should DUers condemn any Democrat who supports the $87B?

If a Presidential candidate, in particular, votes in favor of the $87B Iraq ripoff, isn't their candidacy pretty much over?

Seems to me this is a pretty clear line in the sand. There is no misleading false intelligence. There is no post-9-11 terror fad.

Democrats should introduce their own funding bill that takes care of our troops, ends the Halliburton-Dyncorp giveaway, and requires the transition of control in Iraq to multinational forces and the withdrawal of the US. Then the Dems should show solidarity in opposing the Bush theft and supporting their alternative.

...voters will always go for the real thing.

Do you always have such well though out arguments, or is mindless propoganda a specialty of yours?

Breaking News!

Nation building and reconstruction is NOT "Republican-lite"

A sure sign of a superior intelligence.

thanks

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

.

If they support it, they're toast in my book. It's $87 billion now. Tthen they'll ask for another $87 billion in 6 monthsx. There's just no end. They don't have a fuckin' clue what they're doing over there. they'll keep draining us until there's absolutely no money left for any social programs or rebuilding the infrastructure of our country.

we and the Congress should not oblige him with another.

:kick:

Of course, a vote for the Iraq money, particularly if the candidate voted for the war in the first place, is a blank check to flame that candidate until the Convention.

Much as I hate Bush and his administation, imagine 4 or 8 years of Rick Santorum as POTUS. Or Orrin Hatch. Or Tom Delay. Or ... !!! The list goes on.

I honestly think I would pack up and leave the good ol' US of A if Santorum were elected POTUS.

none of those Repukes are running. The choice is basically Bush* or one of the Dems.

..if supported unconditionally, yes. However, as we already know, our soldiers are over there undermanned and underequipped. I hate this war as much as anyone, but I don't want to see them get screwed here anymore than * has already done.

I agree that we should introduce our own spending bill, one that funds body armor and ends the corporate giveaways.

Just my $0.02

In the Defense appropriations bill which totally stripped money from the Navy, Air Force and some from Marines to pay for this!!

This is a false argument . "Hey, look over there, so you won't see the flim-flam we're pulling right now!!"

not because it is fashionable, but because it is right.

What, in the name of Jove, are we sending that much treasure out of the country when it is needed here? Take you pick of any social, infrastructure or entitlement program that needs it more and you see that this Moran 'n Thief is going to bankrupt this country. The only ones that will be rich are those that benefit from Haliburton.

No democrat should vote for this crap. No more.

and would be politically unwise.

Dems need an alternative plan that clearly takes care of our troops. Simply saying "no" to the Bush/PNAC cabal's theft round 2 can easily be spun as lack of support for our troops.

to have all US troops out of Iraq by New Year's Day 2005.

Dems must vote now yes or no on Bush/PNAC's extortion demands.

the $87B is a scam... "supporting the troops" is a phony excuse for a massive spending bill.

When addressing the $87B, Edwards made a statement that he is not willing to give Bush a "blank check". But what they are voting on is in a budget, and it's all laid out, so everyone knows where the money is going. Does Edwards think that none of us are paying attention, they we're not going to know the money has been budgeted?

See, it's things like that that disgust me about some of our Democrats on the hill. They make statements like that during and election campaign and they're going to get hammered. Address what is in the budget, the specific things that you are opposed, or the whole thing if you are opposed and why. But don't act like you'd be passing an $87B blank check out when you've got a budget right in front of you.

Pardon me for sounding off, but sometimes I wonder what our people are thinking. It's things like this that the opposition party will use against us. Maybe I'm alone in observing these things. Sometimes I wonder if it's just me.

Supporting the 87B isn't the same thing as being in favor of the war to begin with. Our only hope of getting out of there at all is regime change here at home.

and its attendant legion of war crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Those who support the Crusade should by all means stand with their fellow Crusaders.

As long as it isn't being paid for by our children and grandchildren. As long as they mandate that Congress should oversee the spending, rather than making it a blanket giveaway to Halliburton, Carlyle, Bechtel, and other Bushlovers.

I think it is either support Bush's request or don't support Bush's request.

looting, plundering, and exploitation of the Iraqi people!

US OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

I will not support ANY Dem who enables US corporations and other evil groups to reap the rewards of the war they pushed!

Sorry- there are moral lines here and I refuse to cross them.

I think that's what you mean.

Thanks ;)

This $87B plan isn't about fixing squat! The day we want to fix squat, let us just write a check to the UN (hell, paying our millions owed in back dues would be a good start) and let more responsible nations work on the reconstruction.

It is time for the rapist to leave the country- any continued US presence there is obscene. Let us pull out the military as the UN moves in (which they refuse to do unless the US gives up control)- our SOLE contribution from now on should be writing reparation checks and hanging our head in SHAME!

There is no excuse for a continued occupation!

and I don't care for more litmus tests to be used against Democrats.

However, there should be strict Congressional oversight on every penny that is spent and a stict accounting of where the money goes. I don't think necessarily all of the 87B should be approved either - I believe some of it is padding added so some of the money can be used for other purposes.

According to Bush we conquered Iraq in order to free its people - so we did them a favor, a big favor. So why should we have to pay - we didn't "break it", we went a long way and at a lot of expense to start "fixing" it, right? And if we went there because the Iraqis couldn't fight for themselves, who's fighting us now? The Iraqis have always had guns, (remember the "tradition" of firing weapons at weddings and birthdays and stuff? Well, you can't have a "tradition" without the guns) so why did we have to "free" them? And now we have to pay for us having "helped" them? I just don't get it.


If a candidate thinks that staying in Iraq to "finish the job" or out of "obligation" is the way to go, then he/she will not be getting my vote, period - now nor in '04.

there is Bush's $87B way or not. Those are the only choices.

To stick to what you suggest, a Dem would have to first vote "no" on the current $87B.

I don't usually have the energy or inclination. I'd like to just be obligated to disagree, thanks, and save condemnation for days when I've had a good night's sleep.

I realize that this may endanger my reputation as an intransigent extremist, but c'est la vie.

Of course, some DU-ers may agree with the policy, and others might not want to condemn Democratic members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

United States is now in a "You Broke it You Buy it" position on Iraq. The United States is now moraly obligated to pay for fixing Iraq.

The Democratic members should be pushing for strict oversite and accounting on every penny spent though. And reminding the people whos fault it is that we now own a broken country in the Middle East.

The Dems should not oppose this funding outright, but instead pass it relunctantly then use the pressure to push for tax increases and undermining Bush on foreign policy matters.

Arguably, the rest is intended to break more shit.

Even the $21B will mostly be for political bribes, PR and exorbitant profit margins for Halliburton and won't fix squat.

The congress must vote yes or no on exactly what Bush/PNAC is demanding.

I say "yes" is unconscionable.

another nation for no damned good reason. We are now occupying that country against the will of that people for no damned good reason. And you want to give more money to that interprise? Why? So that we can oppress them more? So that we can kill more of them? Steal more of their goods and natural resources? So that we can establish ourselves as permanent occupiers and conquer other nations in the region? No thanks, not today. I think we've played at Ghengis Khan enough, let's be a little less Hitler and a little more FDR. Thanks.

That's about how I'd sum it up.

No amount of money is going to patch up anything.
The entire operation was based on Bush's timetable and "window of opportunity" to go head hunting for Saddam. That gut decision to go into war was the downfall of the entire operation.

If Bush had gotten Saddam's head....perhaps he would have toned down the aftermath....but who knows....I actually doubt it.

I think the entire operation from start to finish had the plan of US occupation. Why else, after securing the oil fields and having what was left of his scabbly force contained then proceed to annihilate every last stick of defense equipment they had?

Of course we have to occupy the country, they have absolutely no force left to defend themselves!!!

If you listened to Bush carefully here and there you would pick up the concept that there is clear intent to "rewrite" the history books"...and to allow a "presense" in the area that would reflect US interests, stability in the region and all sorts of other phony dreams.

The concept goes like this in the feeble minds of Bush and Co.....

Who else is going to mess with us? Who's going to stop us? Let's just go in and take care of business.

Except for one little technicality....

No amount of military presense and money is going to stop an entire region of Islamic religious fanatics....
You could consider this just a bigger insult to them....similar to how historically PO'd they are about the Israel apparent Biblical claim to land.

The only way that anything would have been put in the right direction is to fix the ISRAEL situation. Having not fixed that and done what we did in Iraq is simply compounding the overall problem.

This administration just doesn't get it. It started out as an Arab/Israeli situation....now it's a US/Islamic region situation....
unsolvable.....and forever screwed up.....

Getting out IS the only answer.

I do not know all of the details of the $87 billion request, so I don't really feel qualified to give a definitive response. But I think there is a lot of merit to the "We broke it, we need to fix it" argument.

We blew up much of their infrastructure, killed many of their people, and ruined their economy. I kinda think we have a moral responsibility to undo some of the damage which we caused.

I think the Iraqi people can handle the reconstruction better and more cost effectivly than Halliburton, Kellog Brown and root and their no bid contracts.

This is a boondoggle.

I'm not asking aobut the theoretical necessity for us to fix what we broke. This proposal doesn't do that and very little of it is intended for that purpose.

i listened to Max Cleland on C-Span this morning ...

i had never heard him speak before ... he was great ...

he said that our current policy in Iraq cannot secure the peace ... we either need to send over many more troops or turn the whole thing over to the U.N.

it is dead wrong to argue that we should support the request for $87 billion in Iraq because we messed up the country and have "an obligation" ... the correct view is that we should get the hell out of there and use the money we save (i.e. a portion of the money) to help the U.N. rebuild the Iraq ...

the funds we're spending there now will be wasted ... they will help line the pockets of corporations committed to electing bush in 2004 ... the American presence in Iraq as currently constituted will only serve to prolong a destabilized Iraq and help swell the ranks of Al Queda ...

Democrats need to do everything possible to say "NO !!!" to continued funding for the madness of king george ... there is no plan ... there is no hope for success ...

- I don't have to remind you that 'we' were against a preemptive strike against Iraq. The Bushies and the PNAC 'broke it' to further their agenda and enrich Friends of Bush*.

- There has to be a bottom line somewhere. Those who lived through the Vietnam 'police action' know how this scam goes. Very little of this money will actually benefit the 'troops'...and most of it will go towards enriching defense contractors and 'advisors' who helped start the war in the first place.

- Find out exactly how much money is needed to DIRECTLY support the troops...and vote against the pork. That's what I expect the 'loyal opposition' to do.

problem is that that 87Billion isn't for that at all. It's the first of, I think, 5 installments to cement the occupation by propping up puppet Ministries of X,Y,Z that will do our bidding and financing corporate endeavors over there.

None of this money is for the Iraqi people.

I'm ALL for spending that kind of money and MORE to fix the damage we caused but we can only do that by writing a check to the UN and letting someone with a little credibility do it.

The US has lost all its credibility in the matter and this won't change even if the next administration is a Democratic one.

So I'm still no and hell no on this proposal. 100% behind my candidate who has also clearly stated "no".

A yes vote on this is an enablement vote and a rewarding vote.

1. The Kucinich position, which seems to be that since the war was wrong, we should kill it by starving it of funds and bring the troops home next week.

There are a multitude of reasons why this is a poor argument, including the fact that our troops will NOT be coming home any time soon, funds or no funds, and that thanks to El Idiot in the White House now Iraq really IS a training ground for anti-American terrorism that we don't dare turn our backs on.

In other words, #1 is a BAD reason to be against the $87 billion. But then there's reason #2:

2. A large part of that $87 billion is going right into the pockets of contractors who are Bush cronies and campaign contributors, and since Bush's Iraq budget is grotesquely padded, a big chunk of that money will be recycled right back into the Bush re-"election" war chest. In other words, our tax dollars will be used to fortify the power of the Bushies to make slaves of the rest of us.

Now THAT, my dears, is the reason to be against the $87 billion. Yesterday John Edwards declared he would vote against it for this reason -- Somebody's got to say no.

Yet money must be spent. What's needed is for Congress to assert its constitutional authority to control the purse strings, including military purse strings, and take control of allocating and distributing money for troop support and Iraq reconstruction. Bush must not be allowed to have money just to distribute to his cronies.

So for THAT reason, I say -- vote no on the $87 billion.

Sure, we shouldn't be there, but Kucinich is not for just turning the country over to chaos. WE MUST PAY in two ways: by supporting the UN peacekeeping troops that would gradually replace our troops...AND by supporting the reconstruction of what we broke, but that doesn't mean exclusive no-bid contracts to Bush contributors. That means the UN in charge of all contracts, and the Iraqis in charge of how they want to spend their oil money, together with the UN, AND who they want to give oil contracts to.

So please don't mis-state again to make your point.

I've listened to him in the debates AND I went to his web site to read more, and he doesn't say what you say he says.

What he says is NO MONEY, just bring the troops home and let the UN take over. Which is a nice idea as far as it goes, but it sort of ignores reality -- the UN ain't gonna be taking over anytime soon, so the troops will be there for a while, like it or not.

Now, if that isn't what he MEANS, he needs to learn to express himself more carefully.

Plain and simple, Kucinich is demagoging this issue, and I wish he'd either get honest or shut up.

Let me know what part confused you because it's very clear and most people here have had no problems comprehending it. I've bolded the relevant sentences for you but if you need the cartoon version, let me know. Some of our 5th graders are working on one.

7/28/2003

Kucinich Calls for U.N. to Replace U.S. In Iraq

In statements from his Congressional office and on the campaign trail, Kucinich continued today to advocate that U.N. peacekeeping forces replace U.S. troops in Iraq. His stance is in stark contrast to other Democratic candidates; Howard Dean, for example, supports sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq (Meet the Press, 6/22).

Kucinich said today: "This weekend, with the deaths of 5 US troops, we were once again reminded of the dangers facing US troops in what has become a quagmire. To date 243 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. It is time that the United States begins the process of withdrawing our troops, and allow a UN peacekeeping force to take over the reconstruction of Iraq.

"In their rush to war, the Administration failed to adequately prepare for the post-invasion period. Negotiations for an exit must begin now. An exit agreement with the United Nations must involve the US letting go of the contracting process.

"The UN must also take over management, accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. Additionally, a transition from UN control to self- determined governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned. Finally, the Administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction."

http://www.kucinich.us


--

UN in, US out
Kucinich's Plan to Bring Our Troops Home

The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can’t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission.

People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home by New Year’s day, it will cost much less than the President’s, and it will increase American security.

The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination.
The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq’s oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq’s oil resources. ((This seems to be the part that hurts people rationalizing this occupation))
The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion.
Bring US troops home as UN peacekeeping troops rotate into Iraq: The goal is to bring all US troops home by the new year, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal.

As soon as practicable after this address, the UN Security Council would ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my hope that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first US troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeper troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the US (at a rate of two UN peacekeepers for every three US troops). In place of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to provide administrative support to the Iraqi Governing Council, which will direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by US invasion in the immediate term. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person –one vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. The MOU will specify who is to be in charge in case an incident happens during that period. These might be local agreements such as have been used before or they might be for the entire area of operations. By the end of month three, all US troops will have returned home.

In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established for the first time. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.

The US owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the US invasion. The US will also owe a contribution to the UN to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, transparent manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering for top shelf technology from US corporations for Iraq and paid for by US taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. That is precisely what corrupts the Administration’s reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and US taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the US invasion, including compensation for its victims. US taxpayers should not be asked, however, to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.

The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price the Administration has forced the US to pay is America’s moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost our credibility and done serious harm to America’s standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment in most of the world’s countries. And, perhaps most costly of all, the US occupying force serves as a recruiting cause for terrorists and people who wish us ill.

All we can do now is to make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued US military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the UN move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more US causalities, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for Americans.

We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home by the new year, transfer authority to the UN with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and it will save billions over the Administration’s occupation. It will enable the US to think creatively about how the US will deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorist and criminals, who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on this country, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, it will also enable the US to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America.

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress


10/03/2003
Bring Home the Troops
It is time to bring home the troops. It is time to get the UN in and the US out of Iraq. It is time to go to the UN Security Council with a plan which calls for the UN to handle the collection and distribution of all oil revenues for the Iraqi people, with no privatization. Second, let the UN handle the awarding of all contracts - no more Halliburton sweetheart deals. No more war profiteering by Republican contributors and Bush administration cronies. Third, let the UN work to create conditions for Iraqi self governance. It is time for the United States to rejoin the world community in the interests of international security. Every day we pay to stay longer, we stand on the rubble of the lies of the Bush Administration, lies about 9-11 and Iraq, lies about nuclear weapons capability and Iraq, lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. Let the American people know the truth. The truth shall set us free, free from the US occupation of Iraq and free from the Bush administration's occupation of the White House.

Soon voices will cry out across this land and millions will march in the streets demanding that our troops be brought home. A majority of Americans want our troops home. Yet some who are currently called the leading candidates in this race are calling for us to "stay the course," "can't cut and run," and thereby exposing our troops to more danger, our nation to more jeopardy, our budget to greater deficits, our international standing to more condemnation. And this has consequences too for our party. In 2002, for the first time in 40 years, the party out of power (the Democrats) failed to gain seats in an off-year election in Congress. This is directly due to our leadership's failure to challenge the President on the war. When the Democrats show up, the people show up. And they will show up in 2004 and elect a Democratic President and Congress when we show up and challenge the lies and the war.

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903

my computer was friggin up, so I couldn't quite punch the keys fast enough. Great response. UN in, US out!

DK is the man.

It must be kind of humiliating to get caught with your pants down like that, huh? I mean, after you went & shot your mouth off with lines like "Plain and simple, Kucinich is demagoging this issue, and I wish he'd either get honest or shut up...."

Don't you want to tell us how it feels? Or maybe you'd like to continue arguing that Kucinich just says "NO MONEY?" Did you notice the line from his website dated 7/28 where it says "Finally, the Administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction?"

You must have really searched diligently when you went to read his website, to have missed ALL of the cited material. :eyes:

I think you have just witnessed a meme "drop and run".

Kind of amusing isn't it?

As soon as the cartoon version of Kucinich's positions is available, I'll post part of it here because it might help. It will be right at the intellectual level of children who prefer shiny buttons over long paragraphs with all those words in them.

You really have to wonder how it is that grade-schoolers have no trouble understanding it yet voting adults do :scared:

Could intellectual lacuna explain the obsessive fascination with someone else's intelligence and thinking that book intelligence alone qualifies someone to be President ? :shrug:

87 billion is the first down payment. He asked for this much because he doesn't want to have to ask again until after the election.

It sounds like you're against giving him the $87 billion. But the question you're responding to asks if Democrats voting 'Yes' on the appropriation should be condemned for their votes. (You may have confused the question with your feelings on the appropriation.)

If they can make the point they would oppose it unless Bush comes up with a way to pay for it (like rescinding part of his tax break)- then a "no" vote might be able to withstand the hammering it's sure to get come election time. If all the Dems would stand together on this, it might work. But, it looks like Gephardt has already stabbed his coherts in the back by saying he'll vote "yes".

The Democrats who want to go into Iraq and see the "progress" for themselves absolutely must be allowed to do so before the vote.

It is entirely possible that Iraq is "unfixable". Those who have to vote on this issue should have all the facts, not just Bush's handpicked and made-up propaganda. They must have learned something from the IWR.

Also, Congress should make Bush accountable for the spending of the money. They should demand to know where every single penny goes. If Bush won't agree to that, then no dough.

are they accountable? Ole facetious me.

Really, there is so much pork and uncontrolled money in this bill that there is no way they CAN account to the Congress.

occupation. Needless to say, all Republicans & most Democrats will vote for the $87 billion, for exactly the same reasons -- they're corrupt cowards who either overtly support US imperialism, or are just too gutless to say 'No" to it. It's utterly contemptible.

They won't have my vote in the primary, but that's easy for me to say because my guy is Kucinich.

ABB in the end, but I will make a serious reevaluation of my affiliation to the Democratic party.

As for congress... If my Democratic rep supports the proposal as it stands, I will actively campaign against her.

John Edwards may have voted for the War Resolution, but at least he has come to his senses on voting a blank check of $87 Billion to be used for "bribes of foriegn leaders" as Senator Kennedy has said.

Gephardt is finished in the race already, but this will be a moment of truth of Senator John Kerry, won't it?

Should they be condemned. Without hesitation.

Are you trying to make up your own mind or are you just curious? My opinion is that the Dems should demand a very detailed accounting of the money Bush wants for Iraq. They should hold him to it if they give it to them. Politically, the Dems cannot afford to tell Bush to go take a hike.

Commom Cause:

"This week, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) will offer an amendment to the Iraq supplemental funding bill to fully fund HAVA."

Great! Now Common Cause wants me 2 call to demand support 4 this amendment attached to the giveaway???

is there any effort to qualify the $87B theft?

The Dem line is to attach all sorts of qualifications, restrictions and requirements to the money, but there seems to be no organized alternative or effort to actually attach those limitations.

HAve I just missed them? I don't watch C-SPAN 24X7.