Here's her comments on the house floor yesterday, from here:

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, this conversation is 4 years too late. If we had this conversation 4 years ago, we would have known that we had the wrong intelligence, the wrong country and the wrong war. This administration is now borrowing $10 billion a month with the help of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If they are truly concerned about fiscal responsibility, $10 billion should catch their attention. We borrow the money.

Let's talk about our troops and supporting our troops. If we were to support our troops, first of all we would take them out of a civil war. Secondly, we would care for them while they are here. Third, while they were there, we would make sure that they have the equipment they need. We know this administration has failed on all levels.

Our President says we need to listen to the generals. All of the generals are saying that we have weakened our military.

Let's support our country and let's support our defense. Make our military strong again so we can practice self-defense.

This administration and its allies have hurt us abroad, hurt our reputation, and will spend us into financial disaster if we allow them to. Fortunately, Congress has the power of the purse, and we will exercise it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

The executive will spend us into financial disaster if we allow them to? It's the house who has the power of appropriations. How quickly the rabble become politicians!

The roll call for the bill indicates that 14 democrats voted nay, those who felt it "did not go far enough in bringing an end to the war quickly, and others who thought the Iraq conditions were too restrictive" (Congressional Quarterly).

Shea-Porter could have been one of these. She could have taken a stand. Instead, she chose to accept the false dichotomy of the people who pressed her for party loyalty. I hope the antiwar supporters of the democratic party learned a lesson here.