Based on comments by Levin and Durbin, Clinton and Obama voted "against the troops."

[ProSense]

But the no vote was not the mainstream Democratic view. Indeed, of the 16 sitting senators who voted against going to war to begin with, 11 voted to provide funds for U.S. troops Thursday evening.

"Though I loathe this decision to fund the war, I will not take out my feelings against the troops in the field," said Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who voted against authorizing use of force in Iraq in October 2002. "Our soldiers should never be bargaining chips in this debate."

Durbin was joined by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chair of the Armed Services Committee, who also voted against going to war nearly five years ago.

"I cannot vote to stop funding our troops who are in harm's way," Levin said. "It is not the proper way that we can bring this was to an end. It is not the proper way that we can put pressure on Iraqi leaders."

Clinton and Obama felt differently, though the decision was apparently not easy. Neither would discuss the vote before it was cast. Both were among the last dozen or so to vote; Obama slipped in quietly onto the Senate floor at close to 8:45 p.m., said hi to some colleagues, approached the desk, quietly said "No," and left.

Only seconds later, Clinton did the same.

more

Great going!

Note: Rep. Moran (D-VA), who is a defense appropriator, voted against the bill. This exercise was to hold Bush accountable, not make it easy for him to continue his failed policy. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that a bill with a deadline would have included all the money Bush wants. In September, what happens if things are worse and Congress forces the issue? The same standoff, then does Congress back down again by making excuses?

more

[rpannier]

1. Yes They Will

And they'll tell us how they're holding the president accountable.

Their definition of winning/progress is starting to sound more and more like scrubbies definition of winning/progress in Iraq

[OneBlueSky]

2. if he really believes that these funds will support "our troops in the field," he needs to . . .

rent a brain . . . most of them will go directly to Halliburton and the other contractors so they can continue charging $100/load to do the laundry . . .

[AndyA]

3. Bush will be happy to share the blood on his hands with Democrats.

And congratulations, Democrats, you just gave him exactly what he wanted.

Now it's YOUR WAR too.

[moondust]

4. The point they miss.

If they refuse to give Bush more "occupaton" money he will have no choice but to use what money he still has to get the troops out of harm's way. Leaving them there without funding would justify immediate impeachment.

[Virginia Dare]

6. Why would that be his only choice?

give me a link or some proof of this, because I haven't seen any. I've heard this argument bantered around a lot, but I have yet to see one iota of proof that it's true.

[ProSense]

5. Kick! n/t