More or less wanted to add a concrete example of this lack of spine occurring in an unexpected place - a NH pol elected largely on her purported antiwar position.

It would be great if you are right about the “leverage” argument, but it could work the other way. It gets Dems and others accustomed to the idea that the war does deserve funding - the old “back up our troops” shell game for many, the “compromise to get a promise to withdraw” for some, the “embarrass the vetoing president” for s few others.

A question on the latter that I have wondered about, but was afraid to ask - do you know if it is possible for Bush to use a line-item veto here? If so, then the oxymoron bill really becomes an enabling mechanism provided by the Democrats.

Dave Ecklein

However that would take some guts from Congress, and I doubt that they have any.

Roger Conant

yes, I agree that even the “date certain” bill was too little, too late–and I think Kucinich’s peace plan is great. I voted for him in the 04 primary and plan to do so again next year.

My post was based on the assumption that the Democratic party is too spineless to do what really needs to be done–and a response to the absurd statements that the Dems should go ahead and blindly continue to fund the war without restriction. I do believe that no matter how wimpy they are, any restrictions will provide leverage for powerful citizen organizing to speed up the withdrawal and defunding. I cannot understand how any progressive could write an article on HuffPost saying Bush should get carte blanche, and that’s why I wrote my comment.

Registered just to comment on your post here.

I think the Dems already went too far. Up here in New Hampshire, one of our US Representatives, Carol Shea-Porter, was elected in an upset on an antiwar platform, and then went ahead to sign on to this Pushmepullyou bill as her first act having anything to do with Iraq. Remember, it proposes to fund the war to the extent of OVER 100 BILLION DOLLARS for a promise to end it after a year! I am actually surprised Bush does not snap it up in a spirit of “bipartisanship” - anything can (and probably will) happen in a year. Of course, one possibility is that the situation will become so hopeless for Bush & Co that they will be forced into a VietNam-style exit no matter how much of our money the Democrats are willing to throw away.

This funding bill was a disgusting sucker punch mounted by pro-war Democrats who are in firm control of the party, and Carol, like too many others, fell for it. The difference between an “exit date” far in the future (after even thousands more have died for a lie) and “no exit date” is nothing! Whenever the magic “exit date” arrives, Bush Incorporated will find enough reason to abort or delay the exit. And the spineless Democrats (seemingly in the majority) will allow it, if past is prologue. If Bush is the “Decider”, then faux-antiwar Democrats like Carol are “Undeciders”. They can’t decide whether to run with the hares or hunt with the hounds.

The funding should be stopped, and our young people should be extricated from the physical and moral cesspool that past “funding”, past “deciders” and “undeciders”, have pushed them into. Now! Not at some mythical “exit date” traded for support of the war!

There exist other types of Democrats. Kucinich for one has been consistent in voting against this criminal war and against all funding for it. See his website www.kucinich.us for his step-by-step plan to get out of Iraq ASAP - and the bills he has introduced to that end - bills which Carol should be voting for instead.

But Carol Shea-Porter, at the first opportunity to show her true colors, by even a small thing like voting against funding a war she claims she is against, has disappointed supporters who worked for, contributed to, and voted her into office on an antiwar platform.

Dave Ecklein