Why should Dems go through a charade if a veto is inevitable? It's STUPID
Why waste time and money playing make believe if a veto is inevitable.
Democrats who face realities like veto proof majorities aren't spineless they're just not playing the game of dupe the rube by putting up a phony fight they know they can't win.
What's the issue with just not sending a funding bill to the White House? If you can't defund the war with a god-damned explicit bill for withdrawal, just don't send any ()*#@ing money.
Grab the MSM by the throat and trumpet loud and clear and every single time that the Dems *tried* to fund the war, but that the asshole in the WH didn't want their funding.
19. I think that they should submit the original bill
if he vetos that bill, send him a bill with $1,000 less fuding and one day sooner for pullout, but I guess they should also include funding to be used only to get our troops home.
12. I totally do not understand how this is a cave in or a failure for Dems.
They sending Bush a bill with the money he wants and waivable benchmarks. It's my understanding they are including the minimum wage hike in the bill.
Bush signs it AMERICA gets something great - a wage hike - something that would never ever be possible otherwise -- and it won't mean diddly squat either way on Iraq because Bush WILL find a way to finance Iraq for 3 more months with or without this money.
Bush vetoes it because of the min. wage -- he looks like a total f'ing schmuck to pretty much everyone in America.
Seems like a freakin' win/win situation for Dems to me.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.