Voice vote on Iraq expenditure: A bipartisan disgrace

Yet another watershed vote, and this time ninety-four senators did not even show up! What if Byrd had demanded a roll-call?! How many were even in DC?

One thread yesterday said it was a reactionary and Republican/corporate idea to hate politicians as a class. In principle, I agree!

But what most people have come to hate is not the abstract ideal of politicians, but the actual politicians we are stuck with. One of the qualities that people have come to hate the most is the way most of them run away from responsibility, for anything.

The voice-vote on the 87-billion-dollar expenditure for Iraq is a new low point for the Congress and for this land. After the (hysterical) reaction to anthrax - the (non) reaction to Shadow Government - after all the overwhelming votes for Bush's most fascist initiatives - after the "Freedom Fries" and "Invade-the-Netherlands" resolutions - I am amazed that they can still find ways to set even lower standards!

It's time for Caligula to finally appoint his horse to the Senate, so that we can stop pretending the legislature exists except as an echo chamber.

Imagine, if just four more on the Republican side had failed to show, it would have been a 1-1 tie!

Byrd should have demanded a roll-call vote, but I guess even he couldn't bear the embarrassment this would bring down on Democrats as well as Republicans.

From Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1081-2003Nov4.html

"By rejecting the normal option of a recorded vote, America's senators decided that they did not want to be held individually accountable for our continuing presence in Iraq. That decision speaks far louder than their decision to actually fund our forces there and the Iraqi reconstruction."

Robert Byrd was the ONLY Senator to say NO - and the one of 6 senators to actually show up for the Voice Vote

It's time for Caligula to finally appoint his horse to the Senate, so that we can stop pretending the legislature exists except as an echo chamber.

But there's already a bunch of whores in the Senate! You can tell who they are by the "R" after their names.

Oh, wait....you said "horse" not "whores". <latella>Never mind</latella>

I have to wonder whether you read the original post. By reframing the situation in terms of simple partisanship, you have missed the poster's point. These are bipartisan actions and ideas. Thus, an "R" after the name, your sole perception in your reply, is half the story. That ensures a repeat, and another, and another ...

I couldn't believe they way they all rolled over.

This decision being one of the most important in their careers - and so many didn't show up.

I'm thoroughly disgusted.

But what's the payoff for them for not dodging responsibility? In what way do we encourage them to display backbone or caring? Put simply: we don't.

Supposedly DUers are 'more' Democratic than the average Jane and Joe. Party stalwarts, pathfinders. But is the one and only guy who has shown real responsibility and political backbone the leader here?

Nope.

The leader is a millionaire, privileged-from-birth chickenhawk with a lot of VERY conservative quotes in the public record, a love for keeping his wealthy-elite peers taken care of, and a cadre of defenders whose behavior often calls to mind that of the GOP brownshirts who stopped the counting in Florida.

I'm not sure whom you're trying to smear here, Dean or Clark? I guess Dean, since Clark was in the military.

How is he a Chickenhawk? He was against the war.

The canonical definition of a chickenhawk is someone who avoided military service while being okay with war as a solution to disputes. Dean chose to avoid service in VietNam and, up until the Conason interview for Salon published 20th Feb of this year, was on record as being in favor of the invasion.

And simply saying something verifiable is not 'smearing'. Smearing requires greasy innuendo, such as asking someone whether they'd still vote for Dean if it were to come out that he'd quit his medical practice to avoid a scandal involving one of his women patients.

but who where the other Senators that voted No?
What cowards! I heard on NPR yesterday that Frist arranged for the voice vote.
I know the reason why because they are more worried about being elected than actually doing the people's business. I think this will backfire on them even the Republicans calllers into C-Span where against this 87 billion dollar give away!
This money was not needed for the military until December from what I remember hearing at the Senators meeting with Bremer (sp?)

I swear, this is so wrong and these people expect the poor and the middle class to carry this TAX burden or with Republicans in control it's lack of resources for us at home?

I don't appreciate these International Gangsters privatizing the Iraqi peoples resources it's wrong and they aren't allowing the Iraqi people to governor their ownselves. I don't see where they had a vote on it. Why not? We are talking the talk about them being allowed to have democracy but not walking the walk.

What these gangsters want is 'crony capitalism' in Iraq and it isn't going to work it isn't working here but the International Gangsters want to try their experiment on the Iraqi people at ours and their expense these gangsters are Un-American!

NOBODY voted "no" or "yes." That's the point of a voice vote. The ayes have it, and that's what will be recorded, no more than that.

But that 94 out of 100 don't even show up!

The vote was 5-1, IIRC. Only Byrd voted against it.

I'm already composing some mail to Feingold and Kohl demanding an explanation for their absence from that vote. You all should do the same (but with your own senators, of course).

This has to be a new record for Congressional irresponsibility. $87 BILLION dollars allocated on the vote of 6 people. Disgraceful (but unfortunately, I'm almost used to this sort of irresponsibility at this point...).

Six senators?

about the voice vote in Iraq. Anyone have a link? I see the one by the Washington Post. I'm looking for something that says 6 senators.

t

Thanks.

I hope other people see this too. Neither MSNBC nor CNN seemed to have a story on this.