When Bush vetoes the bill, the Democrats should pass another...

[originalpckelly]

but it will only fund the war for another month.

:-)

[Lint Head]

1. Is there not enough votes to override a veto?

:dem:

[Chichiri]

2. There was barely enough votes for passage.

You need 2/3rds to override a veto.

[originalpckelly]

7. No way in hell.

[Cleita]

3. I think the Dems will come back with another option.

Dumbya has painted himself into a corner by threatening a veto. If he does, there is no funding and a new bill has to be introduced. In the meantime there is no money unless Congress does some short term emergency funding.

I would like to see them refuse funding so that there is no recourse but to end the war and bring the troops home allowing some emergency funding for that. However, I think it's hoping for too much.

[Disturbed]

6. The Dems should eliminate the Pork and send another Bill

with the funding and a deadline for Troop Draw down by Dec. 1, '07. Will the Dems bow to Busholini or stand up to him?

[Cleita]

8. I dunno if they are being extra stealthy or if it's just

business as usual. It's still too early in the game to tell.

[bdamomma]

4. so if he vetos the bill he is screwing himself and the troops too.

and you know he is angry little frat boy, because they are saying no to no oath, no transcripts and behind closed doors for Rove and Miers, now I just got a panicky idea, does anyone think that a deal will be made, we will give the money with no timeline and you give us Rove and Miers, or will the next action be Contempt of Congress.

[BlooInBloo]

5. What an incredible coincidence! That's almost EXACTLY what Matt Yglesias said like 6 hours ago!

Phew - i LOVE cosmic 100% independent completely intellectually-plagiarism-free coincidences like that!

:rofl:

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/the_yglesias_plan/

"What to do if Bush vetos the supplemental that includes a withdrawal deadline? I don't think it'll be viable for the Democrats to just get into a game of chicken with the White House over this issue at this time. So I'd say congress should pass a "clean" supplemental that Bush'll feel compelled to sign, but one designed to last a lot less than a full year. Three months, as proposed by Reps. Cardoza and Ross, seems like a good choice to me. That way in three months time, with public opinion even more against Bush and against the war, he needs to come back and ask for more money. Then Democrats pass another supplemental with a withdrawal provision. If Bush vetos again, then give him another three months eventually.

The point is to try to generate as many votes on this as possible. Either at some point we'll start seeing significant GOP defections (which is the best hope for ending the war while Bush is still president) or else at a minimum GOP incumbents will need to keep casting votes for perpetual war and set themselves up for defeat in 2008."

[originalpckelly]

9. I said a month...

and I thought of it listening to Scarborough Country.

[BlooInBloo]

10. And I said "almost". Hello, plausible deniability!

[beyurslf]

11. They should pass another bill and less money and less time AND

move the withdraw date back a month every time they have to pass another bill.