ckaihatsu
22nd June 2008, 03:00
News sources on the Web report that on Thursday, June 20, the US
House of Representatives approved Iraq and Afghanistan war funding
of $162 billion. The legislation was passed without any timetable
for US military withdrawal from the two conflicts. The bill,
supported by the US House Democratic leadership Pelosi and Hoyer,
will fund US wars in the two Middle Eastern countries through the
middle of 2009. House Democrats, who were sent to Washington with a
single mandate from the US electorate in 2006, to extricate the US
from the two wars in the Middle East, consistently support
legislation to continue those very wars. The vote is instructive; it
reflects the same pattern we saw in the passage of the government
spying bill the next day. If the Democrats had voted as an
opposition, against war funding, the bill would have failed to pass,
with 188 Republicans in favor and 235 Democrats opposing. And there
would have been nothing Bush could have done: he can veto what
Congress passes, but no President can veto what Congress refuses to
pass.
What happened instead is that 80 Democrats joined the Republicans to
approve the funding and continue US wars of aggression against the
long-suffering peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq. As has already been
noted in the press, Bush's popularity has fallen to historic lows;
it is also true that a majority of US residents have opposed US
intervention in Iraq for many years, a fact not reflected in the US
press until after the Democratic sweep of Congress in the 2006
elections. As other people have noted, there is no way the
thoroughly despised lame duck Bush can hurt Congressional Democrats
now. If the Democrats go on funding Bush's wars, and they are and will, it is because they want to. All of which makes it inexplicable that most of the US "left" is ga-ga over the Democrats and their candidate this election year. -- Yosef M
House of Representatives approved Iraq and Afghanistan war funding
of $162 billion. The legislation was passed without any timetable
for US military withdrawal from the two conflicts. The bill,
supported by the US House Democratic leadership Pelosi and Hoyer,
will fund US wars in the two Middle Eastern countries through the
middle of 2009. House Democrats, who were sent to Washington with a
single mandate from the US electorate in 2006, to extricate the US
from the two wars in the Middle East, consistently support
legislation to continue those very wars. The vote is instructive; it
reflects the same pattern we saw in the passage of the government
spying bill the next day. If the Democrats had voted as an
opposition, against war funding, the bill would have failed to pass,
with 188 Republicans in favor and 235 Democrats opposing. And there
would have been nothing Bush could have done: he can veto what
Congress passes, but no President can veto what Congress refuses to
pass.
What happened instead is that 80 Democrats joined the Republicans to
approve the funding and continue US wars of aggression against the
long-suffering peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq. As has already been
noted in the press, Bush's popularity has fallen to historic lows;
it is also true that a majority of US residents have opposed US
intervention in Iraq for many years, a fact not reflected in the US
press until after the Democratic sweep of Congress in the 2006
elections. As other people have noted, there is no way the
thoroughly despised lame duck Bush can hurt Congressional Democrats
now. If the Democrats go on funding Bush's wars, and they are and will, it is because they want to. All of which makes it inexplicable that most of the US "left" is ga-ga over the Democrats and their candidate this election year. -- Yosef M