Senate to Vote on Ending War Funding(1975 all over again!)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats are staging a dramatic anti-war vote this week, with moderates collaborating behind closed doors on legislation that could call on President Bush to rethink his war strategy.

Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday that members will decide whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, as well as consider a softer proposal calling for troops to leave this fall. The two measures would be offered as amendments to a water projects funding bill to be debated this week.

The votes, expected by Wednesday, will probably fall short of the 60-vote threshold usually needed to advance controversial legislation. But they will help Reid, D-Nev., test the Senate's political waters at a time when the Democratic caucus is divided on how far Congress should go to end the war.

"These are important votes," said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. "This will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have up-or-down votes" on whether to end the war.

Earlier this month, Bush vetoed a $124 billion supplemental bill, which would have funded the war but demanded troops begin coming home on Oct. 1.

Not having enough votes to override the veto but unwilling to back down, House Democrats last week pushed through a new bill that would fund the war only through July. That bill is unlikely to survive the Senate, where several Democrats say they do not want to appear to be turning their backs on the troops by funding combat in installments.

"On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something very, very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be vetoed," Reid said.

"Sundog" said --

To put it another way, the battle cry has become, “We don’t need no stinking war! Party on!”

Yep, and the numbers of people who are thinking that way has already started to outnumber the ones who think we should stay and fight it out with the religio-fanatical-governmental idealogy of Islam. That happened the last Congressional election and the numbers are growing, coming up on the next election, the Presidential one. So, we're going to be outnumbered in the election booths come 2008.

Regards,
Star Traveler

"bray" said --

I have a hunch you are going to be surprised come ‘08. America does not want to lose this war.

Well, to tell you the truth, you could have fooled me, with the statement "America does not want to lose this war."

I mean, if that was the case, then the support would have been there in the last election for keeping the troops there for another decade, which it will take to stabilize that country and make sure that the U.S. (when it does leave) just doesn't hand the whole government over to the religio-fanatical-governmental idealogy of Islam.

As it stands now, if the U.S. begins its leaving in 2008, that's exactly what we'll be doing. But, since it does not appear to me, that the American public is backing the war enough, and thus the Democrats took over Congress the last Congressional elections -- that means that the public is obviously not backing things as they should.

Furthermore, things tend to swing as a pendulum swings. First things go one way and then they change direction and swing the other way. It's a constant swinging that always goes on. It surely goes on in politics. And it's apparent that the pendulum has stopped at one point in its swing and is changing the direction and getting ready for the big swing back in the other direction. Once the momentum builds up, it's next to impossible to prevent the swing. That's the way things have always worked out in the past with pendulum swinging politics.

The only thing that could radically change that swinging in the other direction would be if we have another major terrorist attack on our soil, like a nuclear attack on one of our cities. Then that would abruptly abort the swing back in the opposite direction (as it's going now) and put it firmly at the spot where the American public would engage more forcefully in that war against the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam.

So, I guess we will se in the next Presidential election. Short of that attack that I was talking about, don't look for that pendulum swing to stop in mid-movement and go back to where it was.

Regards,
Star Traveler

S.T.

Thank you so much.

When the majority of Americans get their news from Jay Leno and the other late night entertainers, what are you going to do?

I damn near puked watching Bill Clinton’s endorsement of Hillary’s bid for the presidency. The comments under the video on that web site were in disbelieving awe that such a great opportunity as another Clinton presidency should come again. They loved the generosity. That money doesn’t need to be spent on a war.

"bray" said --

You are believing the anti-American propaganda. There is plenty of Americans who are willing to stick it out for a decade to get it right. None of them exist in PravdABDNC. But hey, live in your negative world if you want.

In terms of the last post that I did, the anti-American propaganda that is being perpetrated around here is in reference to the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam. And that propaganda is precisely that it's not a World War and that it's not on many fronts at the same time. That's the "anti-American" propaganda that is being perpetrated here.

See the recent documentary Obsession which everyone should have and show to all their friends and neighbors. Then perhaps you would get out of your anti-American propaganda and support the World War against the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam, instead of either minimizing it as nothing more than an Iraq matter and/or nothing to be concerned about. That's the real anti-American propaganda going on here.

And another piece of the anti-American propaganda is that the religio-fanatical governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam cannot do another major attack here on the U.S. Well, all you have to do is listen to the U.S. authorities (at many different levels, including the White House) who have been telling us for several years that another major attack is not an "if situation" — but rather "when" it will happen.

Just another FReeper thread came up about that the other day -- Contingencies for nuclear terrorist attack.

It would appear that the anti-American propaganda is coming from the FReeper side of things and not recognizing the nature of the World War that we are fighting and thereby causing our loss, as it is happening right now, by simply fighting one front in this World War and calling that the entire war.

And, as a result, this is causing the upcoming troop withdrawals, which will simply lead to a longer World War and, more than likely, that scenario that our officials have been warning us about for years — of another major terrorist attack inside this country. Perhaps then, people here will stop spreading the anti-American propaganda and get down to fighting a long and protracted World War, one that is likely to be that 100-years-war that has been fought before, in centuries past.

Regards,
Star Traveler

The difference between 1975 and 2007 is pretty simple.

In 1975 we had a ‘accidental President’ who was weaker politically than any previous President in our history due to the nature of how he came into the office.

Ford never won a national election cycle.

Bush, much to the dismay of his detractors, has won twice on the national level. Because of this, his veto will stick.

Ford didn’t have the option.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.