Senate hands 'legislative victory' to 'President' Bush*

[Q]

Senate OKs $87.5 billion Iraq aid package

Approved on voice vote

Monday, November 3, 2003 Posted: 5:54 PM EST (2254 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress voted its final approval Monday for $87.5 billion for U.S. military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan, a day after Americans in Iraq endured their worst casualties since March.

The Senate handed a legislative victory to President Bush by approving the bill on a voice vote, sidestepping the roll call that usually accompanies major legislation.

That underscored the complicated political calculus presented by the measure, which was dominated by popular funds for U.S. forces but also sparked questions about Bush's postwar Iraq policies and record budget deficits at home. - http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/sprj.nilaw.senate.iraq.ap/index.html

------------------

- Another sellout? I give up.

[WilliamPitt]

1. What would you do?

[Q]

3. A voice vote and no roll call? Chickenshits.

- Hell...these guys aren't even following normal legislative procedure. It's nothing more than a rubber stamp process for King George.

- What would 'I' do? I'll quit the senate before I'd give any more 'victories' to the most corrupt 'president' in American history. And I'd DEMAND a full accounting of how the money is spent.

[Capn Sunshine]

17. It was a voice vote among FIVE senators

one "NAY"

[LeahMira]

35. Don't you imagine...

... that if the Senators voted against it the Bush evil gnomes would have made sure they were labeled "unpatriotic" (at least) back home? After all, if they can out a CIA person without much furor, what can they do to a mere Senator? They already brought down a wildly popular President!

[Jawja]

38. We Already Know

what they did to Max Cleland in Georgia and he voted WITH * on the war.

[sendero]

41. I highly doubt...

.. that would play in Peoria. In fact, a lot of Americans felt some of that money should have been loans and they are right.

Remember, this whole little adventure was supposed to be financed with Iraqi oil. Like everything else in this sorry debacle, that was just another lie.

[Jacobin]

6. Arm Iraq's new army?

Like we armed OBL in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

You write about blowback all the time. Why don't you think this will be the mother of all blowbacks.

The administration is in the process of the Iraqization of Iraq....making Iraqi military "responsible" for "security".

Why don't you think this will arm factions who are anxious to fight one another in a civil war?

Why do you think that paying to train and arm Iraq's military won't come back to bite us in the ass?

I'm curious. Why do you think Bush's plan will work?

[Emboldened Chimp]

7. What would Will Pitt do?

Personally, I would've demanded a roll call vote. If forced to participate in a voice vote, I'd complain loudly to the media: namely, by calling my Senate colleagues a bunch of cowards.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

12. Afraid you nailed it

:-(

[Emboldened Chimp]

14. Somehow I doubt that

but we'll let the man speak for himself...

[Spentastic]

37. This is a fair question

I'd like to know what Will would do. Having asked the question of another, I think it's only fair that Mr Pitt lets his own view be known.

Personally I think that the country, senate, media and just about everything else is being affected by momentum. Until someone begins to apply the brakes we'll continue to hurtle towards the abyss.

[judy]

10. I would vote against any funding until:

1 - BushCo gives a complete accounting of the $$ spent including the Saddam billions, where it went and where it's going to go.
2 - Since the above would be probably delivered sometimes around Kingdom Come, I would at the same time push for:
3 - Opening bids to Iraqi companies. An Iraqi company can rebuild a bridge for $100,000, Halliburton does it for $1,000,000. Making sure that all rebuilding jobs go to as many Iraqis as possible. This will help with joblessness over there, and the reigning feeling of unfairness.
4 - I would push hard for relinquishing control to the United Nations, limiting US troops, and letting the UN and Iraqis set up free elections, and I would recognize the Islamic Government that would probably emerge (you make your bed, you lie in it. The Neocons are fanatic Islamists' best friends).
5 - I would push for the US to apologize to the world for waging an illegal war.

Then, I would vote on some funds to be allotted to flying most of the troops back home, and some for Iraq reconstruction.
The final sum would probably be around $20 billion total.

[Q]

18. Letting Iraqis rebuild their OWN country...

...was part of Kennedy's speech from a couple weeks ago. It made a HELL of a lot of sense.

- But what we HAVE is the Bush* Empire occupying Iraq...giving contracts to Friends of Bush*.

- I wonder how much of this money will be kicked back into the 2004 Bush* campaign?

[many a good man]

20. Filibuster. Split the bill in two: one bill for Halliburton and...

the other one for our troops. Demand a voice vote on the Halliburton War Profiteering Act of 2003 .

The power of the purse is one of the only tools Congress has to shape foreign policy. Blank checks don't cut it any more. I wouldn't trust this administration with my child's piggyback, much less the nation's.

[Sagan]

2. yep, give the brat anything he wants..

after all, it's worked SO well so far.

[Nazgul35]

4. wimped out with the voice vote...

where any of the usual suspects there...or do they have plausable deniability....

[Dr Satan]

5. wow

a voice vote? Is that legal?

[Q]

8. Anything and everything is 'legal' when the GOP is in control...

...and a voice vote gives cowardly Democrats (and Republicans) a way out of taking blame for this war profiteering fiasco.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. Too chicken to go on record

As an American, I am embarrased. "Voice votes" should be illegal. Every politicians should go ON RECORD for every piece of legislation voted on. Otherwise, how are we supposed to know who to vote for? Looks? Speeches? Heh, never mind :(

[NewJerseyDem]

21. Voice votes on major legislation are rare

This is definitely not the place for a voice vote. However, we do know which 12 senators voted no on the senate version but we don't know who would have switched their votes now that the loan provision was stripped out of the bill.

Voice votes are fine on minor legislation. There is a lot that passes the senate that every senator approves of and there is no reason to focre a time consuming vote on things where there is no opposition. But, when a bill is so major and controversial it is just wrong to not have a roll call vote.

[GreenInNC]

13. 5 Senators present

Heard on NPR only 5 Senators were present for the vote. 4 voted yes, 1 no. The story didn't mention who was there.

[spanone]

28. Where were our fucking representatives

if this is true then government is a sham.

[NewJerseyDem]

30. Byrd was probably the no vote

I think that Harry Reid was one of they yes votes, he is always on the floor and he supported the money. I think that Byrd was on the floor at the time, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm also guessing that Conrad Burns voted yes because I saw him speaking right after the vote about his Interior Appropriations bill.

[newyawker99]

36. Hi GreenInNC!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[William Seger]

15. Where did that extra $0.5 billion come from?

Do we have to tip Halliburton for delivering that $2.65-a-gallon gas?

[gulliver]

16. Senate Bails Out Bush with $87 Billon of Taxpayer Money

Revised headline.

[Q]

22. Of course Bush* will now be able to brag about 'bipartisan' support...

...for HIS war on some terrorism.

- If Democrats keep handing him victories WHILE ignoring his criminal behavior...it's tantamount to giving him the 2004 election.

[leftofthedial]

19. The Dems should have had an alternative "support the troops" bill

Publicized the hell out of it and voted no on the Thief-in-Chief's extortion package.

But instead, they let themselves be defined by the enemy's position.

The Dem's are not traitors and they are not Repuke-lights. They are just incompetent.

[BeFree]

23. A bunch of slimey cockroaches! Running from a vote!

What load of rat turds! What a bunch of imbeciles we have in DC.

It's time for a slew of new faces in congress. Somehow, someway, the American Sheeple need to be made to puke those bastards from their cozy DC offices. Maybe this 87B will be just the medicine that's needed. What do they call something that makes you puke? Whatever it is, we now have an 87B prescription delivered by congress. Bleahhhhh. Bastards.

[RichM]

27. "emetic" = something that makes you puke

[jfxgillis]

24. Seriously. Don't worry about it.

This was a big-time KICK IN THE FACE to Bush.

Basically, the Senate put Bush on double-secret probation. He was never never never not getting this Supplemental. The fact that he had to threaten a veto and that Frist had to set a voice vote--to prevent GOP defections from becoming an open sore--sends the message "You don't scare us. Or maybe you do, but our constituents scare us more."

[NewJerseyDem]

25. What GOP defections?

All 51 republicans would have voted yes on the supplemental. Also, the democrats could have gotten a roll call vote if they wanted to. It was their choice.

[jfxgillis]

31. Not rilly

Eight voted for the loan provisions first time through.

Obviously, the Dems didn't demand a roll call because they saw no reason to hand Bush a demagogue point, the issue was weakening the Democratic Presidential field, and the point was settled anyway.

You make a valid point, though. I'll think some more.

[spanone]

26. What I would do? Hold him responsible for the frickin' money.

We just gave TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS & CHANGE to Halliburton and the rest of the bush cronies. Where is accountability for this money?

[chromotone]

29. Hold him "responsible...?"

Is that possible? I mean, has it ever been done before? :shrug:

[Khephra]

32. Cockroaches

There...I said it. Someone had to do it.

[Forkboy]

33. lol

:D

[sendero]

40. exactly...

... and I have to disagree with the previous post re "double secret probabion". Exactly WHEN does the Dem Sentate STOP handing Bush* everything he wants on a silver platter? There is NO LEGITIMATE REASON that the last 20 billion could not have been loans. Most of the donors at the "Donors Conference" gave loans or other "strings attached" aid.

For me, serving in the Senate is automatic disqualification for support as presidential candidate. I'm just FED UP with the spinelessness of these roaches.

[Forkboy]

34. Inspiring isn't it?

:puke:

How long oh Lord....

[Q]

39. I guess I just don't 'get' this strategy...

...of giving Bush* most everything he wants...and with NO STRINGS attached.

- It like when Woody Allen says he wins a fight by punching someone in their fist with his face.

[LeahMira]

48. Me either.

I guess I just don't 'get' this strategy...
...of giving Bush* most everything he wants...and with NO STRINGS attached.

I used to think they were choosing their battles and waiting for a time when they really needed to call in favors, but I don't see anyone taking a stand against anything the pResident has asked for so far. What will it take?

OTOH, even if some actually stood up and objected, Democrats are in the minority. Maybe they don't want to be perceived as losing a fight, or maybe they just want to give the administration enough rope to hang itself. Who knows? I sure don't.

[livinontheedge]

42. We missed a chance to force some compromise.

There were enough republicans with misgivings about the grant vs. loan issue that we could have forced Bush to compromise on other issues. A few concessions would have made our party look stronger.

[Q]

43. Only Democrats compromise...not right wing Republicans...

...and that's the way it's been since King George* 'took' office.

- I believe this will be the defining event that will show Bush* as a 'great leader'...the one able to bring the parties 'together' to fight the war on terrorism.

- Except...Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

- The Democrats have signed on to the Bush* Doctrine of preemptive war and are now helping to finance it...absent of the checks and balances demanded by the Constitution.

[ElementaryPenguin]

46. Precisely, Q! The Reich Wing has NEVER been forced to compromise!

Any opposition party with GUTS would DEMAND that the executive branch fully cooperate with the 9-11 and Iraq intelligence investigations, or talk of impeachment nonstop, would expose the election fraud uncovered by Bev Harris and throw their full support behind Rush Holt's bill - and stand up to an incredibly fascist administration, who not only never possessed an overwhelming majority that would grant them a mandate to incessantly press such extreme policies - but actually received considerably less votes in the general election than did their Democratic opponent!! Nearly everything this misadministration has pulled is outrageous, much of it is unconstitutional, and the Dems in Congress need to fight them tooth and nail! Listen up, Dems!! NO MORE DEALS WITH FASCISTS!!

Thank God that DEAN/CLARK/KUCINICH (and Byrd and Kennedy, of course)are standing up to them and doing their best to kick the living shit out of these blood/oil thirsty warmongering monsters!!

[annak110]

49. Exactly! The only thing that really differentiates the Democrats

from the Republicans is that the Democrats are non-partisan.

[paulk]

44. what else could they have done?

Republicans control the Senate. And the House. Any bill that goes into commitee will have any Dem. "compromises" stripped out.

I don't know what you expect these people to do?

[Q]

45. At this point...I don't expect them to do anything...

...they should continue what they've been doing since Bush* took office: lay down on the tracks and accept their fate.

- There's a reason for a TWO-party system. One party is there to keep the other honest. The New Republicans...even when they were the minority...never had a problem calling for hearings and investigations when THEY suspected wrongdoing in the executive branch.

- I expect the Democrats to do their friggin job...as outlined in the Constitution. If they can't even do THAT...they have no business pretending to represent us.

[Serial Mom]

47. Senator Byrd is only one who had it right . .

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=19582


Dems are afraid of being told they do not support the troops, but Byrd said it better than anybody! I totally agree with his assessment of the situation (and BELIEVE his way would have shown MORE support for the troops) and I WISH my reps would have thought the same way.