Reply #7: Oh really? [View All]

[TheWraith]

1. That would result in defunding, which the majority of the public does not support, and it would be handing the Repubs a major PR victory.

2. The bill really only passed the first time because it was generally known that it would be vetoed. If passing it again was the final policy of the Dem leadership, we'd probably lose 3-4 moderate Dem votes in the Senate, and it would stall out there.

3. And watch it get vetoed again, and then we lose the moderate Dems, as above. What you need to remember is that while the Dems may have a (narrow) majority, the most stiffly anti-war faction is outnumbered when you add up the Republicans and the handful of moderates who aren't willing to defund.

4. There's no way in hell that impeachment is practical right now. Nor would it be very effective: even if it passed in the House, which isn't certain at all, we wouldn't have the votes to convict in the Senate, meaning that not only would Bush stay in office, but we'd have burned our last card in dealing with him. There would be nothing that could be threatened anymore.

And to answer your implied question about why they did it, I would assume that they believe in September, once the "surge" has firmly proven itself to be a disaster, there will be sufficient Republicans wanting to distance themselves from Bush and the war that they may be able to override a veto and get the timetables passed.