged in the scam) is the role of a second 'Lucy' character to alternate with the Republican first string 'Lucy' in continually 'pulling the football away' from American citizens (who are 'played' as 'Charlie Browns') in this continual Three Card Monte movie version of "Ground Hog Day" --- which simply never ends in the land of Corporatist Empire.

This whole sick movie is an Empire Production.

by Alan MacDonald (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 44 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 4:25:50 PM

.
ardee D..

Once the problem is identified

the solution is obvious......vote third party.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2386 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 7:47:33 AM

I'm a native of New York City who's called the Green Mountain state of Vermont home since the summer of 1994. A former freelance journalist, I'm a fiercely independent freethinker who's highly skeptical of authority figures -- especially when they're on the wrong side of the issues I care about. But I'm not afraid to also call into question those with whom I would usually be "on the same page" if and when they, too, are on the wrong side of the issues I care about.
Skeeter SandersI'm a native of New York City who's called the Green Mountain state of Vermont home since the summer of 1994. A former freelance journalist, I'm a fiercely independent freethinker who's highly skeptical of authority figures -- especially when they're on the wrong side of the issues I care about. But I'm not afraid to also call into question those with whom I would usually be "on the same page" if and when they, too, are on the wrong side of the issues I care about.

Stop Bashing Dems -- The Voters Didn't Elect Enough of 'Em

What the hell do you expect the Democrats to do when they're boxed in by their lack of a two-thirds majority to override Bush vetoes and the 60 votes required in the Senate to choke off Republican filibusters?

STOP BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS!!! THE BLUNT FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT ELECT ENOUGH DEMOCRATS TO CAPITOL HILL IN 2006 TO NEUTRALIZE BUSH!!!

Compare that to 1986,when the voters not only took control of the Senate away from the Republicans, but they gave Senate Democrats 63 votes to choke off GOP filibusters and House Democrats a nearly veto-proof majority.

Result: Ronald Reagan damn near got his clock cleaned on the Iran-Contra scandal.

We, the voters, have only ourselves to blame for the current stalemate in Washington.

by Skeeter Sanders (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 12:35:21 PM

Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.

Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal ...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Timothy V. GattoTim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.

Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Then Why

Do so many Democrats vote with Republicans? Answer that.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 12:53:38 PM

Re: Do Son Many Democrats Vote With Republicans?

Tim, wake up! In the first place, Congress today is controlled by the Baby Boomers -- who cut their political teeth on the three most polarizing events in modarn American hostory -- the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.

This generation (which I'm a part of) doesn't know the meaning of the word "compromise" -- unless circumstances FORCE them to do so.

Answer me this: When you're outflanked by a president who uses his veto pen, you don't have the two-thirds majority votes required in either house of Congress to override his vetoes and you lack the 60 votes required in the Senate to choke off the opposition party's filibusters, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO???

Face it, Tim, the Democrats are BOXED IN and you know it. Under these circumstances, they have no choice but to compromise, or else they can't get anything done.

It's the same thing as when the Republicans controlled Congress during the bulk of Clinton's presidency. The Republicans, too, lacked the two-thirds majorities in both house of Congress to ovveride Clinton's vetoes and the 60 votes required in the Senate to choke off Democratic filibusters. That forced the GOP to compromise.

So also were the Republicans in 1986-88, when the Democrats had more than enough votes in the Senate to choke off GOP filibusters and were just two votes shy of a veto-proof two-thirds majority in the House, along with a half-dozen maverick House Republicans who opposed President Reagan's agenda -- which forced Reagan to compromise.

Bottom line is: When you don't have the votes in Congress to get your agenda passed -- or to stop the opposing party's agenda -- you have no choice but to compromise, or else nothing gets done.

by Skeeter Sanders (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:05:18 AM

So Why

Did the "Blue-Dog" Democrats vote in lockstep, along with Hillary on the Kyle-Lieberman amend. and so many other freakin neo-con bills? Don't tell me to trust Dems, half of them are in lockstep with the neo-cons. Lookn at just about any foriegn policy move Congress has made!

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:09:59 AM

7 comments

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008