Was Kucinich right to join the Repugs in voting against the Iraq Bill?

Should all Democrats have voted against it? Please answer both questions.

Only 15 did: Allen, Baird, Barrow, Boren, Cooper, Kucinich, Lampson, Marshall, Matheson, McNulty, Michaud, Snyder, Stark, Tanner and Taylor.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/14/iraq.war.funding/

Kucinich wants all or nothing. Thanks to him, it will be nothing.

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Or not at all. It's a principle thing with him (which I admire). I don't know why the others voted against.

to fund it.

If it was just a gift to * under the guise of "withdrawl" then I think they SHOULD have voted against it.

Sadly, I'm am not up to speed on this particular bill. Those in the know, please enlighten me.

was a non-binding provision and that it had a start date for withdrawal, but after that the language was more obscured.

Does Congress have the power to 'direct troops' or just fund or not fund wars, I think it is the latter. :shrug:

I sent a scathing email to my rep (Tanner) last week demanding he vote for Cheney impeachment. Included in that email was language requesting we get our troops out of Iraq. Looks like he voted against this bill, but have no idea what his reasons might be. Would like to think he might be jumping on the DK train in his thinking on funding (not funding) this diabolical war!

well, along with the other Repubs :(

There are political considerations, but there are also moral considerations.

if MILLIONS are going MISSING in a war WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT, then why in the holy hell should ANYONE vote for funding that particular war? :crazy:

occupation. Somebody has to be responsible.

The Dems shouldn't have even brought another Iraq spending bill to the floor.

Instead they should be getting a clue like a majority of the American people already have. They should be impeaching cheney and bush for crimes against our country.

(1)Yes and (2)what difference would it make?

Kucinich shouldn't dirty his hands with this garbage.

On the other hand, the other Dems have helped Bush keep this thing going. Hell, they might as well drop the charade and keep paying for this mess.

Too sleepy to make any sense.

g'night! :hi:

There is only ONE question in regards to Kucinich: Are his supporters as whacked out as he is, and either not vote for any other Democratic Party candidate in the general election, or vote for a third party candidate. Either would probably result in a Republican gaining the Whitehouse. And until the collapse the whackos would blame everyone else...gee have we seen that before?

He voted according to his principles. What a novel idea.

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

so you don't get to call anyone an idiot. :P It's funny how it's always people like you who call people idiots. It's people like Larry Craig who are anti-gay. It's war supporters who are "pro-life". It's always like that...always.

Your logic is pretty whacked out as I'm sure kooch and his supporters will support the Dem in the general election.

:rofl:

It's like the people who complain about other people's spelling and misspell words when they do it. :)

I like it when idiotic is kept short.

Thanks!

Love,
whacko

an idiot? He is a Dem...aren't we all here for a common cause? Jeez, that wasn't nice.

He consistently votes against war funding bills. I have no doubt he would have voted for it if it did not include war funding.

He's right to consistently walk his talk.

:shrug:

...set up to draw a veto, which Bush will do, and that's it. It will generate nothing more than talking points, and wastes time that could be spent on real work.

Since it's nothing but a bit of bullshit posturing, voting against it is laudable IMHO.

The bill is nothing more than a political scam.

The 218-203 vote was largely along party lines.

Fifteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the bill while four Republicans voted in favor of it. The vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto, which Bush has threatened.
*****************
The bill states that the primary purpose of the money "should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment."****************

It demands that Bush begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 30 days of passage, with a goal of having American combat troops out of Iraq by December 15, 2008.

For the level of complaining about Democrats not taking a stand, when they do it's amazing how few people here are willing to support them.

I think this is an opportunity to write our representatives and maybe LTTEs and back them up, because they're going to get hell from the Republican machine for this.

Are you ever right on that!

...but, as is so often the case, the statements of principle can be ignored by the Bushistas.

What I am saying is, we KNOW Bush will veto this bill. Why water it down? If you are going to have a symbolic vote, make it meaningful.

we have to stand united on this....the $$ will be there on conditions.thats what we are trying to get......the public will also be aware that its the GOP'ers and "some" Democrats that will not pass this......thats my point.....

I am OK with repeated vetoes, with strings attached to the money, that's part of the game after all.

I guess my take is: the public, having put the Dems in power to create change, are very frustrated that they have been so cautious. In this case, taking a harder line is not risky for us: in fact it would be helpful in shaking off the impression that the Dems aren't doing enough to end the war. The leadership is slow to realize that by playing it so safe, we might lose seats in the next election. After all, if you want change, are you going to vote for someone who isn't going after change? I say, turn the strings into battleship chains. What've we got to lose?

AND, it would have gotten DK's vote to boot.

If there's a withdrawl bill, make it a withdrawl bill that sticks. None of this non-binding stuff. Non-binding means W can spend the money on the war and not withdraw.

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

He is against any bill that continues to fund this illegal occupation. He's been consistent on this issue.

If all democrats had never ever voted for Iraq war funding, the war would have ended many moons ago.

DK is nothing but an idealogue anymore; it's his way or the highway.

This vote only goes to show how innefectual he would be as President.

Dennis wants out of Iraq NOW.....look at the troop withdrawl date in this bill?
If anyone doesn't like Dennis then say so...but if he voted with this bill he would be accused of "flip-flopping". He didn't vote for SCHIP because he wanted ALL children included.....(and that is a BAD thing?)
The man has more integrity than all of them combined...period.