Breaking:
Senate votes 48-50 to defeat an amendment that would have removed the withdrawal timetable from the Iraq funding bill.
UPDATE: Sens. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) joined Republicans voting against the time line. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) joined Democrats in supporting a withdrawal time line. Sens. Sens. Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) did not vote.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
105 Responses to “Breaking:”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Clinton
Drudge
Earmarks
Economy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Graham
Hagee
Health Care
Housing
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Petraeus
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Siegelman
Sports
Third Bush Term
Torture
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
If it survives Conference Committee, VETO here we come!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pmDon’t think that is enough to override a veto..oh well bad news for the Islamo Fascists and their leftists allies.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pmLets see the list of who voted for what…….
March 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pmAll right! Listen to the people!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pmExcellent.
Dems, you may keep your jobs for another day.
But remember this, we voted you into power to do the will of the people. That means get us OUT of Iraq and investigate the pResident and his henchmen.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pmYes! We’re getting somewhere. Now pray for NO VETO!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pmI assume Tim Johnson is one missing vote, but who was the other?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pmLets see the list of who voted for and agianst………
March 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pmdave:
The Roll Call vote is not on-line yet.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pmwell, no real balls shown here at all. numerous suicide by constituent slapping on c-span when they read how their idiot senator voted though, hmm?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pmHere’s Dubbie’s big chance to use our troops as human shields by vetoing the bill in the interest of subverting democracy - what a proud moment!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pmis there a list of who voted how?
well no doubt Dub will dust off the cobwebs on the veto pen for this one… heaven forbid he listen to the majority of the people right?
W is for WORST president EVER
March 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pmGood. Then when Chimp vetoes it, he will be the culpable one. Way to push the blame back where it belongs - on the Decider…
March 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pmJake and Patrick1—–low level paid trolls. You’re losing boys.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pmIs this the best you can offer?
Now when will one Democrat [not twenty, not ten, but one] have the courage to filibuster against funding the war? Not to do so is the best way to allow this illegal and immoral war/occupation to continue ad infinitum.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pmLet’s just hope and pray Lieberman finally wakes up to the danger of Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate during wartime. JOEMENTUM!!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pmDoes this mean Lieberman voted with the Dems? Or did a Republican grow a conscience and counter him?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmMcCain thread above
March 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmIsamo Fascist…… a stupid phrase and major projection. The right wing fascist are projecting their politics on others.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmIf it survives Conference Committee, VETO here we come!!!!
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
So Bush can veto funding for the troops. What a great public relations move! It’s right up there with Gingrich shutting down the Guvmunt. You people are soooo st*pid! Go for it Jake’Off!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pmI believe tom fool that the veto is in Constitution, so how exactly is that subverting democracy?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pmDon’t think that is enough to override a veto..oh well bad news for the Islamo Fascists and their leftists allies.
Comment by Patrick1
Just when you thought it was safe in the blogs, here comes Patrick1 with his unique brand of humor and American pride. Nice to see that a leopard never changes its spots, huh?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pmDon’t think that is enough to override a veto..oh well bad news for the Islamo Fascists and their leftists allies. Comment by Patrick1 — March 27, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Leftist allied with Fascists? BAHAHA, what a st*pid remark! Are you now going to pretend you’re a *leftist* - Christo-fascist dweeb?
As for veto, that will be yet another example of the GOP putting politics before supporting the troops.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pmJake, the amendment is going to be included in every single spending bill from now until the ammunition runs out. Get with the program - the war is being defunded.
Your President failed to anticipate, failed to manage, failed to stabilize, and failed to extract American forces. He hasn’t done his job. It sucks when a legislature has to run a war, because they’re never any good at it, but if the President had delivered anything that he promised we wouldn’t be in this boat.
Enough lies and excuses. From him, and from you.
This war is ending.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pmIf it gets to the point where Bush vetoes it, I do so hope John Kerry has a press conference about how Bush isn’t funding the troops. maybe that will make people realize that the reason behind the vote is important too.
But probably not. The White House will just blame Kerry and Clinton(it doesn’t matter which one) for it.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pmLet’s just hope and pray Lieberman finally wakes up to the danger of Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate during wartime. JOEMENTUM!!Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
BAHAHAHA, the *danger* is to you GOP incompetents! How true that is!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pmI believe tom fool that the veto is in Constitution, so how exactly is that subverting democracy? Comment by Patrick1 — March 27, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
It’s subverting the will of the people, and their representatives in Congress. You can say it’s *constitutionally* valid for him to do so, but it is an anti-democratic vote by Bush. It’s what we call the act of a “republic”, not a “democracy”.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pmunbelievable:
When cops shoot back at the robbers, do you blame the cops for that too?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pmDM and DimitriM:
If the spending bill had a provision requiring anyone posting on the Internet with a screen name beginning in “D” and ending in “M” be shipped to Gitmo, maybe you’d understand the veto a little better ; )
March 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pmChuck Hagel voted with the democrats. Finally a republican with some guts
March 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pmdave:
The latest Roll Call vote is #116 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 643 (Rejected) Cochran Amd. No. 643; To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I think that would mean at least Cochran voted against, as to #117. I will let you know when it is posted.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm@26
March 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pmlieberman cosponsored the resolution to remove the timetable. so no, he is not waking up.
Jihad is a greater risk to America than Somalia. So I see his point. Having said that I think our troops need to be out of Iraq, and in deep undercover assassinating Jihadist freaks. Like a thief in the night. This nation building crap is a failure.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pmdumbya, you ready to veto funds to your illegal war?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pmFortunately we are a republic.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pmJake, do you blame the crack or the crack pipe in your hand?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pmAnd # 27, seems a lot like why we call the Republicans and Democrats…
March 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pmWhen cops shoot back at the robbers, do you blame the cops for that too? Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
That’s a great analogy for you and the *robber* of the threads - criminal. I’m sure you blame us for our *response* to your shooting off your ignorant mouth!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:57 pmAmen, Patrick1!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:57 pmFortunately we are a republic.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 27, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Fortunately Bush requires Congress to *fund* his *republic* aspirations.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI believe tom fool that the veto is in Constitution, so how exactly is that subverting democracy? Comment by Patrick1 — March 27, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Dipshit, get your names straight when you spit at someone. I didn’t write those words; ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus did. Geez, so shrill you can’t keep things in order, huh?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pmIf the spending bill had a provision requiring anyone posting on the Internet with a screen name beginning in “D†and ending in “M†be shipped to Gitmo, maybe you’d understand the veto a little better ; )
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
BAHAHA, you’re so st*pid old man. If that *happened*, it would be shot down in court immediately. That kind of legislation targeting specific individuals is *illegal* under the constitution. I suggest you review the Schiavo case law to see why your post is as dum as usual.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pmIf vetoed, I suggest that Congress NOT introduce another funding bill.
Personally, I believe Bush will sign whatever comes to his desk, and attach a signing statement treating any provisions he doesn’t like as merely advisory.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pmAmen, Patrick1!
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Another day in the church of Haggard! BAHAHAHA
March 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pmPryor (D-AR) voted against timetable, Hagel (R-NE) and Sanders (I-VT) for it
March 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pmTo strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
BAHAHA, that *strawman* is as st*pid as you are Jake-Off!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pmI heard that Pryor and Lieberman were the Dems who voted with Repugs.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pmHagel voted with Dems, as did Smith from Oregon.
When cops shoot back at the robbers, do you blame the cops for that too?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Que?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:03 pmRepublicans - the *anti-democracy* party. You guys would get along great with Al Qaeda! No wonder you were *allies* for so many years!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:03 pmBastards!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pmQue?
Comment by unbelievable — March 27, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
That was yet another *leap* off the cliff by the local lemming ;)
March 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pmFortunately, our constitution rightly puts the power to prosecute a war in the president’s hands alone, and he has the power to veto this bad legislation. If a president ever did sign such a bill, it would be equivalent to retreating without a treaty - surrender, but if sanctioned by congress, it would be constitutional (while being disastrous foreign policy).
March 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pmIf Bushie has to veto this - he will look even more the warmongering fool. The tide is turning against him and he must learn how to work with others.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pmHe’s spent his entire life of getting his own way.
Quando policia matan al roberro (sp?) estas en el tipo del policia or roberro?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pmNope, I don’t blame the cops for that. But I sure do blame the prosecutor when the cops murder innocent bystanders and don’t get prosecuted. A crook is a crook, regardless of their uniform.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pmP.S. I would be fine with a signing statement instead of a veto ; )
March 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pmThat was yet another *leap* off the cliff by the local lemming ;)
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 27, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
If only he would *leap* in the direction of Iraq… :)
March 27th, 2007 at 6:07 pmGodd*mn I hate no voters!
Unless it turns the table in my favor :)
March 27th, 2007 at 6:07 pmP.S. I would be fine with a signing statement instead of a veto ; )
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Signing statements are only valid for 90 days, and then the legislation stands as-is. Were you always this st*pid Jake’off, or do you have *mad-cow/mad-idiot* disease?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:08 pmYoo-hoo, it’s only a “suggested” date of withdrawal, not a p*ssy-assed surrender McCain, you senile pile of dog dung!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler — March 27, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Hey, Jason, I saw you in the movie Borat… Is it true that you’re pissed about your ‘role’?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pmQuando policia matan al roberro (sp?) estas en el tipo del policia or roberro?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
It doesn’t make sense in Spanish either…
March 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pmFortunately, our constitution rightly puts the power to prosecute a war in the president’s hands alone, and he has the power to veto this bad legislation. If a president ever did sign such a bill, it would be equivalent to retreating without a treaty - surrender, but if sanctioned by congress, it would be constitutional (while being disastrous foreign policy). Comment by Jason M. Hendler — March 27, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Actually Hendler - it puts the power to *decide* whether a war is going to be prosecuted directly in the hands of Congress - just as it puts the funding in their hands. They can just as easily pull the entire funding if they wish.
Just so you know, the found fathers did this to avoid a jack*ss like you or Bush from believing they are the *king*. He can prosecute the war, as long as Congress decides to permit it.
Plus, I hate to inform you of this dum bass, but we aren’t at war - Congress did not officially declare one.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pmThanks for the info, Andrew. Pursuant to the felony-murder rule in most jurisdictions, any innocent bystanders killed in the shoot-out should be prosecuted against the robbers though.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pmIf only he would *leap* in the direction of Iraq… :)
Comment by unbelievable — March 27, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
A GOP nerd never puts their own money where their mouth is. That’s why the like Wall Street so much! They get to squander other people’s money!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) has caselaw on signing statements lasting only 90 days, please let me know.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pmA GOP nerd never puts their own money where their mouth is. That’s why the like Wall Street so much! They get to squander other people’s money!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 27, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Good point…
March 27th, 2007 at 6:16 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) has caselaw on signing statements lasting only 90 days, please let me know.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
BAHAHA, so much for *ignoring* my posts! That’s so *passive-aggressive* of you - old tvrd! Take your ball and run, because someone shows you what an *idiot* you are! Why don’t you go use the “google” old-man *cough* to find out what’s in the “tubes”?
You *pretend* to have legal expertise - often - but you’re nothing but an inept, st*pid little dweeb! Get off your fat lazy, st*pid *ss, and go to Iraq and do your duty - idiot!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:16 pmJake and Patrick1 have lost their jobs as recruiters and now work for the pentagon as Bush properganderists on $5.15 an hour, because there here day and night shoveling Republican shite
March 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pmThanks for the info, Andrew. Pursuant to the felony-murder rule in most jurisdictions, any innocent bystanders killed in the shoot-out should be prosecuted against the robbers though. Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Unless the *negligence* of the police officers were involved the altercation itself. Right?
Here we have another example of “JakeOff” *pretending* to be a lawyer, but he doesn’t even know what a *signing-statement* means!!
BAHAHAA, well JakeOff, you’ve fulfilled our *expectation* of the *competence* of another GOP hack!! What an idiot!! You’re so funny little man!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pmThe will of the people shall soon be driven by mounting frustration and anger!
dulce est desipere in loco
March 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pmIf vetoed, I suggest that Congress NOT introduce another funding bill.
Nice one BNF - That would mean Bush dont support the troops
March 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pmP.S. I would be fine with a signing statement instead of a veto ; )
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
He’ll veto it because he doesn’t want to take this signing statement thing (which is a subversion of the Constitution) to the Supreme Court.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:23 pmNat:
I would expect a veto as well. BTW: how do the Democrats retain control of the Senate if Lieberman caucuses with the GOP and Cheney breaks the tie?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:29 pmExcellent vote! I wish it was by a larger margin, but I’ll take it.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pmI would expect a veto as well. BTW: how do the Democrats retain control of the Senate if Lieberman caucuses with the GOP and Cheney breaks the tie?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
I posted this on the other thread:
March 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pmNot to worry Jake.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:37 pmDick won’t be casting very many tie breaking votes on account of his bum leg.
His Uncle Satan is calling.
Senators Pryor and Johnson not only need to be voted out and replaced with a real Democrat, but they also need to be handed a pair of balls each. We all know Lieberman isn’t a Democrat, though. Idiots in CT are getting what they deserved for voting him back in. Spineless weenies.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:37 pmAs for the list of votes on S.J.R.3, if it had been an electronic roll call vote, it would already be on Thomas. Given that, don’t expect to see it until it is published in the Congressional Record tomorrow.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:42 pmNat:
I responded over on that other thread.
Spudd:
I agree that Pryor and Johnson need to be voted out ; )
March 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pmThanks alot Connecticut… thanks alot for your votes in November… with or without you the rest of us are going to have to do the right thing… thanks for nothing.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pmIf it survives Conference Committee, VETO here we come!!!!
Comment by Jake
Ya I can hear it now…
Today President Bush decided not to support the troops. After a long battle in Congress a spending bill that will send many billions to the troops in Iraq has been killed by their own commander in chief. Its a sad day in America when the commander in chief of the armed forces chooses not to fund the troops yet requires them to be sent into a civil war. What a sad day for the office of the presidency.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pmI responded over on that other thread.
Spudd:
I agree that Pryor and Johnson need to be voted out ; )
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
And I responded to you:
March 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pmMassive brain fartage - it did have a roll call and the number was not SJR3. It’s the amendment that was defeated - doh.
To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq…
The nays are:
The yays are:
Look like some highly partisan stuff to me. Pryor was the only real defector…Liebermann’s vote was a given. But this is not the final go-round as this is only an amendment to SJR3.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pmIf it survives Conference Committee, VETO here we come!!!!
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Jake obviously has no idea how much this veto will damage Bush and the Republicans.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:02 pmI think the American public know exactly where the President stands:
THE PRESIDENT: Today I’m joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today.
Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.
The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today’s action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.
Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we’re beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.
Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.
The Democrats have sent their message, now it’s time to send their money. This is an important moment — a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people — and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:10 pmObviously, the language in the veto is going to be even stronger — hopefully the White House gets a statement out TODAY!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pmHot off the presses:
President Bush Disappointed by Senate Vote on Iraq War Supplemental
White House News
The President is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law. In the two weeks since the Senate defeated a similar proposal, General Petraeus reports encouraging signs are already emerging. The Senate, which unanimously confirmed the General for this mission, needs to support him by providing our troops the funding they need - not by mandating failure. As the President said, “Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2007/ 03/ 20070327-7.html
March 27th, 2007 at 7:16 pmJake, Bush can yammer all day long. If he vetoes, he defunds the troops. That’s how it will be go down. Get over it.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pmLIEberman is an agent of Israel, plain and simple as that!!!!!
LIEberman (R-Israel), useless, really!!! CUA!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pmOh boy, look at Jake now — dropping scat faster than a loose goose.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:20 pmRead this link and you’ll see how useless this piece of shit actually is….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2007/ 03/ 27/ gonzales-runs-out-of-conf_n_44386.html
Ph*ck you AG!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:22 pmIs this thread about the Senate vote to surrender in Iraq or the Attorney General?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:25 pmNat:
I just reviewed every Senate vote from January — what “rule change” are you referring to?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:27 pmJake, this thread is about whatever the hell we want. You have no say in this matter because you have proven yourself to be irrelevant time after time after time. We are not interested in the output of Bush’s skeevy speech writers, for we have already heard enough lies. The only things that really matter are how fast we can bring about the destruction of this fascist regime, and how we can minimize any further damage while that process moves forward.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:36 pmstonehinge:
If you are willing to trade your life for the President’s, you could bring about the destruction of this fascist regime very fast . . .
March 27th, 2007 at 7:42 pmNo, Jake, it doesn’t work that way. We intend to keep aWol around, for a while anyways, just to serve as a reminder to everyone that we must never walk this path again.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:49 pmLIE-berman’s TREACHERY IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT Pryor? I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A VETO-PROOF AND TURNCOAT PROOF MAJORITY IN THE SENATE AND WE CAN START THAT BY GETTING RID OF LIE-berman, THAT MISERABLE WHINY PIECE OF HYENA-SHIT!!!!! UNSHAKEABLE MAJORITY IS NECESSARY IN 2008 TO STOP THE repugnant-repub rigfhtwingnut crank fudge-pachyderm OBSTRUCTIONISTS AND TRAITOROUS CREEPS!!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pmHe’ll veto it because he doesn’t want to take this signing statement thing (which is a subversion of the Constitution) to the Supreme Court.
Comment by Nat — March 27, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
But would a signing statement go to the Supreme Court? Who is the injured party? What is the proposed remedy? Would this be a political question and thus not justiciable? In other words, would the only remedy be impeachment? If so, do not the Republicans in the Senate guarantee an Imperial President?
The Republican Party can guarantee that Bush will remain in office, no matter what. They have done so for the past 6 years. And as soon as they were in the minority they exercised their filibuster power against, that’s right, ethics reform.
The Republican Party can guarantee that Bush will have free reign to attack Iran.
The Republican Party can guarantee that Bush will be allowed to deregulate industry for the next two years and cause irreparable harm to the environment.
The Republican Party can guarantee that Corporate America will be well served for the next two years, then follow Halliburton out of the country.
Because the Republican Party can block any and all attempts to hold Bush & Co. accountable for their actions.
Look for new regulations regarding voting to be enacted just before the 2008 elections.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:09 pmand so do the American people — and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.
Comment by Jake
The only problem with that?
The man that said it has totally discredited himself and turned himself into a laughing stock for the worlds comedians for generations to come. Future Americans will have easy access to this presidency because of the Internets birth around this time… Impeach Bush will be a logo well known among all. Bush Lied Thousands Died will also. Chimp and Fool me once… shame on me… Fool me twice…shame…
Loss of confidence makes the strength of your words dissipate.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pmLIEberman is an agent of Israel, plain and simple as that!!!!!
LIEberman (R-Israel), useless, really!!! CUA!!!!
Comment by dixie blood
I dont know about that…
But the zionist republicans sure act like it.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pmJake - Why aren’t you signing up for Iraq? You so approve the US led invasion of Iraq, and I am sure you are not one to send others while you cower in fear of serving in this immoral action Bush has created. Sign up Jake, you too Patrick1.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pmSens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Landrieu (D-LA) voted with the Democrats on this one. Very interesting as they usually vote with Lieberman on defense matters.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pmHey–Mitch McBush tied himself even tighter to Bush’s Iraq Fiasco with his idiotic comments and his vote on the Iraq bill yesterday. Do you know anyone in Kentucky? Tell them to do everything they can to help Ditch Mitch in 2008.
Check out the new web site: http://www.ditchmitchky.com
March 28th, 2007 at 7:59 amJust when you thought it was safe in the blogs, here comes Patrick1 with his unique brand of humor and American pride. Nice to see that a leopard never changes its spots, huh?
Comment by Tom
Don’t insult leopards. They are beautiful animals, not at all like ugly trolls.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:25 am