Questions I'd like to ask the Democratic leadership in congress

Submitted by b psycho on Thu, 2007-05-03 13:06.
As I type this, you're discussing a "compromise" on funding for the continuing occupation of Iraq, offering to leave out a timetable for withdrawal. Considering that it is congress that authorizes war in the first place, it is entirely plausible that congress could revoke that authorization. With that in mind, how is the bill that Bush vetoed not already a "compromise"? If you recognize that as a compromise, then in what way would it not be fair to interpret removing a withdrawal timetable as "bending over"?
 
One more thing: could someone among your ranks PLEASE make the case that Bush vetoing the bill, thus choosing a lack of funds w/ no real goal in sight over funding w/ an actual goal, shows he himself doesn't "support the troops", to use the GOP's favorite phrase?

good question, here are some others

#3708 On Thu, 2007 05 03 18:15 adam ricketson said,

I've had a couple of others today:

1) Why did Congress remove the rule against members taking flights on private planes? As reported on NPR's Marketplace's "This Final Note":

When Congress started its session this year, it adopted some of its strictest ethics guidelines ever. Among them, a ban on lawmakers hitching rides on private planes. The idea being that lobbyists were currying favor by shuttling members of Congress around.

The House eased up on those rules last night. Members of Congress can now fly in planes they, or their family members, own. But then there's this exception: It's OK to ride on someone else's plane, so long as it's "on the basis of personal friendship."

It's worth noting the House voted on this measure around midnight. And that it was a voice vote. And that it lasted all of 39 seconds. Which is just about as long as I've been talking.

2) Why are they thinking about super-subsidizing ethanol, when it isn't all that it's cracked up to be regarding CO2 emissions, and it has it's own pollution problems?

The energy bill, passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a 20-3 vote, would require a sevenfold increase in ethanol production, to 36 billion gallons a year, by 2022.