  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Veto StandsPosted on May 2, 2007Congress regrouped Wednesday to vote in response to President Bush’s veto of the troop pullout bill on Tuesday, but the bill’s supporters failed to win the two-thirds of House votes needed to override the veto. Now Democrats, responsible for 220 of the 222 votes to override (203 members voted in opposition), have to take a different tack.
Previous item: L.A. Police, Crowds Clash at May Day Rally Next item: Furor in Afghanistan Over Civilian Deaths Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
A Plague Upon the White House
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Sharon Ash, May 3, 2007 at 3:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Congress needs to send Bush a note and tell him that Laura needs to get busy baking cookies, because if he wants any more funds for his illegal and immoral war, he’s going to need to have a big bake sale to raise the money to pay for it. Americans need to maintain their resolve on this and insist that Congress make no compromises on this issue. No more funds for the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. End of discussion.
Report thisBy Lord B, May 3, 2007 at 9:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Again, why does the Congress have to pass ANY bill funding this occupation for another year??? Congress can let it DIE and the troops will be forced to come home for LACK OF FUNDING!!!!
Dems should TAKE NOTE! Otherwise, Pelosi is nothing but a HIPOCRITE!
Report thisBy Novista, May 3, 2007 at 5:49 am #
I’m glad about the veto.
If you look past the talking points, there’s an 800-pound gorilla in the fine print. Even after a timeline withdrawal, an estimated 60,000 troops would be left in Iraq, to provide security for US personnel left in country, like at the Great White Elephant embassy and the 4 or 5 permanent military bases.
As things stand, there’s money for the troops through June at least. In the runup to the war, as part of the ‘reconstruction planning’ Bush divered $400 million from NSA. He could probably access more tax dollars squirreled away, maybe even find the 2.3 trillion the Pentagon could not account for under Rumsfeld.
And does anyone believe the leaky al-Maliki alleged government could meet any benchmarks? Feh!
Report thisBy gsemsel, May 3, 2007 at 4:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Have no fear. As usual, the Dems will cave to the master, the war will be funded, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, there will be no universal health care, our schools will continue to be jokes, everyone will own a handgun or two or three . . . So it goes.
Report thisBy cann4ing, May 2, 2007 at 10:45 pm #
Re comment #67822 by John Weinell. You are partially right. The best solution is contained in HR 1234 (Kucinich) that not only cuts off funds, but mandates a withdrawal of all troops, all contractors and a restoration of Iraq’s economy and its oil to its rightful owner, the Iraqi people. Short of that, a bare majority is all that is needed to block funding in the House. Only 41 votes would be needed in the Senate to achieve the same result. That is the number of votes needed to block a cloture motion, permitting the Senate to fillibuster any spending bill into oblivion. But a vote to cut-off funds means ending the flow of money to the military-industrial complex. Since many Democrats are scrounging for corporate funds to support their campaigns in 2008, only an overwhelming outcry from the American public--perhaps accompanied by rapidly rising poll numbers for Kucinich and Gravel, can force these crooked politicians to straighten out.
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, May 2, 2007 at 10:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I would like to comment on #67822 by John Weinell, I totally agree, and since the Congress before the Dems came into power did nothing, this time doing nothing will acomplish something.
Margaret Currey from Vancouver, Washington
Report thisBy M Currey, May 2, 2007 at 9:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The veto was a foregoing conclusion, the thing to do is just keep after it, keep sending to the president the same thing he vetoed, say the same thing just word it differently, I would guess that Bush/Shrub does not read what he signs he probably has someone give him the highlights and does as he is told, someone should get him better handlers.
Maybe there should be an Impeachment started including Chaney because he is the one who wanted this war, after all Runsfeld is gone and Gonzales is going.
Report thisBy QuyTran, May 2, 2007 at 8:09 pm #
Viva the King ! You’re always won ! Just keep killing our troops and innocent people in anywhere your invasion mighty forces are present.
Report thisBy John Weinell, May 2, 2007 at 6:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Democrats can stop this immoral war without a two thirds vote of congress. Just do nothing. Do not pass a funding bill. No funding bill no veto. No money no war. End this insanity. Sit on your hands and do nothing. Make Bush regret his veto by doing nothing. Save both American and Iraqi lives by doing nothing.
Report this