Iraq Sellout: Call Congress Today - UPDATED
On Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will try again to force the House to approve $163 billion more of our tax dollars for the occupation of Iraq - nearly $100 billion for 2008 plus nearly $70 billion more for 2009.
Last week, your passionate calls persuaded several Democrats to vote no and helped delay the vote for a week. Please call your House Representative again today at 202-224-3121! [...]
So it's urgent for everyone to call his or her House Representative (not Senators) today with a simple message: Not One More Penny to Occupy Iraq!
This battle is far from impossible. On January 16, 42 progressive Democrats voted against the last $70 billion blank check. This week, 21 more Democrats promised to vote no (see below). Most Republicans oppose Pelosi's bill because it includes some domestic spending, so a large bloc of progressive Democrats can defeat it ...(more)
[Update] Fantastic!
House blocks Iraq war money and sets pullout plan
Thank you to everyone who contacted their Congressmember.
Nancy + Harry = Vichy
Never forget.
When did Pelosi decide to become a Republican?
PeLOSER!
The army is depleted. Why is there no draft amendment in that bill.
We need to support the troops!
Looks like they are voting now .
146 Dems voted no.
131 gop voted present
It failed.
My Congressman's Boustany. How much good is contacting a GOP Congressman gonna do?
Dear Congressman Klein,
I urge you to please vote against Speaker Pelosi's effort to force Congress to waste another $170 BILLION of our tax dollars on the fiasco in Iraq.
Enough is enough.
I understand that there is some domestic spending measures included in this appropriation, but so be it.
Democrats must be united AGAINST Bush and his war of choice and finally send a clear, definitive message to him that there are no more blank checks forthcoming.
Thanks for your time, Congressman.
Sincerely,
Lame. Instead of doing their job and standing up to the Chimp, Congress is content with funding his war of choice and waiting him out until Jan. 20, 2009. Then they'll close the book on this dark chapter of history called the Bush Administration and pretend it never happened.
Redeployment and interrogation rules passed. 21 billion for new GI bill and extending unemployment benefits voting now and will pass.
Of course, w will veto all three because he is a scumbag.
In other news:
Bad day for conservative bigots, homophobes and Christo-fascists! California court throws out gay marriage ban! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
Won't do me any good either. JoAnn Emerson, MO. And I get no help around here trying to get her defeated. I'm sure she just laughs out loud when she writes her non answering replies to my emails and phone calls. And LA Confidential, I was convinced Pelosi, when she took impeachment off the table, was a Republican. Now you have the President of the United States inserting politics into a speech in Israel, once again looking like the buffoon he is and making us all look like fools. Thanks Nancy.
L.A. Confidential @ 2:
The minute she became speaker. Don't act surprised that she and Harry have supported this regime of evil for 2 years. Dems + power = Repugs.
The thing I don't understand is they're acting like they still don't have the political will of the country behind them. I could see them doing this back in 2003/2004, but not now. Why are they afraid to stand up and cut funding? Maybe they bought the story that it would hurt the troops?
Frybread @ 9:
getalife @ 10:
Hey Frybread, have you heard of Frybrids? you wouldn't happen to be a fellow greasecar enthusiast would you?
http://www.frybrid.com/
getalife @ 10:
The English language does NOT contain a word o describe these animals (sorry animals)
mrplow @ 14:
Political strategy. They have to not open themselves up to criticism of not supporting the troops. Anything done in Congress can be undone, particularly with a large majority. By funding the war, and putting in amendments for timetables to end the war (which the President will veto), such as has happened with this bill, they can play both sides.
Now...do I understand the strategy? Yes. Do I agree with it? No comment.
Keith Oberman noted this on Countdown. The reason for the push is that Bush only proposed funding through the end of his term effectively forcing the next president to request war funding as their first act in office. This bill funds 6 months of the next term allowing the democratic president to begin a withdrawal with existing funding immediately upon taking office. In this case I think Pelosi and Reid are doing the right thing. It is unfortunate that it got shot down since they will likely come in with a smaller bill that will allow the republicans to brand the next president a lier from the start.
Oh, and to continue. THIS is why a line item veto is bad politics.
NO PRESIDENT, has the right to pick and choose those parts of a bill he likes and those he doesn't like. It opens up lawmaking to abuse by an imperial president.
Just think how bad things would be now, if Reagan had gotten the line item veto.
mrplow @ 14:
They have already hurt the troops.
That's it. I truly am disallusioned. You would think the Democrats would get some balls, but no. Nancy and Harry are looking at the Repugs chances in 2008, and they see how dire the Repugs have it. You would think they would stand up for princible, but no, they are salivating over a Democratic take over in every chamber. Maybe in 2009 we can bring them home. Yeah, and I still believe in the Easter Bunny.
bill D @ 16:
Oops, make that two because Iraq funding failed. The other two passed.
Dont just call congress about this bill. Call you congressperson to urge them to replace Pelosi.
what's up with pelosi. is she imbedded or in bed with bush or cheney or rove. what happened to her. is she just plain ignoring her constituency. she needs to pay attention, we have elephantine memories. although i really feel that in view of her age and the possibility of her running for anything, she doesn't give a damn. but nancy, what about your legacy? anything and everything you've ever done that could be construed as good for the country is down the tubes. leave that legacy to your grandchildren. you could take lessons from helen thomas.
Obama (along with nearly every other "moderate" Dem) voted for every, single Iraq funding bill....until after he announced for the WH.
"Change we can believe in"? Yeah..."Change" your vote when its politically expedient.
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.
"On January 16, 42 progressive Democrats voted against the last $70 billion blank check."
"42 progressive Democrats"?? Where'd they come from? Did they unfreeze some from the 1940s?
getalife @ 10:
"Trillions for my parasitic cronies, but not one penny for the public good!" - GWB worldclass asshole! The democrats should be on t.v. everynight telling the american people what a dispicable piece of fucking shit Bush is.
He is the face of the modern repuke party! Everyone of those GOP weasels left in congress have been sucking at his shitpile for 8 years. The voted 100% of the time with chimpy, and still support every anti-american piece of legislation this little fucktard has given us. Just thinking that this aristocratic, idiot-sociopath occupies OUR White House, makes me sick!
so nancy want to saddle the incoming president with boosh baggage.
anon @ 23:
yes!
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Bullshit @ 28:
Ok, the idea of Nancy saddling the president is more than disturbing.
according to open left it was defeated
Open Left Link
L.A. Confidential @ 2:
I wonder the same thing myself. Her and Reid. WTF?
Liberal AND Proud @ 19:
Right....no line item veto allows for riders, pet projects and other wasteful spending to be attached to any bill that has merits. You say abuse by "an imperial president" I say deceit and fraud by corrupt lawmakers.
But then I should expect no less from someone who calls themselves "Liberal and Proud." I hope that you enjoy years of tax increases, government growth, regulation, socialized medicine and the Marxist movement in the country should your golden child Obama get elected and teams up with a left wing controlled congress.
marko @ 32:
From the above..."Not sure where we go from here, but it is really interesting that the war funding was defeated. One 132 Republicans voted "present," while 147 Democrats voted "nay." The net result was a bizarre final tally of 149-141, and a defeat of war funding. Looks like this was a scheme cooked up by Republicans to get Democrats to defeat war funding. Of course, since the Republicans themselves didn't vote for it, I'm not sure what their genius plan is here."
My view is 1) polling..the war is polling VERY badly and it is reflected in the three straight races and Republican losses. That's at a macro level. You would have to look at the micro level and exam each vote individually and the demographics of the constituents for each member, whether GOP or Democrat. Everyone is fighting for reelection, so voting "Present" maybe expedient as you did not vote AGAINST the funding and could make that argument to your constituents. The same thing applies on the Dem side. Voting "nay" may be the smart vote for those in areas where they are immune to the "voting against the troops" argument.
2) As to where we go from here. The GOP doesn't give a shit about GW Bush. He's yesterday's news. Politicians fight for their own political lives, and GW Bush's is OVER. So they will distance themselves as best they can. The Dems as a group are testing the waters by knocking down this bill. They are testing to see if the "voting against the troops" argument still "sticks" at a national level.
The only support we should give our troops is the money to come home to their families and loved ones immediately.
end transmission...
CommonSense @ 34:
And I would expect nothing less from someone called "CommonSense" that obviously has none, nor any knowledge of how REPRESENTATIVE government works.
YOUR King is dead...Long live YOUR King.
People like you would have called our founding fathers "terrorists".
This is my first comment on Crooks and Liars. You guys do realize that Pelosi forced the vote so it would fail right? The Republicans tried to stop the vote.
Bush and the rest of NEOCons care only about killing off species so they can let thier own children out of the zoo to rape what is left. YouFuckards in FBI Know they will kill you so have a nice day while you sit in comfi office chair with AC.
Why why why Nancy???? What the hell are you trying to prove...
Your're not making any points with the republicans, you're not doing a damned thing 'for' the troops in reality.. And you're just further pissing off all the progressives and other dems by contining to cowtow to George Bush's economy busting, nation reputation shredding bullshit war... So I am left asking once again.. Why???? What's yer point lady????? JD
It failed.
Is Cindy Sheehan still running for Pelosi's seat? The good speaker needs to lose her job.
Pelosi's direct numbers:
call now thank you no more $ for this war on humanity
San Francisco office: 415 556-4863 DC: 20225-4965
My congressman DeFazio is already on the list. He is the best!
ACK! typo
Pelosi's SF office 415 556-4862
DC 202-225-4965
sorry.
jhill3rd@38;
No I didn't actually know that, thanks for the info.. I'm still a little unclear what the tactical strategy on this is all about....JD
Paul @ 42:
She fears becoming president and losing her speakership and senoirity.
Vote her out...she's a bum!
She is not doing what she was hired to do.
Pelosi may have intentionaly packet the bill with domestic spending so that many Republicans would vote against it.
If you're calling a conservative republican remind him of all the domestic spending in the bill.
Call it pork money.
mrplow @ 14:
maby when you get your head out of your ass youll see thier aint no democrats anymore !
Johnny2Bad @ 25:
my sentiments exactly ! sell outs the lot of them!
tyree @ 50:
Oooh, tyree's coming for me! Lookout!
Looks like Pelosi knew what she was doing on this one afterall. She pissed off a bunch of Repukes and they all voted present, torpedoing the bill. Should be a new thread up about that soon.
mrplow @ 52:
sorry johnny look thiers no poop on my hands havent laid a rubber glove on yah! proof positive!
I actually called my representative, Brad Sherman D-California, to ask him to vote no and according to Yahoo's vote tracker, he voted yes. This was instructive since now I know which Representative I won't be voting for next congressional election.
its been over two yrs and these dipshits we put in to start getting us out of iraq and the best they did for us was nothing worth voteing them in for , just as next yr and the next jerk we have as a president will be telling you what a mistake it would be to withdraw to quickly from iraq ,untill his her next term!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! like that plow boy?
tyree @ 55:
Actually, I kind of do. Isn't that odd...
mrplow @ 56:
no ive found you to be a strangely odd fellow from the first time you stalked me , sigh guess thier will allways be someone offering candy to kids near a school house!
General_Rennenkampf @ 7:
It all depends on why you tell him to vote it down. If you tell your GOP Congressman to vote it down because of "outrageous domestic spending" he'll be more likely to go along than if you tell him to vote against it to defund the war. It's all in the approach.
It is a weird disconnect that some of the same people who don't want to spend one penny more
on this stupid and horrible war are enthusiastic about the candidacy of a guy who will continue to
do just that.
He spoke against it in 2002 - yeah we all know that.
Since then, Obanter has funded it to the hilt.
He thinks Lieberman is a swell guy with a "keen intellect". (!)
He has no passion to end the damn thing.
McCain says out by 2013.
What say you BO?
Can you say 2012?
Can I hear someone say, "RIGHT THE F-UCK N O W"?
Anybody?
Looks like the House did good today.
House blocks Iraq war money and sets pullout plan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080515/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc
Thank you to everyone who contacted their congresscritter.
Johnny2Bad @ 25:
Absolutely.
Obama = McCain = Bush
We are being played for suckers.
The "change" is like a different photo on the same old stinking box of corn flakes.
So we can declare victory and bring the troops now then.
Aaron @ 58:
Thanks for the suggestion. At the next attempt, I'll try it.
Maybe they are finally tired of being in the toilet poll-wise. The people of America must be represented. Wasn't there a tea party way back when? We could have an oil party or bomb party today. That is, for those who don't know history, we throw the above in the nearest body of water. We are the biggest users of oil and all we manufacture anymore is weapons.
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Thursday the five-year-old war in Iraq can be won in four more years."
Well cripes! Why didn't he say so? This whole time I thought it was going to take 100 years. Since it only costs us around $133 bn/year, we're talking a big difference in the total expense. 100 years at that rate would be well over $13 trillion dollars, but if it really only lasts 9 years, we're talking a savings of over $12 trillion dollars. How can we pass up a deal like that? Who wouldn't want to save that kind of dough? See, McCain really does know economics.
And somebody said democracy's dead in the US. Badgering the congresspeople works. Way to shift the tides, people!
Comments are closed on this entry