Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Rising Star

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Dems to Force Escalation Vote

Posted on Jan 10, 2007
Harry Reid

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

House and Senate Democrats are planning a symbolic vote on Bush’s escalation of the Iraq war, partially to force Republicans to take a stand on the issue. While they haven’t ruled out more aggressive—and meaningful—measures, the Dems agreed that demonstrating their opposition was the least they could do.

New York Times:

Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.

The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.

In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions—which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq—would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war—steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

Read more

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Wayne Smyer, January 11, 2007 at 4:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Did we give of our time and money to get the Democrats elected, for nothing?. We thought that they would put an end to this stupid and useless war! WELL, GUESS WHAT,LOOKS LIKE WE GOT SCREWED BY THE DEMOS! Are they going to “Go Along To Get Along” with the most incompetent and greedy administration in U.S. history! Lwayno, disabled
veteran, Veterans For Peace

Report this

By lawlessone, January 10, 2007 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If the President wants to send more boots to Iraq as cannon fodder, why doesn’t he draft from that long list of incompetent political hacks he keeps nominating to head agencies like FEMA or become judges?  They won’t do any good there, but at least when they got killed, it wouldn’t be the unmitigated tragedy it is every time our real soldiers are wasted.

[more irreverence at]

Report this

By AnnaCatherine, January 10, 2007 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why is everyone so helpless? I don’t believe that Bush can’t be voted down. They’re busy banning smoking somewhere or other. Can’t that wait? I’ve known every president including Roosevelt.They do not go unchallenged. Bush charts new territory. He has screwed up continuously for six years without any consequences. We can’t send our people to war because our leaders are flawed and can’t be made to look bad. Bush wants 2 more years of this and it’s someone else’s problem. That’s too long.

Report this

By George S Semsel, January 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If the Democrats haven’t gotten the message yet on what their voters expect of them, they don’t serve to lead the government. They claim to be a “party of the people.” The people voted them into office because they wanted action NOW! - especially an end to the illegal war killing too many of our good men and women, among too many others.  We’ve all had enough of the wimpiness the Democrats have shown in the recent past. If they let Nushg stomp all over them again, maybe they’re the ones to be impeached along with him.

Report this

By vet240, January 10, 2007 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Dems had better remember what got them in power. No, it’s not just disagreeing on the direction of the Iraq war as some Republican have characterized it. It’s the war period!!! What part of GET OUT NOW! do you not understand.

Report this

By Joe, January 10, 2007 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If impeachment is attempted don’t we have to impeach both Bush and Cheney?  If Bush only then Cheney would become President and then appoint one of his cohorts Vice President and so on.  One would never get rid of the neocons.

Report this

By Rodney Matthews, January 10, 2007 at 11:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s see where everyone stands. The war hawks versus the ones with common sense. Those that vote to continue this escalation can constantly be reminded of the continued loss of life and U.S treasuty. Those folks will be held accountably in the next election.

Report this

By KatieL, January 10, 2007 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And after our funding to Iraq is decreased it will be plausible to end world hunger.  According to the Borgen project it’s cost is only $19 billion annually.  And considering this is one of the Millennium Development Goals agreed upon by global leaders, we need to start the ball rolling.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, January 10, 2007 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Coherent “meaning” fled the White House when Bush was appointed president. Spin-Spend-Subvert has been our new act since. Let’s hope the Dems’ Hill dancings bring us back to our once proud Democratic ballet.

Report this

By DennisD, January 10, 2007 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have no idea how Congress can even think about a domestic agenda without an end to the war. Where would the money come from? Are they just planning on endlessly adding to the national debt? Let’s cut to the chase and have the Constitutional showdown NOW before there’s nothing left of the Constitution.

Report this

By eib, January 10, 2007 at 6:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since this White House has given itself permission to disregard Congress “if they vote the wrong way,” I think the more aggressive measures will be needed soon. 
Impeachment wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook