[Peace-discuss] Feckless democrats, again

[C. G. Estabrook]

When the bill fails in the Senate or is vetoed, the administration will 
immediately call for a stripped-down bill -- just the money -- because 
of the urgent necessity to support the troops.  And it will pass.

Cheney yesterday in a speech to Jewish supporters said correctly that 
the Congress would have no effect on administration policy.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> This whole issue seems nonsensical. Voting the 100+ billions $ means 
> nothing given that everyone expects this "anti-war bill" to be vetoed . 
> The statements below about the conditions for getting troops out of Iraq 
> are probably right, but again meaningless in view of an assumed veto. 
> Borosage on the Amy Goodman show was more convincing than Maxine Water; 
> you may not believe him (I don't), but his argument was that if Bush 
> vetoes the bill (assuming the Senate would go along with it!) then 
> stronger measures would be forthcoming. --mkb
> 
> 
> On Mar 25, 2007, at 9:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> [Except for the optimism of the final paragraph, this seems about 
>> right to me.  It comes from the World Socialist Web Site, the 
>> Trotskyist group associated with the Socialist Equality Party. --CGE]
>>
>>
>>     Democrats pass “anti-war” bill that
>>     funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
>>     By Barry Grey
>>     24 March 2007
>>  ...