218-212

By the hair of their chinny chin chin.

The House of Representatives on Friday passed a spending bill that includes a firm deadline -- August 31, 2008 -- for combat troops to leave Iraq.

President Bush, who has already said he would veto the bill, was scheduled to make a statement at 1:45 p.m. ET.

The measure also is unlikely to pass the Senate.

Here's the roll call.

Update: Democrats voting "no":

John Barrow
Dan Boren
Lincoln Davis
Kucinich
Barbar Lee
John Lewis
Jim Marshall
Jim Matheson
Michael McNulty
Mike Michaud
Gene Taylor
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Lynn Woolsey

Republicans voting "yes"

Walter Jones
Wayne Gilchrest

Update: Rep. Murtha's speech:

Rep. Murphy's speech:

Many more speeches at Pelosi's blog.

•  Here comes the flood...

  Here comes the flood of "immoral sell-out" comments.

  sPh

  by sphealey on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:01 AM PDT

  •  Maybe, but..

    it is interesting that we seem to have as many hold-outs on the left flank as on the right (blue dogs).

    by OdinsEye2k on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:30:30 AM PDT

    •  I Would Have Loved

      to see a more united party and a bigger margin of consensus on the vote.

      But I am also happy to see that unlike the Haster-DeLay Regime where strong arm tactics were used that Pelosi and our other party leaders actually "respect" the decision of how others want to vote be they on the Left or Right of our party.

      That "respect" is a moral victory for all of us.

      by talex on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:43:56 AM PDT

      •  But didn't you hear?

        It was, by and large, the Dems who voted for an end-date and the Repubs who voted against it. At least that's how it's being portrayed:

        A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

        Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

        We'll see what comes of all this. But if it's important that Dems are recognized for trying to bring this war to an end and that Repubs are recognized for trying to perpetuate it, then this is a start.

        by machopicasso on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:21:40 AM PDT

      •  To be honest

        many of the holdouts were convinced through 'sweeteners' to their districts.  It's not a new tactic but not much different than strong-arming.

        by jpeskoff on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:30:18 AM PDT

        •  Needed Sweeteners

          like restoring part of the funds for State run children's healthcare programs that Bush took away can hardly be compared to strong-arming.

          When I say strong arming I am talking about the well known threats like telling members that they would not receive RNC funds for reelection - or threatening removal from committee seats, etc.

          Pelosi did none of that.

          by talex on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:21:24 AM PDT

    •  how we must frame this:

      "This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families," Gates said. "I urge the Congress to pass the supplemental as soon as possible."

      Snow also called for quick action.

      "The clock is ticking," he said. "Money is going to run out for our forces in Iraq sometime next month."

      gee, all Gates and Snow have to do here is to stop bellyaching and just tell Bush to sign this bill into law asap and then there will be no "disruptions"!

      Now we need to stick by the frame that it is Bush who is denying the funding here!

      I hope that inherent in this Pelosi/Murtha/Obey compromise bill plan is the implicit agreement that all sorts of moderate Ellen Tauscher-type New Dems will now vigorously take to the air with exactly that message, that it is Bush who is holding up funding and who is deploying unprepared American troops, so Bush should just shut up and sign this funding bill asap!

      Letting Bush always frame this debate stops NOW!

      The Ellen Tauscher New Dem wing got their bill; they better be out on the airwaves vigorously defending this bill and attacking Bush 24 x 7 now.

      by we be jamming on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:37:24 AM PDT

  •  Varieties of Cowardice

    Of the Democratic "no" votes, Barrow, Boren, Davis, Marshall, Matheson, Michaud, and Taylor are Blue Dogs.  Nobody likes them around here; nobody should.

    But let's look at those other nays.

    Kudos to Congressman John Lewis, a true American hero throughout his life, and to Dennis Kucinich, and Mike McNulty.

    But, as was reported here last night, Congresswomen Watson, Woolsey, Waters, and Lee, all from California, actively urged their colleagues to vote FOR this measure, and then cast meaningless votes against it with a majority assured in favor.

    Of the many forms of political cowardice on display today, that seems the worse.

    If you feel as I, and millions of other Americans, do that writing an eighteen-month blank check for this war is unconscionable, working to get that check signed while pretending to oppose it is truly despicable.

    by GreenSooner on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

    •  But...

      its one vote, with many to follow. How is voting your conscience cowardice?

      by whataboutbob on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:35:59 AM PDT

      •  How Is This Voting One's Conscience?

        These Congresspeople worked for the passage of this bill. Obviously, their conscience didn't tell them to defeat it.

        These votes were simulated votes of conscience. These lawmakers come from districts that want us out of Iraq now.  

        Voting to provide political cover for oneself is not voting one's conscience.

        This is a typical way that the Democratic Party's "progressives" operate on close votes. For example, look at all the trade deal votes that pass by razor thin margins. The leadership lines up enough Democrats to constitute a "free trade" majority, and then release a number of prominent progressives to cast meaningless votes.

        by GreenSooner on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:41:39 AM PDT

        •  Lee & Woolsey...

          want the war to end now...they voted their conscinece...but would have said yes to support Pelosi. I can understand you have strong feelings about it, but still don't see how is that cowardice.

          by whataboutbob on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:54:59 AM PDT

          •  More like hypocrisy, maybe

            But then that's a form of cowardice, probably.  If their conscience said that voting No was the right thing to do, then encouraging others to vote Yes (do the wrong thing) can only be called hypocritical.

            by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:00:17 AM PDT

            •  dennis

              http://www.9news.com/...

              ...
              The leadership had to win over anti-war Democrats who felt that the measure didn't go far enough. But some of the war's most liberal critics said they weren't buying it.

              "Four years ago we were told we had no alternative but to go to war. Now we're told we have no alternative but to continue to war for another year or two," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said before the vote "The fact of the matter is we do have alternatives."

              Kucinich said, "Congress has the power to stop funding the war. That's what we should do. That's what we should have done and that's what I'm going to continue to work toward. We have to get out of Iraq, period."
              ...

              later this year, when bush uses this money to bomb iran, yall will realize dennis kucincih was right, (yet again).

              this money will kill. this vote will kill. this vote is a war crime.

              by carlos oaxaca on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:22:46 PM PDT

    •  2 inaccuracies

      First, this is not a 18 month bill.  The funding provided in this bill ends September 30, 2007 (yes, that's this year). Any funding after that has to come back to Congress.

      Second, it is hardly a "blank" check.  There's lots of things on the memo line.  You may not think it's good enough, but it sure as hell isn't blank.

      by deaniac83 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:42:30 AM PDT

      •  And add to that

        If The Iraqis do not meet the benchmarks by October of this year then the bill calls for a phased withdrawal of troops ending in April 2008.

        by talex on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:01:59 AM PDT

        •  But they will meet the benchmarks, won't they?

          Or at least, that's what the story will be.

          How's that surge comin' along, by the way?

          by rolandzebub on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:09:42 PM PDT

          •  Benchmarks?

            Well no they won't if Bush vetoes the bill. On the other hand if we stand our ground and make him accept benchmarks as part of the money he needs than yeah maybe they will meet them. If you look at the benchmarks they are 'measurable' and Bush can't lie about them.

            As for the surge. It is a farce. So far it amounts to no more than having the Shiia pull back on their own so we will go after their enemy the Sunni and fight their war for them.

            by talex on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:30:58 PM PDT

            •  I agree with Roland

              Whatever benchmarks are put in the bill, Bush will simply declare them met. That is, unless Congress is granted the power to make such determination, which I doubt.

              by liberal atheist on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:03:56 PM PDT

              •  That May Be So

                We all know he has no problem lying.

                But most if not all of the benchmarks are 'measurable'.

                For instance he can lie about the required changes to the Iraqi Constitution by the benchmark date but recorded votes in Parliament would 'prove' otherwise.

                Same can be said about sharing oil revenue equally.

                You can keep going down the line if you want.

                The bottom line is that most of the benchmarks are publicly measurable. That makes them hard to spin - not that he wouldn't try - but he would not get away with it.

                by talex on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:01:22 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely agree! The progressive Dems who

      vogted against this could have abstained but chose not to. Joining forces with the Republicans to defeat this makes no sense and gives aid and comfort to the administration.

      by ice2wata on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:47:49 AM PDT

      •  overlooking the obvious

        those progressive Dems had the whip count prior to making their "principled" vote ...

        if Pelosi needed their votes for passage, they'd have been delivered ...

        it's kinda nice being able to have a few who can stand on conscience alone ... and it's kinda nice seeing that folks on our side have the luxury of grumbling about it, while the House Dems are able to continue to set the agenda ...

        by wystler on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:06:44 PM PDT

    •  cowardice?

      How is it cowardice?  They voted against the bill because it wasn't strong enough.  Knowing that the bill was going to pass, these members decided to take a symbolic stand for what they believe in, and a position that many here on DKos believe in as well.  They were out torch bearers.  There was no cowardice here.  Only principles.

      by dmsarad on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:47:54 AM PDT

      •  No bravery either

        "Knowing that the bill was going to pass..." they could safely vote "their conscience."  Or maybe that was just their next election.

        by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:40:25 PM PDT

    •  Green Party

      = GOP Mole.  Go crawl back under a rock where all the other moles live.

      by truthvsbush on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:05:02 AM PDT

      •  Gimme a break . . .

        . . . reasonable people can disagree on this one.

        by daveinchi on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

        •  Not About The Green Party

          They are shills for the GOP - period.

          by truthvsbush on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:08:17 PM PDT

          •  You don't have a clue.

            GreenSooner has been posting here for a long time. Hardly a shill for the Thugs. I don't entirely agree with his conclusions, but the fact is that this vote supports the war effort for another 18 months.

            by slatsg on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:48:09 PM PDT

            •  If He's A Member of the Green Party...

              Then his vote in the 2000 election supported the war effort for the past four years.  I guess it's consistent that he still wants to block actions that might realistically oppose the agenda of Bush and the PNAC.

              by truthvsbush on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:07:02 AM PDT

    •  Some People Are Never

      happy with anything. Why is it I feel you would find fault in anything the Democratic congress would do?

      I don't think you really understand how 'pragmatic' politics works Greensooner. It is not black and white as you seem to prefer it would be.

      by talex on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:07:00 AM PDT

      •  Why is it you feel

        ...that you have to be their cheering squad? Black and white? You mean "They don't have the votes" has some shades of gray? You mean "The Dems cannot end the war" has some shades of gray?  You mean "A stronger bill would never pass" has some shades of gray? First I've heard of it. So far, everyone's been assuring me this is all etched in stone. Oh, I get it...it's all etched in gray stone.

        by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:45:29 PM PDT

        •  Everything

          has shades of gray. Thought you would have learned that a long time ago.

          And me a cheering squad? That is not how I would paint it. Color me pragmatic instead.

          As someone quoted in a post today...

          "You can't always get what you want" - Mick Jagger

          by talex on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:10:36 AM PDT

          •  What is "black and white" about...

            ...my position on this matter?

            Where are the shades of gray in the positions of those who support this bill? I've heard nothing but opinions being put forth as black-and-white absolutes.

            What is pragmatic about your position?

            by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 02:26:29 PM PDT

    •  Michaud

      is indeed a Blue dog, but not on this issue.  He is firmly against spending any more money on this occupation.  

      His stance re: Iraq has been strong, so I'm not suprised by this vote.

      by maryru on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:32:09 PM PDT

  •  Maxine Waters, Barabara Lee and Lynn Woolsey?!?

    by Hesiod on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:48:59 AM PDT

    •  Yep

      Tonight I'm going to take the time to look for the Barbara Lee constituent who said we were all stupid and naive to think anyone should vote against this bill and that his rep Barbara Lee would be voting against it even though she strongly opposed the war, because she was a lot savvier than we were and knew a lot more about "harsh realities" and "how government works" than we did.

      by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:04:50 AM PDT

      •  This is not a time....

        For the party NOT to be united.  I am so surprised at the number of Dem "Nays".  If it did not go far enough for them, it would if your son were leaving next month for Iraq.  MINE IS.  

        by Boca Babs on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:47:29 AM PDT

        •  Sorry your son is going

          But there are other parents with sons and daughters who are happy to see the Nays. You do not speak for all of them, any more than Cindy Sheehan does. In fact, you speak for no one but yourself, just like all the rest of us.

          by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:28:13 PM PDT

        •  Sorry I disagree

          This bill authorizes the continuation of the war.
          The people you are bitching about want it to end now.  NO MORE dead soldiers.  Not, "just 100 more".
          The dems won and these people made a statement, that the democratic party in total is not 100% complicit in all of the deaths.

          by dc 20005 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:36:58 PM PDT

          •  I concur

            Having no appropriations bill would end the conflict sooner than this one. Once the money runs out, it's over.

            by liberal atheist on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:08:41 PM PDT

  •  Rightly so

    n/t

    by rolandzebub on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:06:21 PM PDT

•  If the president vetos...

  ...does it mean that the funds don't get allocated?

  by arubyan on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:08 AM PDT

  •  yup

    by kos on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:23:02 AM PDT

    •  Well, they'll always have Blackwater. nt

      by iconoclastic cat on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:24:05 AM PDT

      •  Where do you think Blackwater gets their $$$ ?

        ...it ain't from the Rich Neocons, it's from Jane and Joe small taxpayer paying for all those private contractors to be paid better than the military personel for doing a lousier job.

        by AmericanRiverCanyon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:31:49 AM PDT

      •  Re: Blackwater

        an aside...but when does the Blackwater investigation begin??

        by whataboutbob on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:33:52 AM PDT

      •  yes, they will. but Blackwater is even more

        expensive than the U.S. Army proper, right? Will they work for free? Will Bush find money elsewhere to pay them?  

        by jennifer poole on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:34:29 AM PDT

    •  It still has to pass the Senate

      to get vetoed.  We'll see what happens.

      I'm not especially upset or especially happy over this.  I hope it has an impact, but I'm not sure it will.

      by TomP on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:35:19 AM PDT

      •  true

        but the Senate GoOPers cannot afford to filibuster an appropriations bill any more than a junkie can afford to assiduously price-shop his next fix

        by wystler on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

    •  if he veto's it and funds are withheld.....

      and he still continues to wage war can we hold hearings on where the hell he is getting the money?

      by KnotIookin on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:36:33 AM PDT

      •  there are several possibilities

        shifiting funds within the DOD.  Cutting back funds for somethings and moving them towards the war.  otherwise "finding" money to fund the war through october (am I the only one who thinks that his claim that funds will run out by April is probably a very early estimate for when funds would supposedly run out?)

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:39:13 AM PDT

        •  It depends on what the other bills say

          And at some point, funds will run out in DOD, too.  And if Congress sees funds being used in a manner it did not intend, it always has the option to put in the next DOD funding bill something in the order of "No funds provided herein shall be used for deployments or contracts in Iraq..." or something of the sort.

          by deaniac83 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:46:52 AM PDT

    •  the house should send up the same bill

      over and over.  If the President wants the money, this is how he can get it.  No other way.  This is the message we all need to send to Capitol Hill.

      by dday on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:43:58 AM PDT

      •  Yep.

        I am shocked at how proud I feel of my party right now.  People will try to minimize this, saying it won't become law, etc.  Screw that.  The unthinkable is now thinkable.  The headlines are published.  We're trying to stop the war.  Bless them all.

        by Major Danby on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:58:07 AM PDT

      •  not the same bill a tougher one.

        Price just went up Georgie, we don't like your attitude.

        Veto it again, and it gets "worse".

        -C.

        by Neutron on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:12:58 AM PDT

        •  it'd be nice

          but gotta keep them bluedogs in line too, lest they break, and back a GOP-intro'd measure

          by wystler on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:11:31 PM PDT

  •  Doesnt it have to get through the Senate first?

    by jj32 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:23:49 AM PDT

    •  yep

      the republicans may not even need to filibuster it to defeat it in the senate

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:26:46 AM PDT

      •  Seems Nelson is on board with the Senate version

        Which also includes a withdrawal provision. We may not be as far apart as you think.

        by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:49:54 AM PDT

        •  Soon it will be time for Tim Johnson

          to make a dramatic return to the Senate.

          Even if he has to be carried in his vote will still count.

          by Sam I Am on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:17:19 AM PDT

    •  Yup

      by kos on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:27:13 AM PDT

    •  Meaning it needs a Republican to support it,

      or Lieberman to change his mind (the first option, of course, being more likely).

      Cause otherwise it can just be amended out of the bill (then again, it could be put back in in conference, I believe [although they may be able to instruct the conferees to do otherwise]).

      by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:29:43 AM PDT

      •  Lieberman is on board with the 3/08 deadline...

        ... surprising as that may be, so I think he would be behind this one as well.

        by Delta Terp on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:41:59 AM PDT

        •  We can hope so, but on foreign policy matters,

          I'm not expecting Lieberman to vote with us at all (on domestic issues, he has been doing so and I expect he'll continue to do so).

          by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:44:22 AM PDT

        •  Do you have a link for that?

          When did he say that? That really surprises me.

          by jj32 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 06:12:05 PM PDT

      •  Gordon Smith. Look for Pryor and Nelson to

        line up behind it too, if we're talking about 'DINO's.'

        Collins and Coleman will face incredible pressure to vote for it.

        Ah, the simple pleasure of playing offense.

        by Geekesque on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:44:00 AM PDT

        •  Nelson's supporting the Senate bill

          I think he could be convinced to support the House bill too. But he also had a significant hand in crafting the Senate bill, too.

          by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:54:43 AM PDT

          •  Yep, because he extorted some federal

            pork in exchange for his vote.

            If it makes you feel any better, he did it all the time to Republicans on party-line votes when they had the majority.

            by Geekesque on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:41:02 AM PDT

            •  Hey, that federal pork...

              is going to my state. ;)

              In all seriousness, though, some of those things, particularly the drought relief, are sorely needed here.

              by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:34:18 PM PDT

      •  Well, Gordon Smith voted for last week's...

        resolution, so he might support this - or the Senate version. Ben Nelson said he's on board for the Senate version. Get Johnson out there for a vote, and get Pryor on board, and you've got enough votes to pass the Senate version. Are the Senate and the House versions really that far apart?

        by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:53:33 AM PDT

        •  We in Oregon...

          ...see this every six years: Gordon Smith suddenly becomes a moderate. If he votes for the right thing, then good for him. As one who has seen his act too many times, however, I'm still rather skeptical. I will be calling his office later today, although I usually don't get an answer when I do (caller ID?).

          by OneBob54 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:03:57 AM PDT

        •  What exactly is the difference

          between the House and Senate versions?

          by jj32 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 06:13:27 PM PDT

          •  I think the Senate version

            says March 2008, and doesn't have all of the readiness provisions in the House bill.

            by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:51:48 PM PDT

    •  If the Republicans want to block funding for Iraq

      Let them....

      by jfern on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:03:22 AM PDT

  •  Can't wait

    to see how he spins a veto into "supporting the troops"

    by frsbdg on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:23:59 AM PDT

•  Nancy Pelosi has failed as Speaker of the House

  Remember that media whore Beltway smear from December-January.

  Never mind.

  -

  by Volvo Liberal on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:33 AM PDT

  •  How active do ya'll...

    ... Atlanta Kossacks plan to be on behalf of John Barrow and Jim Marshall?

    by decon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:24:43 AM PDT

    •  Honestly

      Those two guys are perhaps the ONLY two Democrats who had good reason to vote against this. As is, their prospects in 2008 look really tough.

      by kos on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:27:57 AM PDT

      •  what are those good reasons? n/t

        by decon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:29:13 AM PDT

        •  If I recall

          Marshall came within a couple thousand votes of being the only democrat defeated in 2006.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:30:11 AM PDT

          •  And your point is? n/t

            by decon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:33:26 AM PDT

            •  well

              if you want to hand the republicans an easy seat, then be my guest.

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:34:13 AM PDT

              •  See my comments below.

                The disagreement is about bush-lite versus principled opposition.

                If Sanford Bishop can do it, Barrow and Marshall can to.  I'll certainly remember this box score when allocating my campaign donations in the future. I'm especially pissed at Barrow.  Zero leadership.

                Among the Georgia supporters of the House bill is Rep. Sanford Bishop, an Albany Democrat and member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. He said setting a deadline would hold the Bush administration accountable for policies that have weakened the military, forced U.S. combat troops to police a civil war and allowed the Iraqis to put off taking responsibility for their own government. "We're trying to force the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own destiny," Bishop said.

                by decon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

                •  Is Bishop in a Republican district?

                  He does not appear on kos's list of Republican districts where the Democrat voted yes.

                  by BruinKid on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:36:28 AM PDT

        •  Simple

          Close races.  Its better to have a Dem who can't support the whole caucus all the time than have a Rethug who opposes the caucus almost all the time.

          by Marc in CA on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:33:24 AM PDT

          •  It's only simple...

            ... if you believe the way for Democrats to win close races is to fuel up on Bush-lite.

            I believe that John Barrow and/or Jim Marshall can win  by saying exactly the kind of things John Murtha has been saying.  As it is, they appear gutless, spineless, and unprincipled to both Democratic and Republican voters.  They are damaging and undermining the Democratic brand in Georiga.

            It's impossible for me to be a "reasonable and serious" Democratic opponent of this war in Georgia with those two lick spittles setting the tone.  I haven't checked Sanford Bishop's vote, but Kos doesn't have him on the list.  Perhaps their is a correlation between Bishop's stiffer spine and better vote counts.  

            by decon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:39:18 AM PDT

            •  Simple

              No Democrat is going to score any brownie points with Republicans by sucking Bush's dick on the war.  Voters correctly perceive such pandering as the rank cowardice that it is.

              by asskicking annie on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:26:27 PM PDT

        •  Soldily red districts

          that are trending even redder. And these are new districts, so these two sophomore's aren't entrenched in the district yet making them easier to pick off.

          These two came closest to losing last year of any Democratic incumbents.

          by kos on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:35:17 AM PDT

          •  Yes I know that

            The question is how to win them, and if they are worth winning.  Bush-lite isn't the only, or even the best way, to win. Georgia is trending red (in part because of spineless bs like this).  And their tactics make it very difficult for principled Democrats to appear "reasonable" in their opposition to this war in Georgia.

            I've got nothing to sell here.  Opposition to Bush's excess is one of the few openings for Democrats to take in Georgia, and they refuse to take the opening.

            Our House Majority is safe without either of these seats.  There are other seats trending blue that perhaps we should redirect our resources too.  I certainly will be doing that, and I donated to both, and worked for one last time around.

            by decon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:48:53 AM PDT

          •  Enabling Bush's war is bad politics?

            I want to believe that enabling Bush in any way is bad politics and that voters want a clear alternative, not a Republican and a quasi-Republican running as a Democrat, but I do not know how realistic this is.

            There are a lot of military bases in South and middle Georgia, and a lot of employment tied directly to the military. There's also an old tradition of voting for those who fund the military (Sam Nunn, Carl Vinson, Richard Russell)

            On the other hand, it's no longer so clear that those affiliated with the military at the low end want this war to continue anymore than do the rest of us.

            South and Middle Georgia are regions in which the Democrats could have success if they could speak to folks about the kinds of things folks need - like affordable, accessible, functional health care.

            by xylon on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:58:22 AM PDT

            •  Might be good politics

              By all other measures, it is still bad.

              by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:40:33 AM PDT

  •  Bwahahahahhhh!

    The evil double XX conspiracy strikes again!

    by goldberry on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:46:12 AM PDT

  •  In your dreams! The Repubs, Blue Dogs, and

    progressives are the ones who failed us in this moment of opportunity.  I usually choose not to respond to non-sensical comments, but I will make an exception in your case.

    by ice2wata on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:53:28 AM PDT

    •  um, it was meant to be a joke

      by Volvo Liberal on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:38:46 AM PDT

      •  OK! Did not come across that way.

        by ice2wata on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:43:46 AM PDT

        •  Did to me

          by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:51:09 PM PDT

          •  Super!

            by ice2wata on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:20:13 PM PDT

            •  :- )

              More like "mildly amusing."

              by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:33:54 PM PDT

•  Sweetness

  Time for Senator Reid and Durbin to go into overdrive.  How great would it be to make Bush veto this!

  by Marc in CA on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:37 AM PDT

  •  Is that what his emergency "statement"

    will be about?  Come right out and bully and threaten any 'Pubs who might be considering this?  I don't know any more..I'd have said most folks wouldn't respond well to being bullied, but that was before I saw Chris Matthews shivering in orgasmic ecstasy after Bush's last bully speech.  I don't get these people.

    by sherlyle on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:24:37 AM PDT

    •  That's what I'm thinking

      He's going to get all mad and unhinged at us again.

      I'm compelled to watch/listen, but my tummy is already feeling queezy.

      Having that raging mad chimp act superior whilst chastizing us is almost too much to take.

      by JuniperLea on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:27:32 AM PDT

    •  re Emergency Statement, Iran Perhaps n/t

      by donnamarie on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:41:47 AM PDT

    •  Boy he must really be throwing a temper tantrum

      Mr. Punctual is at least 10 min late now.

      by Marc in CA on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:52:55 AM PDT

      •  Takes a few extra minutes to surround oneself

        with veterans and the children of veterans.
        How...BLATANT, George.  

        by sherlyle on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:15:29 AM PDT

  •  Hmph

    Disappointing to see there were some liberal Dems who voted against it.  I respect their persistence and fight to make this bill as strong as possible, but I wish they could have swallowed their all-or-nothing-ism for the sake of some more unity on this vote.

    I'm sure in the long run it won't really matter to most people, but it sure would have been nice to see.  Compromise on a first step and enter your statement into the record that you will continue to fight for stronger action.

    by Marc in CA on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:31:27 AM PDT

    •  the "unity" was gained yesterday with the press

      release from the Out of Iraq caucus leaders saying they wouldn't block the bill. Some like this "unity," some don't.

      Above somebody says only 3 Dem "nay" votes were cast before the last minute -- I'm assuming the other "Nays" came from Out of Iraq caucus voters who waited to cast their votes of conscience until being sure that there were 218 votes to pass the bill.

      by jennifer poole on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:37:43 AM PDT

•  It doesn't matter...

  some Army guy on CNN right now is saying that more Iraqis have cell phones and new cars.  Apparently things are going swimmingly over there.

  by exiledfromTN on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

  •  Yea, they use the cell phones to

    trigger IED's.  I'm not sure what their doing with the cars.

    by coloradocomet on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:24:56 AM PDT

    •  suicide bombs

      by Oreo on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:25:26 AM PDT

    •  this is exactly what I thought too

      how sad

      by roubs on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:27:25 AM PDT

    •  And Satellite Dishes on the Roofs. Don't forget

      them.  No water or electricity but if they did, they could watch Fox News!

      by Barry Welsh on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:27:35 AM PDT

      •  They use the Satellite Dishes...

        ...to collect rainwater, because the treatment plant keeps getting blown up.

        by Ken in MN on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:29:35 AM PDT

    •  Brings a new light to the problem of

      dropped calls

      by exiledfromTN on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:28:42 AM PDT

    •  car bombs is what some are doing with the cars

      by dancewater on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:32:09 AM PDT

  •  New cars...

    ...like the ones the Brits were looking for when they were captured by the Iranians?

    by Geotpf on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:28:34 AM PDT

•  Props to Indiana's freshmen Dems

  .. all three of which (Hill, Ellsworth, Donnelly) voted Aye. Good on you guys.

  by neil on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

  •  And What To Make Of....

    Several of the most prominent war critics (Waters, Kucinich) voting against?

    In their mind, they can argue it doesn't go far enough.

    But a 225-205 vote looks better than a 218-212 vote. For me to respect them much, they better have waited until the Dems had 218 before they cast their votes. That is an awfully small margin of error for them to be casting symbolic votes.

    by Steve Singiser on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:25:14 AM PDT

    •  They probably didn't want to vote to fund the war

      A coalition of reps who don't want to fund the war reps who don't want to end the war can join together to kill any funding bill. Exciting, isn't it?

      by neil on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:26:35 AM PDT

    •  I think that is exactly what happened. n/t

      by hairspray on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:27:22 AM PDT

    •  Barbara Lee, too.

      Definitely some bizarritude going on with those votes.

      Well, I'm just relieved that we have it passed, and that we have so many Repukes on record voting no.

      by brownsox on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:27:48 AM PDT

      •  did the out of Iraq caucus count votes also?

        I have to admit I was glued to c-span as it got closer and closer to NOT passing....

        in fact Nancy announced its passage before c-span counted the last 2 votes in the YES column....and those votes were the two votes that made the difference between passage and defeat sooooooo
        given that the anti war caucus was pissed off at this bill and were NOT going to help it get passed, and then announced they would not try and block its passage....

        did the anti war caucus count their votes and make sure THEY werent the reason the bill wouldnt have passed?  did they allot votes from their caucus for passage while allowing others to vote no?

        or was this a coincidental 'skin of its teeth' passage?  i mean, we needed 218 and we got exactly 218

        someone other then our leadership has to have been counting votes to insure passage.

        by KnotIookin on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:43:44 AM PDT

        •  we need majority of voters

          This bill could have passed on a 216-214 vote, so those last 2 votes didn't matter.

          by dcatalin on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:29:40 PM PDT

          •  really?

            then WHAT was all the hot air from the msm talking heads about HAVING to reach 218 or the bill fails to pass?

            by KnotIookin on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:54:29 PM PDT

            •  That's if everyone showed up to vote.

              With 434 members of the House (Charlie Norwood died last month), you still needed 218 to ensure passage.  But three Congressmen (2 Dems, 1 Repub) didn't vote for whatever reason.  With those numbers, all that was needed was 216 out of the 431 there.

              But I don't think any of us knew beforehand those three would not be present.

              by BruinKid on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:44:28 AM PDT

      •  lee voted no to war with afghanistan

        in 2001

        http://www.motherjones.com/...

        in 2007:

        http://www.freepress.org/...

        Barbara Lee's amendment takes a different approach, one that does not involve micromanaging the war or funding it.  The amendment would restrict spending to withdrawing troops.  We have a list of which members are saying they will vote No on the supplemental unless it has Lee's amendment: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...  

        These are our heroes.  These are the only members of Congress who are genuinely acting in support of our troops.

        by carlos oaxaca on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:26:01 PM PDT

    •  Kucinich etc...

      are the "idiot liberals" that Obey meant when you used that much publicized phrase last week.

      by dannyinla on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:28:53 AM PDT

      •  compasionate liberals

        who dont take oil company money like others we know

        by carlos oaxaca on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:28:23 PM PDT

      •  Yeah

        These "idiots" don't wish to waste any more lives in this illegal occupation. Get real.

        by slatsg on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:53:55 PM PDT

        •  And the 218 do wish to waste

          more lives in this illegal occupation?

          by dannyinla on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 06:51:41 PM PDT

    •  again, see the press release from Out of Iraq