Senate Passes $87 Billion to Iraq (87-12)

C-SPAN 2 breaking, no link yet.

Senators Voting in the Negative: Boxer, Byrd, Edwards, Graham (FL), Harkin, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and Sarbanes.

That's disgusting!

n/t

Will be at their feet. This clusterfuck is only starting.

Bayh is running for reelection next year. I won't be voting for him!

My wonderful Congresswoman Julia Carson, who voted against the war, also voted against this crap. She will be getting my enthusiastic support next year.

Carson votes against Iraq bill

Associated Press
October 17, 2003

Democratic Rep. Julia Carson was the only Indiana member of Congress who voted against an $87 billion bill to fund military operations and rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure passed 303-125 in the House and 87-12 in the Senate Friday.

Democrats Baron Hill and Pete Visclosky voted in favor of the bill, along with Republicans Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Chris Chocola, John Hostettler and Mike Pence. Republican Rep. Mark Souder was listed as not voting.

In the Senate, both Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Richard Lugar voted in favor of the spending bill.

http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/8/084229-4588-102.html

votes were tallied by diebold machines

Sigh.

When it comes to anything Iraq, Murray and Cantwell are lost causes.

A year ago, I talked with a Cantwell staffer who confirmed that 99% of her contituent feedback was opposed to the war resolution.

May all the fruits of this war be justly delivered to those who began it. May all who support it reap their rightful rewards. May our troops be granted safe passage home.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WHERE THE HELL IS LEVIN?

It's official.

We have an Imperial Senate.

Incapable of saying no when the emperor squawks and issues his dictates for money to fuel the imperial conquest.

. .

WASHINGTON – The House, putting concerns for the U. S. troops ahead of questions about administration postwar policies, passed by a comfortable margin legislation granting President Bush's request for $87 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate was set to approve a similar package later Friday, after voting by voice to trim its size to $85.1 billion. They deleted nearly $1.9 billion from the $20.3 billion that Bush wanted for rebuilding Iraq – similar to what the House had done – erasing money for creating Iraqi ZIP codes and other projects that some said seemed frivolous.

Instead of deleting such spending, the House shifted it to other programs in the package. The House vote was 303-125. Bush could have a final version of the legislation on his desk by late next week.

Both houses generally acceded to the White House's spending blueprint with one major exception: the Senate on Thursday defied strong administration pressure and voted to require Iraq to eventually repay half the money set aside for its reconstruction. The House, in a similar vote, narrowly sided with the administration on the loan issue.

House GOP leaders pushed the measure to a final vote Friday over the objections of Democrats who said they still had more than 100 amendments they wanted to offer.

Trimming a whole 1.9 billion. Nice job of careful deliberation and consideration there folks.

and for the original Iraq war resolution, voted for this. It also appears that the bill was supported by AIAPC, and most of the pro-Israel lobby. They want more of our money in Iraq.

What is the source of the overwhelming power of influence Sharon and Israel have on our Congress, and on our foreign policies? I want someone, anyone, to tell me the source of this power. A power so great, it makes otherwise sane and progressive individuals vote to support fascist war-mongers. What is this power?

Why would these Democrats vote to give more money to Bush so that he can expand his powers, and wage more war (don't forget, $67M is supposed to be for the military)? Why would they do ANYTHING to enhance his regime, and help his re-election? Why would they be helping PNAC accomplish their visons of world domination, ME subjugation, and capture of ME oil resources?

Can somebody answer these goddamn questions please, because I, for the life of me, cannot figure it out. What happened to my Party? Who stole it, and where did it go?

:grr:

I am afraid the answer has something to do with heavy duty bribery in the form of campaign contributions. The military-industrial complex does not JUST contribute to Republicans. I think it is not philosophical. I doubt that it is as related to support for Israeli policies as you think it is.

We need to be keeping lists.

The rest should tell us how us where the money
is going to come from to pay for rebuilding Iraq.

Why did so many Democrats vote for this while Democratic presidential candidates voted against it? Are many Congressional Democrats terribly out of touch? Why aren't they backing up our Democratic presidential candidates?

I would have thought that with Edwards, Graham and Kerry voting against it, a whole lot more Dems would have also voted against it.

I have the feeling that maybe Edwards, Graham and Kerry may understand the feeling among voters better than other Dems do because they are out campaigning across the country while other Dems are listening to the television "news" for guidance.

Graham is no longer running for president, so that tells me that it's likely not just pandering that is going on.

Maybe they need to get out their history books and read up on what it means to be the opposition party.

And it gives me a bad feeling too. What the hell gives. It's like half our party has defected to the Republicans. There are forces at work on our congress right now, that should not be there ....

Is AIPAC more important than supporting our candidates for president? WTF is going on here behind the scenes?

Are they willing to lose the election in 2004 for AIPAC? Or is it something different?

There is something that isn't being said and I want to understand that.

They can't even use the excuse of polls. Polls say that most folks didn't want to spend $87B in Iraq. It is my understanding that everyone but these 12 voted *against* the majority of Americans, according to the polls.

What it could be, is that everyone of them is more concerned with their own re-elections, than concerning themselves about our country. Harsh truth. And it's not AIPAC they're standing by, but who AIPAC represents: Israel.

Given that there is only maybe 1% of the entire country that are hard-core pro-Israel supporters, one wouldn't think the Dems would be pandering to them so much. It's something more. My "theory", is that it's the friends the pro-Israel people have in the media. They have influence that is much greater than their numbers would imply, and I think the Dems, knowing the media can make or break a campaign, panders to Israel for this reason.

Regardless, the villan here is not Israel, it is whore politicos who would sell their mother to get re-elected. If it wasn't Israel, it would be someone else, a giant corporation perhaps.

It sucks, and they suck.

gave them great freedom to buck the "support the troops" stigma. Kerry voted responsibly (as always), and like the rest of them represent a very large liberal constituency so that they really had no other choice.

and left the presidential campaign to do so. Are you privy to information that states otherwise, NYfM?

RALEIGH, N.C. - Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina will not run for reelection to the Senate in 2004 so he can concentrate on seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, a state party official said yesterday.

Edwards wrote a letter to state Democratic Party chairwoman Barbara Allen announcing his decision, said Scott Falmlen, state party executive director.

"I... decided that I will not seek reelection to the United States Senate in order to devote all of my energy to running for president," Edwards wrote Allen.

The candidates for President are campaigning for votes in the primaries where the most hard core Democrats will be voting. Those in the Senate will be campaigning for the votes of 50%+ of the total electorate. Like it or not, in the long run this was the right vote to be reelected on.

Look at history and we know this Iraq thing will not work or stop terror. Not once has force done it, you have to get to the reason.

Is this WITH the amendment for the $10 billion loan, or with the $20 billion grant?

What has happened to the leadership of the Democratic party? This vote makes me sick! Dean is now my only hope. I respect the 12 who voted right.

I thought for sure she'd be on the list with these great men that voted against the 87B.

Hasn't she voted nearly 100% for anything and everything Israel wants? Israel wants us in Iraq. Next to the oil, it's the main reason we're in Iraq in the first place. And Israel wanted this bill approved. They want America there (and in Syria and Iran), just like Bush and PNAC want us there.

The question is, why in the hell does she keep supporting these people, knowing they want war, and are willing to destroy our country and our economy to do it? I'd love to hear her reasoning. Frankly, I don't know how they can stand to look themselves in the mirror.

There hasn't even been a vote in the Senate yet!!!!!

That is a bill that is being proposed by Barbara Boxer and is virtually unanimously supported by members of Congress. Many democrats argue that Syria is actually backing terrorism unlike Iraq.

Why do you have a problem with the Syria Accountability Act? Is there any GOOD reason to oppose the bill? Or is it just because you hate Israel and Syria is an enemy of Israel so you therefore you like Syria?

expand his powers to take this country into war. That's why. Why would Dems want to do anything that would give Bush more power? Do you think Dems should be voting with Tom DeLay? Well, he is the #1 sponsor of this bill. Talk about sleep with the devil! Perhaps you haven't heard of PNAC, and their goal, fully backed by Sharon, to invade Syria and Iran? Maybe that's OK with YOU, but it damned sure isn't OK with this progressive!

And as far as "hating Israel" (your words) goes, where in the hell do you get that? I detest Israel's government, and particularly Sharon, and I resent their influence on our government here, and on our foreign policy. But "hate Israel"? No. Got a problem with that? Well to bad. I am a Jew who doesn't think Israel needs a fascist apartheid government, and who also doesn't believe that progressives should support same.

On edit: And instead of "voting/voted" for Syrian sanctions, I should have said "supporting". Sorry for the error.

I've looked through the bill and I see nothing that indicates that Bush can go to war. All the bill does is condemn Syria for its control of Lebanon, development of WMD's, and support of terrorism. I trust that Senators Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, Akaka, Inouye, Corzine, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Sarbanes, Graham, Levin and Murray aren't backing this bill because they are just doing the work of Israel. Syria is a dictatorship that according to Democrats supports terrorism and is a threat to the world and the United States should condemn that and force sanctions on Syria. Nothing in the bill talks about war.

I don't think that just because Tom DeLay supports a bill that we can't support it. It would be really stupid to just imediately oppose anything that he backs. His support is irrelevant to me.

I say that you hate Israel because you seem to think that they control everything that goes on in the world. You talk about them like they are some sort of evil force that is in complete control of US foreign policy that you disagree with. That may not be what you mean but it certainly sounds like you really hate them and that you like Syria because they oppose Israel. Now I am certainly no fan of Israel but I'm just saying that your rhetoric seems a little extreme to me.

or Jews. We hate Sharon and the Likud party because they are fascists.
We hate fascists for being war pigs, not because they have any particular faith.

I'm not so sure about that but the Baath party dictatorship in Syria seems kind of fascist to me.

I could care less what religion they are.

She's the senator from New York!

You can blame many people in the senate for being needlessly Israelicentric reactionarys but she's representing a huge percentage of Jews who for good or bad share these viewpoints.

If she didn't it would be like Kerry joining an Orange Order and supporting actions against Northern Ireland. It would be political suicide.

In essence, what we're doing then, is giving over our foreign policy to another country. According the the Constitution, that is illegal. Granted, oil plays a large part in this movie, but not in her vote, nor that of many of the other Dems.

I suppose it would be too much to ask her, or any of these other senators, to vote the interests of their OWN country first? Heavens forbid we should live long enough to see that happen!! (sarcasm off).

Because someone cries "it would be political suicide!"

Probably right. Maybe we need a few more sacrificial lambs concerned MORE ABOUT STANDING UP AND SAYING WHAT IS RIGHT THEN THEIR POWER TRIP CAREER.

for 2004....tonight I am proud to be a Vermonter but somewhat disappointed with Jim Jeffords. At the same time, I am sad to be an American and even sadder to be a lifelong Democrat. Sen Byrd, bless his heart, expresses in much more eloquence than I ever could, all of my feelings, passion, disappointment and frustration with this administration AND our Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.

How on earth did we ever wind up on this road to disaster...today is Friday, my day to take care of my 4yr old grandaughter as I have every Friday since she was a baby..it is for her that I worry!!
I fear for her future...I fear for all of us..and the United States as we used to know it and I can only hope that my grandaughter does not have to pay for the sins of our leaders.

...why are you disappointed with Jeffords?

this appropriation bill allows Bush* to reallocate any of it. So much for Congressional oversight. And the "plan" was pitiful--so even as it stands, they don't really know all about what is being funded.

Additionally, Congress has never gotten an accounting of money approprianted the last time. As usual, the WH is stonewalling, refusing to be accountable.

So, given that they haven't a CLUE how this money will be used, the votes in favor are DISGUSTING.

I think some Dems probably felt better about voting for it, since the amendment to make $10 a loan instead of a grant passed in the Senate. Problem is, in conference, this may get lost--and it will be GOPers doing the negotiations.

One of the things that enrages me is that grants to Iraq are more than our grants to all the rest of the world. What is this going to do to Americans' generosity and willingness to support foreign aid?-- when it is being used to insure that Bush* can implement HIS "vision" in Iraq, and will probably not create an Iraq that Iraqis want.

On another front, there are problems with setting up banks in Iraq. No one in the world of international banking wants to offer loans to a country when they don't know who will be in charge. And if it's
Chalabi (heaven forbid)--well, he's wanted for bank fraud in Jordan. Nice scenario, isn't it?

Props to him.

when Attorney General John Ashcroft suggested before a senate committee that anyone who questioned anything that the government did in the name of Homeland Security was aiding and abetting terrorison, Patrick Leahy said "Well, Attorney General Ashcroft has the same first amendment rights as the rest of us".

Steve Earle says that when introducing "Christmastime in Washington" on his new live CD.

Looks like at least ONE Senator from California is representing her people. I know that I'm not voting for Feinstein unless there is a puke that could actually beat her running. I would MUCH rather see someone else in her seat in the Senate.

May your sword always strive to punish the unjust.
May your shield always protect the innocent.
And may your eyes always clearly see the difference.

election!

The Dean machine will clean house and senate of these pests.

I thought that I has heard earlier in the week that Leahy was voting yes, so (being from VT) I was relieved to hear him tonight. He sounded great. He and Byrd are gems. Didn't hear the others, but Jeffords (VT) voted no, so batting 2/2.

BTW, good to see Kennedy again, and even Kerry and Edwards this time. No surprise with Lieberman and Gephardt.

If we lose in '04, Bush will probably want to knock those 12 off. I don't think he likes the new dirty dozen.

These are the ones who are staying.

1. Controlled press (check)

2. Detention without trial (check)

3 Secret police (check)

4. High level corruption (check)

5. Rubber stamp congress (check)

check on all five. Well Democracy was nice for the 200 or so years it lasted.

Thanks.

:hi:

11 democrats ... 11 ... it's like the rest of them see a bank robbery in progress and help carry the money out to the getaway car ...

before I go on, let me give a REALLY BIG THANK YOU to John Kerry for finally coming to his senses ... let's not dump all over him because some thought this was just politics ... it took guts to stand with the "old gray haired liberals" ... I hated Kerry's vote on the IWR but, after this vote, I'm taking a real honest second look at him ... he's a long way from an endorsement but i was very impressed with this vote ... congratulations, John ...

now, about staying in the party ... what kind of buffoons do we have "representing us" down in D.C. ??? and just what am i supposed to do about it? i am really giving some very serious thought to joining the Greenies ... don't get me wrong ... my presidential vote will stay with the democrats ... but what's the point of staying in a party that violated my most critical principles when so many dems voted for the IWR ... and that was bad enough ... but to vote for the $87 billion given all that is now known, unbelievable !!

if somebody's got an extra "stay a dem" pep talk lying around, i'm listening ...

Then bring the mountain to Muhammad...

Ok-- not the best analogy--

No--a lot of us don't belong to the party of those Dems who voted for this travesty. That's fine.

Guess what--They don't belong to the Democratic party anymore. They belong to the party of bending over, taking it for their own petty purposes, for politics and for vanity. For ego.

We are the party--they are not. They will learn this in the future--in the meantime we need to make this crystal clear to them in the coming months. No quarter should be given to any of them in their public appearances. They should be questioned on this and other throat-baring votes again and again and again until they realize the depths to which their souls have fallen.

When they show the remorse--then they may be forgiven and given the mercy that they have so egregiously not shown to our troops and the Iraqi citizenry.

(Lord, I get pompous when I'm pissed)

questions I posed in post #12. Seems like we all have a lot of questions here, but hardly ever get any answers. It seems like the congresspeople operate in a vacumn, and we don't mean a rat's ass to them, excepts when they come home whoring for our votes or money.

When they come home this time, I got a very loud, and clear message for them: GET SCREWED!

:grr:

and the horse they rode in on!!!

what a bunch of gutless cocksuckers!!!

I'll have you know, it takes a lot of guts to suck a cock!

--bkl
Oopsie!

She is up for re-election next year. Same with Graham. I guess that that means that he is retiring.

that anyone who voted "no" has no political future?

or is it that people in California or Florida would not support anyone who voted "no" ...

frankly, it seems to me there's a very real shift in american attitudes about spending their money in Iraq while there are so many problems here at home ...

why would this vote suggest to you that he's retiring ?

It definitely is a bad sign about Graham. It will definitely hurt his image as a moderate and will make it hard for him to run for reelection if he does run. Hopefully, he will run but the republicans will definitely use this against him.

Boxer is known as a liberal so I don't know if this really hurts her. The people of California knew that these type of liberal votes is what she was going to do when they elected her unlike Graham who says that he is moderate.

sure, they'll try to say graham "sold out the troops" and voted with "teddy kennedy" ...

but the truth is a really small band of "grown ups" did the right thing here ... whether you're for or against spending the money in Iraq, the reality is there is zero accountability for how it will be spent ... zero ... and trust me, it will not be spent to achieve the advertised goals ... i think americans are beginning to understand this ...

congress has a constitutional obligation to "keep an eye on how the taxpayers' money is spent" ... a constitutional obligation ... "congress is in charge of the purse strings" ... acting to ensure the $87 billion is properly accounted for is neither liberal nor moderate ... it's just plain old good government ...

i'm not worried about graham or any of the other "bright light" democrats who did the right thing ... they are to be congratulated ...

However, I think that others may.

Republicans will say that Graham voted against supporting the troops in Iraq and that could lose him some votes in Florida. The reason that Graham has done so well his because he is a moderate. If he loses this image than he could potentially lose. Most of the senators that voted against that bill were liberal like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer and republicans will try to compare Graham to Kennedy and Boxer. That will hurt him in a moderate state like Florida.

While the argument that the republicans have is false and his vote doesn't mean that he is against the troops, the republicans will definitely use it against him and some people will believe the republicans.

She's been consistent on almost every vote having to do with the Iraqi war. She's a TRUE Democrat and I'm going to work my ass off for this woman to ensure she gets re-elected. Unlike Feinstein, who has voted lock-step with the Republicans, Boxer does the right thing, not what the TV "news" tells her is or is not popular.

Republicans are going to steal tons of Money and leave us bankrupt

:bounce:

Please post a link

302 or so ayes.

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=562

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 220 6 3
DEMOCRATIC 83 118 4
INDEPENDENT 1
TOTALS 303 125 7

Republicans voting no:
Paul (TX)
Otter (ID)
LaTourrette (OH)
Petri (WI)
Tancredo (CO)
Duncan (TN)

It seems very similar to the vote on the war last year.

How can the Democrats expect to get anywhere if their leader in the Senate regularly does what Bush wants.

Which of these 12 would make the best replacement forDaschle?

I can't believe Dayton voted for it. They went through the names at first...for the yeas and I didn't hear Dayton and then they went through the nays and I didn't hear him either. But then a couple of votes came in at the end after that...and Dayton was yea. I couldn't believe it.

No good piece of shit.

Anyhow, Leahy's speech afterwards was pretty damn good. He questioned everything.

Props to Vermont and Massachusettes for standing up to these jackals. Kennedy, Kerry, Jeffords and Leahy.

good luck to him too. We need him to hold his seat.

Edwards and Hollings are retiring next year. Lautenberg and Sarbanes are just too old. Kennedy and Byrd are too old and they are too polarizing. Also, Byrd already was the Democratic leader for 12 years backing the 70s and 80s. Jeffords isn't even technically a democrat. Graham is usually fairly moderate on issues and may retire anyway.

I don't think that Boxer would be a good senate leader. She doesn't really have the best personality to be the face of the democratic party if we want to win outside of liberal bastions like Rhode Island and California. Leahy has already been around in the senate for 30 years and most senate leaders have less experience. Harkin and Kerry could be leader but they both supported the war so I don't think most DUers would like them anyway.

It might be time to change your icon now.

but the candidates referred to are Lieberman and Gephardt. I stand by my prediction Gephardt will be the ultimate nominee.

Seems George Allen had one finger on the reply button the minute that vote went through...

Dear Blah-Blah, yada-yada:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the continued funding of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I appreciate your concerns and value the opportunity to respond.
translation: I don't really give a shit what you wanted, its really all about what BushCo and Halliburton wants.

I support the President's supplemental budget request to appropriate and allocate the necessary funds for the safety of our troops and the sequential steps toward civil government for Iraq. While there is no question that I would prefer that electric and water services be paid for by the Iraqi people, I believe that at this early stage of their reconstruction, grants for law enforcement, border security, telecommunications, health, housing and other infrastructure are appropriate. translation: We need to provide these funds so Dick and George can retire in comfort w/ mighty Halliburton, etc. stock options.

Not long ago we came together as a nation and committed ourselves to the War on Terror and the liberation of the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing that it would not be a short, nor easy task. Whoa now Sen. Allen, we did NOT come together, as a nation nor a world. DO you know how many Americans did not support this illegal venture? Open your fucking eyes dude! NOT IN MY NAME!

Now, we must fulfill our commitment to the citizens of these countries by ensuring their social, political and military stability. We are witness to historic times of rebirth and the creation of democracies within a historically repressive region of the world. It is time to stand behind the democratic ideals that we hold so dear, and ensure that the citizens of these countries have the choice and opportunity to live and prosper within a democratic society. I don't know what you are smoking--did anybody ever stop to think maybe this region, this society does not want a McDo's or Home Despot on every flippin corner?

Politics aside, I am forever grateful to the families who have lost loved ones for our greater security. We shall always remember those courageous men and women who sacrificed all for our freedom. We are a safer nation thanks to these heroes and their patriotic families. However, we must remember that the War on Terror is not over. We have soldiers stationed throughout the world risking their lives on a daily basis to root out terrorist and destroy their deadly networks. The war on terror is one that we must fight and we will win, if we see our military commitments through to the end. NEWS FLASH! Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. Would you PLEASE stop telling us that? It's really getting old.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family. You can look forward all you want George, we're working now to remove your ilk from the great state of Virginia in 2006.

short speech before the vote that the bushies* wanted this $87B now, even though they can't spend it until next year, because now they won't have to get other countries to help. Senator Leahy (I think it was him) said that they want the money now so they won't have to come back and ask for more right before the 2004 election.

Ted Stevens admitted in his rant right after Byrd's speech that we have to stabilize the Middle East because they sit on all the oil. Then he said that a vote against the bill was a vote against the troops. That's went Senator Byrd came out with his "I throw that back into your teeth" and FIE ON THE DOCTINE OF PREEMPTION.

After Byrd and Leahy, I thought Hillary Clinton sounded pretty bad. She said she voted to support the troops, but it was not a vote to support the national government - something like that.

Yep, I was really disappointed with the vote. Daschle, Harry Reid, Durbin, Levin, etc.

The guilty and the cowardly should pay for this fiscally and morally irresponsible act. When more Americans and Iraqis die in the this vile occupation the wor will turn in the next election.

Or maybe they believe that the policy is worthwhile.

starting to REALLY like Durbin :mad: Bastards! Unemployment is horrific here in Illinois, manufacturing jobs are all but disappearing, funds for alternative schooling has been cut, blah, blah, blah. This vote was SO wrong......so very, very wrong!

Jenn

Here is a list of the votes:

Senate- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00400

The House-
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=562


Take names, kick ass...

I cannot believe that Hillary and Schumer both voted for this. I mean THE HYPOCRICY!!!

What exactly is the strategy of the Dems to support this? Allow Bush to dig a deeper hole that will bite him in the ass in 2004? Don't they know they are going to be held accountable as well?

It does no good to come out agaist the occupation and then throw billions more to stay there.

Among fools.

I think it was Gen. Clark who pointed out that the "troop support" portion of this should have been dealt with separately from the "Iraq/Afghan reconstruction" portion. I don't know how these things end up on the same bill but I suspect it is more dirtbag Rethug tactics.

said he wouldn't support a dime for the profits of Halliburton, and he practiced what he preached! go Bob!

I am so upset right now I can't even frame it. I heard that eight republicans voted no. Is this correct? That means that only FOUR democrats voted no and we had literally double that number from the other party for gods sake who were bold enough to stand up to bullshit.

I love you guys, and I'm glad this forum exists, but I swear virtually all my respect for the Democratic party and nearly ever Democratic person in Washington has been reduced to nearly the same level as my feelings about Republicans. I'm ashamed of my party, and I have been for the last three years.

:(

All republicans supported the $85 billion while 11 democrats voted no along with Jim Jeffords.

Those senators were.
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

However, you'll be happy to know that most democrats in the House voted no along with Bernie Sanders and 6 republicans.

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=562

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00400

Kucinich Maintains Consistent Opposition to War, Occupation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 17, 2003
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been the most outspoken opponent of spending another $87 billion on the U.S. occupation of Iraq. He issued a statement opposing this funding the same evening the President proposed it: http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_090703.htm

Tonight Kucinich voted with 124 other members of the House and 12 members of the Senate in an unsuccessful attempt to block the measure. Senators Edwards and Kerry recently joined Kucinich in opposing this spending, but have not yet joined him in proposing an end to the occupation and an exit strategy that would bring U.S. troops home and turn control of the transition over to the United Nations.

Tonight Congressman Kucinich released the following comments:

"A majority in Congress has failed to challenge the Bush Administration on the perpetuation of a mission now widely understood to have been fraudulent. While some of my fellow presidential candidates voted against this bill in the end, their support and the support of some of the candidates who are not members of Congress should have come earlier and stronger. Their voices were dearly missed as opponents of an unjust and destabilizing occupation, while they quibbled about where the funding would come from.

"Those who voted for this war must come to terms with their mistake and work to correct it, rather than seeking a middle ground that does not exist. We must heighten our opposition to this occupation and advance a plan to bring our troops home rather than leaving them to be used for target practice. My fellow Congress Members largely evaded this life-and-death issue in favor of a debate over the source of funding for rebuilding Iraq."


For more information: http://www.kucinich.us
For Rep. Kucinich's Schedule: http://www.kucinich.us/schedule.htm

These are the end results of triangle Clinton used, I am so proud of the freaking fool, I could just shit. Some trees take longer to bear fruit; one must be patient even if one does know the true temperature of warm spit.

When some of these DLC DINO's are also bankrupt and sitting on the curbside, could someone please give them a kick for me too?

Now lets get on with that next round of tax cuts for the rich and well to do. Your Fuehrer is waiting

Sad to think that they even have the gall to call it UNITED states

Does anyone think people that many of the people saying the DLC's have a plan in the back of their mind to sell the rest of us down the river to stave off attacks on them, are really all that alarmist now? :-(

I never expected any help from congress, does anyone really need any focus that they will ever help the common folk out again. Most of them will screw just about anybody over if it means saving even this little thread of their prestige. This vote represents to me the proverbial scratch down the wall into the abyss. Congress has buckled we have no representation for the people in congress anymore as far as I can tell.

I still think we lost it when people like Daschle, Gephardt, Kerry and Clinton sold out at Patriot Act One. Giving into the demands of the opposition because you’re scared is not something that works and is a real disservice. They are not my leaders and I also did not expect this so soon. In some ways this helps and gives the rest heed and some ideal where We the People really stand as far as looking for support from this government that is supposed to be working on the behalf of the People.

We people got to stick together and not expect government to do squat for besides screw us over. These are the same wars that were fought in the Sixties in many ways; we just got to do them all over again

I say get over it already, the government doesn’t work for you , it works for the Corporations

Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, and Barbara Mikulski all voted in favor of this. They are all liberal Democrats, and are not affiliated with the DLC.

......thanks to the extraordinary leadership of The Great Capitulator, Tom Daschle, you've just seen 'exhibit q' of Nader's argument


how do we fire daschle? and mcaulliffe? what purpose do these spineless jack-offs serve? i mean, really?