Will Someone Epxplain Why Democrats Voted to Approve

[pippin]

the $87 billion for Iraq? I am completely baffled.



"But Pelosi's 206-member Democratic caucus was sorely divided. Eighty- three Democrats, including Pelosi's second-in-command, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., joined 220 Republicans in voting for final passage. . .
in the Senate, the final vote was 87 to 12.

California's two Democratic senators split, with Dianne Feinstein voting for the bill and Barbara Boxer against." :wtf:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/18/MNGLC2EG481.DTL

[poskonig]

1. Two Words:

Max Cleland.

[ulysses]

4. yeah, well Max

voted for the Iraq war resolution so that what happened to him wouldn't happen to him. Worked well, no?

[sangha]

6. Tired old canard

It's pretty well known that Cleland's loss had a lot to do with the issue of the state flag. It's even been told to you, but I don't expect to see any consideration of this fact in your posts because that would cut into your argument about the ineffectiveness of voting for the resolution.

[ulysses]

7. huh?

Barnes changed the state flag, not Cleland. Try to have your facts straight before lecturing me about what happened in my state, sangha.

[sangha]

18. Non-responsive

Yes, I know that Barnes changed the flag, but the issue didn't die with Barnes, and Cleland's position on the issue hurt him tremendously.

[ulysses]

19. my point is that

his Iraq vote didn't save him from (unimaginably) being painted as "unpatriotic".

[sangha]

25. Your point has no basis

because the efforts to paint him as "unpatriotic" didn't take hold. It was the flag issue that killed him, not the unpatriotic one.

It's like telling an alcoholic "One day that booze is gonna kill you" and then saying "You see? I told you so!" when the alcoholic gets hit by lightning.

[janekat]

30. How did they paint him as being "unpatriotic" or "soft on terror"?

I'm not quite sure. The conventional wisdom is that is how he lost. Was it because he was seen as NOT being behind the resolution 100%. Was it because ALL of the Dems weren't behind it?

I'm not sure - I didn't follow that race that closely. We need to figure out how this happened.

We all know that the Resolution was b.s. and EVERYONE should have voted against it. BUT we didn't get the message out. We were "drowned out" by the right.

My theory is that the media did Cleland in. THEY spouted a bunch of b.s. and people bought it lock, stock and barrel. We need to get our side out and to overcome the propaganda.

Until we do this our candidates will continue to get beat up on. We will continue to lose.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. The Department of Homeland Security issue was definitely used against him

Most Senate Democrats opposed the Republican version of the bill that created the DoHS because it would not provide civil service protections to many of the Department's jobs. Republicans argued that the departmenet need the ability to get rid of incompetant workers at will in order to protect national security. The Republicans' arguement resonated better with voters. After the midterm elections, Democrats in the Senate agreed to support the Republican version of the bill and it pased.

[sangha]

31. Good point

It's a straw man to claim that "voting for the resolution does NOT make one immune to claims of being unpatriotic" when no one claimed that voting for the resolution would have that effect.

[ulysses]

37. then why *did* he vote for it?

And why did poskonig mention Cleland in relation to the vote for the 87 billion? :shrug:

[sangha]

42. Because

poskonig is as misguided as you are about this. Do you think poskonig's agreement with you proves anything else besides the fact that poskonig agrees with you?

[ulysses]

43. ok, then

Let's go back to the original question. Why did the Dems who voted for the 87 billion do so?

[sangha]

49. Asked and answered

See my post #5

[lostnfound]

54. Not according to the UK Independent article on blackbox voting

Which said that the many excuses given about his loss turned out to be false -- i.e., surprised pollsters concluded that 'angry white men' must have turned out in large numbers because of the flag issue, but later on, poll demographics were released that showed white men did NOT show up in higher quantities, and in fact, only suburban women (usually Cleland supporters) turned out in higher numbers.

[Trahurn]

45. What happened to Max??

Someone please tell me what happened to Max Cleland?? I recently got a letter from him in support of John Kerry. He mentioned his last senate seat race in Georgia where they ran television pictures of him against those of Osama Bin Ladin and Sadam Hussien. It that is all we need to do to get someone defeated? Our troubles are over. Just broadcast pictures of Bush in bed with Bin Ladin and Sadam. In any event what happened to Max and when??? Thanks.

[ixion]

2. proof that many dems are still rolling over on their bellies

when confronted with the evil that is the neocon's PNAC. :-(

[jonnyblitz]

3. Oh please , you aren't really surprised are you?!?!

:eyes:

[cthrumatrix]

11. If we only knew the truth of who has 'sold out" or has other interests

this two party system is a sham...I don't see the democrats against much of what goes on...sure there are a few.... but we as a country are controlled by a two party system that is owned...period.

[knowledgeispower]

15. Dead on

The two party system must go.

Too bad the citizens of our nations are too damn short-sighted to see this. Instead they will cling to the outdated notion that America has the best government in the world. That was true in 1776, but a lot has changed since.

[laura888]

21. This is reason to push HARD for Campaign Finance Reform

I would assume 95% of Americans want reform.

As a democracy, we need to insist on this.

[sangha]

5. There putting the responsibility for Iraq on Bush*

Bush* can't complain that it's the fault of the UN (they unanamously approved his resolution) or Congress. Look at what some of the Dems and the Repukes and the UN representatives are saying. They're all saying that this is Bush*'s chance to prove that he can win the peace.

And if he doesn't do it by Election Day 2004, he's toast. H'es going to hear "$200 billion and you still haven't fixed it"

[KG]

20. $87B to prove a political point?

interesting and creative spin, but driving this country further into a debilitating economic hole to score political points is an indefensible strategy.

[sangha]

27. Your words, not mine.

The fact is, we all have an interest in seeing that Iraq is stabilized and peaceful, and it's Bush*'s job to do that. I don't see the future of Iraq as being nothing more than a "political issue", and neither do you. Neither do the Democrats.

[KG]

32. your implication, not mine.

but feel free to spin away on the head of that pin and split them hairs, sangha. i enjoy reading fiction. :)

[sangha]

35. Someone asked a question, and I posted my opinion

and I did it without misportraying anyone else's words. You, on the other hand, felt a desire to interpret my words. I appreciate the thought, but when I need your assistance, I'll be sure to ask for it.

[Trahurn]

44. Sorry sangha

Sorry sangha I can't agree with you. I have no interest in Bush's personal misadventure in Iraq. In a pre 9/11 Time magazine article, it quoted numerous white house staffers as witnessing Bush's diatribe that he was going to get that F---ing Sadam. Long before 9/11. This is a personal problem with George Bush. He has no interest in improving anything in the world or this country unless it, in the end, serves to benefit him.

[sangha]

48. Excuse me?

Where did I say that it's not a personal problem for Bush*?

[sangha]

8. That's a misleading subject line

Most Dems voted against the $87Billion. Your subject line implies that most, if not all, voted for it.

[pippin]

13. sorry, but eighty three out of

two hundred and six is still eighty three democrats too many. And what's with Diane Feinstein any way?

[sangha]

16. Maybe true, but does that justify misleading

people on DU?

[Skittles]

9. I believe

they think it would be seen as an anti-soldier vote to vote against it and most likely they would be right.

[KG]

10. once again, political expedience trumps doing the right thing.

and it will backrupt this country's future. coz nobody is asking the most important question concerning the 87B. where is it coming from?

because due to another Dem. rollover, the insane tax cuts, the money doesn't exist, no matter how many time they try to say 2+2=7.

it's all massive insanity and delussion, on both side of the aisle.

[welshTerrier2]

17. This is Dean's Argument and It's Wrong

nobody is asking the most important question concerning the 87B. where is it coming from?

the issue is not where the money is coming from ... the issue is where the money is going to ...

and i'll tell you why Dean is wrong ... he's wrong because, even if we reversed the "tax cut for the wealthy" (and i think we should), that money SHOULD NOT BE SPENT TO FURTHER BUSH'S PNAC OBJECTIVES ...

[KG]

24. well, i'm totally against a single dime being spent on this.

but for any one consdering this 87B to be a good idea, the next thought should be where is the $ coming from.

but you can be pretty sure anyone that voted for this couldn't be bothered to ponder that question.

[Flying_Pig]

12. The TRUTH of the matter, and what you'll NEVER hear in the media, is

that Israel had their fingerprints all over that vote. If we take away the need to pay back the Iraqi people for the damage we've done (which I certainly agree we owe), they still approved $67B for military actions!

AIPAC (the main pro-Israel lobby) wanted this bill passed, as did Sharon and Likud. They want as much U.S. money and presence as possible in Iraq, in an effort to bolster their corrupt government's plans to possibly invade Syria and Iran. In addition, the PNAC neocons were backing the whole thing, and many of their principals have direct ties to Israel, with many having worked for Israel's government.

Still, why WOULD these supposed Democrats vote to give the Bush cabal still more money to finance their dreams of ME wars, conquest, and subjugation, and which, might help Bush in his "re-election" efforts? Again, in a word: Israel.

It was the same with Iraq war vote, and it looks like the Syrian Sanctions vote will also be approved, again, with forceful backing by supporters of Israel and their many friends in the press and media. Israel's influence on our foreign policy is staggering. Coupled with Bush's zeal to steal ME oil, the two (Israel and Bush) form an evil partnership, that is leading the world to armageddon-class conflicts.

[knowledgeispower]

14. What was the alternative?

Like it or not, we are in Iraq and we must stay until we set up something resembling a legitimate government. That might even be an impossible task, but thanks to the likes of Bush Co. we are doomed to try it anyway.

So continued operations means more money. I don't have any problem with this funding bill because at this point it is simply necessary. The only problem I have is that a good chunk of that $87 billion is going to go into the coffers of Halliburton, Brown & Root, Bechtel, General Electric, etc....but such is the nature of war.

[KG]

22. well, when you consider that 67B

is intended for futher entrenchment of US military might in the ME, you get the feeling that leaving isn't really what they have in mind.

[knowledgeispower]

34. That doesn't matter

I mean it does, but my point is that the United States now has a moral OBLIGATION to secure and rebuild Iraq. We can't do that without funding. Thus, the funding itself is not the problem. It is how the funding will be used, but the Dems don't have any control over that. So blaming them for passing the bill is silly.

[laura888]

28. you forget we had no problem leaving Liberia

I'm sure that country is in absolute shambles - they are in need of the same infrastructure that we claim is so important for Iraq to have.

[knowledgeispower]

36. We didn't hit Liberia with "shock and awe"

Liberia isn't quite smack in the middle of an extremely volatile region with widespread anti-American sentiment.

The world media isn't watching Liberia to see if the United States really does give two shits about the Iraqi people.

Liberia didn't use to be a government that had a higher literacy rate than the United States, that had a larger percentage of its citizens covered with adequate health care than the United States, that provided free education through medical school (for those that were qualified), and so forth.

In short, we have both a moral and strategic interest in leaving Iraq in better shape than we found it. I certainly agree that we should have just left Iraq alone in the first place, but arguing that now is pointless. We are in this mess for better or worse, and must work to find a reasonable way out of it.

[Ardee]

38. and there you have the reason for the democratic vote

because the democrats have made up their collective mind that they must pander to the corporations for their campaign fundings and much of that money will find its way into corporate coffers.......I find less and less concern for the needs and plight of the american people from my former party and this vote was just one more proof of that.

[Upfront]

55. No Tax Cut Rollback

is my problenm. They should have forced a rollback vote on a tax cut for the rich as a way to fund the Bush* sell out. I have never been more pissed then now at my two Michigan Sen.

[library_max]

56. There are really two issues here.

On our responsibility to Iraq, I agree with you. We broke it, we bought it. We own them, as a nation. And to say $67B is military is to ignore the fact that infrastructure rebuilding cannot take place without basic security and police authority, which doesn't exist right now except for the U.S. military. It ought to be the UN, but it isn't.

The other issue is who will control the money and decide how it is spent and whose pockets it will end up in. The question here is, could Congress have managed a better bill with better controls and restrictions on how the money is spent? I doubt it, but I don't rule it out. I think that's what Kennedy and co. were after - not abandoning Iraq to its fate or dropping it and hoping that the UN would catch it, but forcing a new bill with better provision for control of the money.

The political dilemma is this. Voting for the bill made any Democrat look as if he/she supported Bush's adventurism in Iraq. Voting against it made any Democrat look as if he/she was prepared to let Iraq and the Iraqis go to hell to make political points at Bush's expense.

[janekat]

23. Because the media is NOT doing their job. They should be screaming

about this. If our Congressmen vote against it - they know damn well that it will be politcal suicide. The airwaves will be filled with Fox news, talk radio (which is how people get their news nowadays)screaming about how the Dems don't care about national security and fighting terrorism.

All of the right wingers will go on all of the "talking heads" shows screaming about how the Dems are "unpatriotic" and how this is a time of war.

THAT'S how the Dems lost Congress in 2002. We were out-foxed and manipulated by the right. It will happen over and over again until we get the media back from the wing-nuts.

[pippin]

29. Just Found Article

by John Nichols in Nation that gives the breakdown as to which democrats voted for the appropriation:
"Among the Democrats voting with Bush were former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, and Senator Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut, both Democratic presidential candidates who have been steady supporters of the war. While Gephardt and Lieberman could not bring themselves to disagree with Bush's request, six House Republicans did. Among them were moderates such as Wisconsin's Tom Petri, conservatives such as Tennessee's John Duncan Jr. and Idaho's C.L. "Butch" Otter, and consistent war critic Ron Paul of Texas."

Voting against:

"Kennedy and Byrd were joined by nine Democrats, California's Barbara Boxer, North Carolina's John Edwards, Florida's Bob Graham, Iowa's Tom Harkin, South Carolina's Ernest Hollings, Massachusetts' John Kerry, New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Vermont's Patrick Leahy and Maryland's Paul Sarbanes. Vermont Independent Jim Jeffords joined them in voting "no." Notably, Harkin, Edwards and Kerry voted for the October, 2002, resolution that Bush used as an authorization to invade Iraq. . . "

and the Black Caucus:

"California Democrat Diane Watson, a former diplomat, summed up the sentiments of members of the Black and Progressive caucuses, when she announced, "We cannot afford to give this president another blank check to spend on his Iraq adventure when so many people are suffering through a recession here at home and when our nation's critical infrastructure needs are being neglected. My vote against the Iraq supplemental is a vote for the American people and our troops, who will continue to bear the burden of the president's failed policy."


http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1015

[Flying_Pig]

39. Good article. As I pointed out in post #12 on this thread,...

Israel's fingerprints are all over this. Look at the records of those Democrats who voted for the bill, and you will see voting records almost 100% for anything and everything Israel and its supporters want, and they wanted this $87B approved. Vote in, and vote out, many of these Dems consistently support Israel's interests over those of our own nation! I have a serious problem with that.

And something that also bothers me, is why so many of the congressional Dems failed to support their presidential candidates, most of whom voted against the bill? The exceptions, of course, were Gephardt and Lieberman, both of whom have, over the years, collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from pro-Israel PACs like AIPAC, and have consistently voted to approve everything Israel has asked for.

It is against our constitution to allow a foreign nation to influence the operation of our government in the manner that Israel is doing. It must stop, lest our nation become a mere vassal of the oil companies and Israel, fighting their wars, using our money, and our children as cannon fodder.

[madfloridian]

40. And Florida's Senator Bill Nelson D, voted with Bush again.

And that does not surprise me.

[metisnation]

33. like it or not

the war in the ME may not be reversible at this point the bush junta has pretty much axed that at this point. It is scary to think of what this evil empire might do to stay in power.

[DuctapeFatwa]

41. Because rich men want more money

And other rich men (and women) hope to get a trickle-down.

[RichM]

46. 4 words: No guts, No principles.

It's ridiculous to believe that Democrats are more than modestly different from Republicans. They prove this again and again, by voting pretty much like Republicans. To be precise, the Democrats are the party of the lesser evil, by a margin which can be quantified by looking at the vote:

In the Senate, about 76% of Democrats voted 'Aye,' compared to 100% of Republicans.

In the House, about 42% of Dems voted 'Aye' compared to maybe 97% of Republicans.

So there you have it: Senate Dems are only slightly better than Senate Repubs. In the House, the margin is larger, but still not overwhelming.

[davsand]

47. A large chunk of it is going to our military.

Not all of it, but better than half, is to be used to support (fund)our troops in Iraq. I can't speak for all of the Dems, but I can see where they'd be reluctant to hang our troops over there out to dry.

I hate this war and I hate shrub for sending our folks in there, but I do not feel that the folks in the trenches should be left without food, medical support, or anything else... THEY sure didn't create this mess.

I'm not as pissed about this vote as I was the one that alllowed that puss sack to get us involved in Iraq in the first place. I figure the least we can do is fix the mess we created and keep our soldiers fed while they are getting shot at.

Maybe it is just me--I dunno.

Laura

[jiacinto]

50. Maybe because they didn't want to be perceived as being

anti-troop. Most voters don't hate the military.

[gully]

51. There is a different pattern of thinking on this issue, some feel to say

no on the $ would put our troops in danger?

It's a complex issue that's for sure. I honestly can't say I'd flat out vote no, but I'd want an accounting of the funds before voting yes.

Honestly don't know what I'd do, as I haven't examined the issue at length yet.

[Flying_Pig]

52. kick

:kick:

[Lindacooks]

53. Face it

we broke it, we have to fix it. This is going to balloon the deficit, keep the economy down, highlight all the things in this country that need help and money, and hopefully will be the end of the chimp.