Letters to the Editor
-
cowards
Obama and clinton both waited untill the the outcome was certain before casting their "votes." Neither spoke out against the bill with any conviction before the vote was taken.
I have already contacted Derbin and Emanuel's offices to inform them that I would not ever consider voting for them in the future (I had epressed my feeling to both of their offices earlier this week). I also told them to remove me from their mailing lists.
I'm only one vote, but its the only way I can hold them accountable.
-
Biden's pious prouncement
is such a cop-out. If there was any honesty in anything connected to this war, we wouldn't be watching the quarterly spectacle of voting for "supplemental" budgets. If we are at war, as the commander guy insists, why isn't the war in our budget? Why isn't the whole cost spelled out and voted for? Why do we insist on doing it piece meal? This is such a sad, shameful chapter in our history, with the courage and sacrifice of soldiers contrasted against the bleak backdrop of gutless, guileless political hacks dickering with their lives.
-
disgust
Can someone please explain to me why the democrats gave Bush a blank check on this war? Does this have an explanation? Is this a tramp?
Please tell me they vote something under their sleeve on this to have voted for this bill.
Please?
Senator Obama and Senator Hillary. Good job.. whether you voted late or didn't release your vote till midnight.. I don't care.. all I care is you voted against this catastrophic bill.
I feel like throwing up.
-
Disgusted
Between the Democratic Presidential canditates cowardice and Rep Boehner's tears yesterday, these politicians make me sick and disgusted.
-
I was against Gore throwing his hat into the ring
because I thought he was doing more good for the country with what he has been doing lately rather than stomping around the country begging for money. I also didn't want to hear the right wing pundits resurrect the inventing internet, love story, big mansion talking points again.
But as impressed as I am with the relative diversity of the democratic slate (especially compared to the old white guy republican panel), I am depressed that the front runners appear to be wandering aimlessly, without firmly taking a stand on anything without checking first which way the wind blows. Richardson and Kucinich may be exceptions but it is doubtful they will ever get the money and party support they need.
Al? Maybe second time is a charm.
-
Biden is playing a different game.
Remember when he "urged" Kerry to vote for the funding that brought us (and him) his flip-flop" label and probably cost him the election(that and a stolen election in Ohio)? Well he's at it again. He's betting that the GOP already has the cameras filming the DEMS who voted otherwise with images of traitor and commie-rat-fink written into the dialog already. He's an egocentric creep with implants. I guess that's the only way he can stare at himself in the mirror...
-
A few things jump out at me here
All those freshmen Democratic senators that we got all excited about when they won in November voted "yea." THAT is the big disappointment to me on this vote.
Another interesting note is both Sam Brownback and Norm Coleman not voting at all. Now THAT'S cowardice. Neither guy wants this vote to come back and hit him in the face in next year's election. Coleman in particular must be really scared.
-
Sorry, no points for any of the Dems
Senators Obama, Clinton and Dodd may believe they have scored points with their meaningless gesture of voting against funding the war. Sadly they were quite aware that the gesture was meaningless and I believe Obama and Clinton did not even announce their decision until it was clear it had no meaning.
Where was Obama's audacity to do the right thing here? They had the power, its called filibuster. It would have been a wonderful gesture if the three of them joined in a filibuster and made a strong statement on why Bush must be stopped. They could have shared the credit and showed doing the right thing was more important then jockeying a slight advantage over their opponent. Or, if only one of them had the courage, more power to him/her. Take the glory (or risk) by yourself. Unfortunately, what we got were empty gestures. No doubt I will vote for whoever the Dems nominate, but I sure would like to see some significant actions from the candidates. After all, isn't that what leadership is?
-
Why were Obama and Clinton so quiet in their stance?
Because almost nobody gives a damn, that's why. A few of us dweebs are really upset, and that's about it. I lost sleep over this, but I don't personally know anyone else who did. Sure, a strong majority of Americans are finally opposed to this war, but that doesn't mean they actually care in any meaningful way. Not enough to actually take any sort of action. In that sense, Clinton and Obama are mirroring the voting populace. They aren't going to stick their necks out just to get a collective yawn. They could filibuster and it would hardly make the evening news.
Another point I would like to make about this vote, is that I think we need to face the fact that too many Democrats in the House and Senate see this war in very similar terms as the President. It's very painful to consider, but it explains a lot. It's not that they are chicken, it's that they agree with the man, in some cases.
-
Biden time
I'm glad you posted the votes. Curious that Chuck Schumer punted the vote. I'm really disappointed that Dick Durbin voted Yea, and am unsurprised that Rahm Emanuel did. Glad that Jan Schakowsky voted "No" -- although it's not a surprise. She rocks -- she's one of the only members of Congress who's been tirelessly critical of the mercenary army we're increasingly relying upon, demanding fiscal accountability from the assorted players, and trying to bring them into the sunshine, and she's been doing it for years. Jan rules.
As for Joe "Coach" Biden, lordy (I've always said he'd be better suited as a coach than a politician). He must've plagiarized somebody else's vote. He probably figures he's got no chance of the presidential nomination, and made a characteristically cack-handed vote.
Is it third party time yet?
Anymore, I feel like maybe we're just going to stay in Iraq indefinitely -- that perhaps the invasion of Iraq was really just a pretext for us to establish a permanent presence in the region. The excuse-go-round keeps spinning: First it was WMDs, then it was overthrowing Hussein, then it was bringing democracy to the region, now it's supporting the troops and keeping Al Qaeda occupied in the region; I'm sure more excuses will appear as required -- but I can't help but think that we're just going to stay there as long as there's oil there to be had, regardless of who is in charge, at least between the two parties.
For all we know, the surge in Iraq is really just a way of getting lots of troops massed near Iran, for the purpose of invasion or to destabilize that country.