"U.S. Democrats Must Decide How Far to go to Challenge Bush on War, Post-veto Plans"

Tweet Isn't it nice that McDermott has "feelings" about the brutal and bloody occupation of Iraq. All the articles portray some of the Democrats as being "antiwar." Besides rhetoric like that uttered by McDermott below, I challenge these writers to show me the evidence that they are in fact "antiwar." The whole article is a puff piece trying to impart the idea that the Dems are agonizing over the decision to fund a monstrous death-machine, a decision all of us made long ago quite easily. Linda

"'My feeling is at a certain point we're going to ... talk about whether you fund (the war) or not," said Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott.

"McDermott is among 218 members of the House of Representatives, mostly Democrats, who voted March 23 for legislation that would order combat troops out of Iraq by September 2008.

"Like some of his anti-war colleagues, McDermott was initially reluctant to endorse the bill because it included $96 billion (€70.9 billion) for the military, much of which would keep the war afloat for another six months.

"The narrow 218-212 vote came only after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also a Democrat, launched an aggressive operation in party discipline to convince party liberals the bill was their best shot at ending the war. Most Democrats do not support removing funding for the war.

Later in article, the pot begins calling the kettle black:

"Democratic Sen. Carl Levin told reporters Monday that should Bush veto the bill as expected, Democrats probably would opt to replace the withdrawal language with a "softer version" that ties U.S. aid to political progress made by the Iraqi government.

"'It's the second-best approach in terms of how to force the Iraqi government to reach a political settlement," he said. "Everyone is saying there is no military solution, yet the president's path is a deepening military presence."