Posted on 04/17/2007 7:21:22 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats say there is no doubt President Bush will soon be confronted with legislation calling for an end to the Iraq war. But the new majority must decide how far to go in trying to tie Bush's hands and what will happen after the president's inevitable veto.
The debate is likely to expose fissures among Democrats, who remain divided on whether to cut off money for the unpopular war and risk leaving troops in the lurch.
"My feeling is at a certain point we're going to have a 'come-to-Jesus' moment in the caucus and talk about whether you fund (the war) or not," said Rep. Jim McDermott (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash.
McDermott is one of 218 House members, 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 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 (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., launched an aggressive whip operation to convince party liberals the bill was their best shot at ending the war. Most Democrats do not support yanking funding for the war.
On March 29, the Senate voted 51-47 for a similar, but less sweeping measure. That bill would require that Bush begin pulling out an unspecified number of troops right away with the goal of ending combat by March 31, 2008.
As early as Tuesday, House and Senate appropriators were expected to begin negotiating a final bill. In doing so, congressional leaders will be seeking a compromise that won't turn off more liberal Democrats like McDermott and retain the backing of the party's more conservative members like Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb., who is against imposing a firm deadline on military commanders.
The compromise bill will require a final vote in both the House and Senate before reaching the president's desk. Most members regard such a vote as merely procedural so Democratic leaders are not anticipating serious opposition to the conference agreement no matter the outcome.
Nevertheless, the conference negotiation and Democrats' response to Bush's veto is expected to tip off a fresh round of debate on how far Congress should go to end the war.
"Listen, I understand Republicans and Democrats in Washington have differences over the best course in Iraq," Bush said Monday. "That's healthy. That's normal, and we should debate those differences. But our troops should not be caught in the middle."
Administration officials and congressional Republicans say the fate of the U.S. military in Iraq should be in the hands of the president and his military commanders.
Democrats shouldn't "make political points by delaying the essential supplies, materiel and training our forces in the field," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky.
House Republican leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, added: "Each day that passes without a clean troop funding bill puts our soldiers in greater danger and weakens their ability to fight al-Qaida."
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., told reporters Monday that should Bush veto the bill as expected, Democrats would likely 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."
Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., told reporters Monday he was open to the idea.
"The president is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it," Reid said.
Reid also repeated assertions that Congress was committed to funding the troops, despite the leader's support for separate legislation that would cut off money for combat missions after March 2008.
Reid said his promise to fund the troops is not at odds with the proposal because the measure would fund troops to stay in Iraq so long as they were engaged in non-combat missions. Those include counterterrorism and training of Iraq security forces.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., center, accompanied by retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, left, and retired Brig. Gen John H. Johns, right, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, April 16, 2007. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) holds a news conference on Iraq on Capitol Hill in Washington April 16, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)
This and nationwide gun control are winners for the RATS.
Full steam ahead!
Reid is such a liar when he stands behind a banner that says “Support Our Troops.” The only thing he supports is the dems’ latest grab for power.
Reid is such a liar when he stands behind a banner that says “Support Our Troops.” The only thing he supports is the dems’ latest grab for power.
I apologize for the double post. My fingers twitch when I think about Reid.
Yup, it’s time to toss Pissy Matthews or Keith OverBite on the fire too just for good measure on the race side of things, (Imus burn’d up too quick)
Everything about these people is a dishonest, condescending fraud.
Every Dem representative and Senator should be force deployed to walk the line at Basra for 60 days.
Then bring 'em home and see how they legislate.
Yeah...Reid will fund the troops while they are in Iraq...as long as they are in non-combat positions???
soo...they won’t need weapons, Harry??
We would be better off just bombing the heck out of the country....I am sick if their crap.
You can say that again.
DNC...Send in your secret Pelosi weapon to teach them terrorists diplomacy...LOL
“Stalin would be proud of todays Democrats.”
That association is nonsense. J. Bruce Ismay is a better fit.
LOL! Very well, I stand corrected! :-)
All acting like little children. Solution: term limits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.