Posted on 05/09/2007 3:42:13 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
WASHINGTON, May 9 (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday said they would press ahead with a new Iraq funding bill, despite a White House veto threat and a cold Senate reaction to a bill that would dole out combat funds in pieces and force a July vote on withdrawing troops.
"The House bill is going to change," promised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters President George W. Bush would veto the House bill if it reached his desk.
While House Democratic leaders want to pass the new war funds bill by late Thursday, support was being measured and some aides said the vote could slip to Friday or next week.
Under the bill, which is not expected to become law, Bush would get a $42.8 billion down payment. Then, after getting White House war progress reports in July, Congress would cast votes late that month on whether to release an additional $52.8 billion to continue fighting in Iraq through September, or whether to use the money to withdraw most of the troops by the end of this year.
Bush wants all the money for fighting the war now and without conditions.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate panel that the two-step funding idea would create budget nightmares in the Pentagon.
"The bill asks me to run the Department of Defense like a skiff and I'm trying to drive the biggest supertanker in the world," he said.
Cognizant of the opposition, House Democratic leaders appeared firm in their resolve to get the bill passed, which could give them a stronger negotiating position after the Senate passes a different measure, probably next week.
"Our bill will fully fund the troops, honor our commitment to our veterans, hold the Iraqi government accountable and end the war," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "The president's only response to our good-faith efforts is another veto threat," the California Democrat said.
Reid, after a meeting with White House officials, told reporters he was still trying to write a Senate version of a war-funding bill to replace the $124 billion one Bush vetoed last week, which set an Oct. 1 deadline for starting to bring troops out of Iraq.
A bipartisan group of senators, many of them centrists, were meeting privately in an attempt to come up with a war-funding bill that could attract a solid majority of the 100-member Senate, according to Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.
Nelson, who opposes setting deadlines now for withdrawing troops, instead would tie about $2.3 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq to progress in stabilizing the country.
He said that a series of reports Bush would submit to Congress on stabilizing Iraq could trigger future legislation on withdrawing U.S. troops if there was insufficient progress.
"If we get to September and it's all Fs and Ds (on reports submitted by Bush) ... I don't know what Plan B is, but I bet Plan B will be developed rather quickly," Nelson said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, teamed up with Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, introducing legislation that could end U.S. combat in Iraq around April 2008 if Iraq fails to meet military and political goals for stabilizing the country.
Snowe, returned this week from a visit to Iraq, where she said she found the "good news mixed, but the bad news deeply disturbing."
Republicans, nervous about the sinking popularity of the war and the Republican president, this week began talking about a September or October timeframe for seeing success in Iraq or demanding a new plan.
Democrats continue to be split over how to end the war. Presidential candidate John Edwards said, "Congress should not back down to the president's veto. They should pass the same bill they sent him last month, a plan to support our troops, end the war, and bring them home."
1. Congress will go back and give Bush the bill he wanted in the first place?
2. The troops will have to be pulled from Iraq for their own safety?
3. Bush will sign the bill and accept partial funding?
4. Money will be shifted from other government programs to fund the troops?
5. The UK will loan us the money?
6. The Saudis will offer to cover the costs?
7. Congress will come back with an even more restrictive bill?
Which smart Freeper knows the ways of Washington enough to predict the next move?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
While these morons try to hang Bush, the country will run better than ever.
I’d go with #6 since it is the most embarrassing to US and that is what our speaker likes to do.
She must have missed todays poll saying how the longer the dem’s are in power, the less they are liked by Americans.
Bush has already said he would veto the bill. Tony snow said that this morning, I believe it was today. The dems are simply trying to run the military out of money without actually defunding them.
Unconstitutional.. They can vote all they wish, but it still doesn't make them C&C.
That's exactly how it looks to me. But that is just such terrible politics -- it's hard to believe that is the underlying strategy.
I mean, it would come back to haunt the Dems before the 2008 elections.
Graham Accepts Petition Signed by Service Members Urging Congress to Support Iraq Mission
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) led U.S. Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives in accepting a petition - the Appeal for Courage -- signed by more than 2,800 U.S. service members urging Congress to support the mission in Iraq and end calls for retreat. A full 60 percent of the petition signers have previously served or are now serving in Iraq.
"The men and women who are doing the fighting and dying -- the ultimate stakeholders -- want to send a different message than Congress is sending," said Graham. "They want people to know they are committed to Victory in Iraq and they don't want Congress to undercut them. They know victory is possible. I hear them and I wish others would too."
The Appeal for Courage petition was started in February by two U.S. service members serving in Iraq: Lieutenant Jason Nichols, a Navy Information Professional officer and Staff Sergeant David Thul, of the Minnesota National Guard. It states:
"As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack."
The petition was presented by Bob Wallace, Executive Director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), on behalf of the petitioner's organizers. The elected officials at the event included Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Congressman Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), and Congressman Adam Putnam (R-Florida).
In a statement this morning LT Nichols and SSG Thul said:
"This Appeal is a direct communication to Congress from the currently serving military troops. We are respectfully asking for full support in finishing the mission you assigned us here in Iraq. Patience and resolve will result in a stable democratic country in the Middle East. Early withdrawal will result in a stronger enemy, a weaker America, and a demoralized US Armed forces. Building a new democracy takes time, and we are making steady progress. We need your support to finish the job."
NOTE: For more information please visit www.appealforcourage.org.
I say we stop paying taxes and give the money to the troops instead. I’d rather my money go there than to intelligence agents studying climate change anyway.
You forgot: “Turn the other cheek.”
What is that?
Maybe Bush should show them both cheeks.
Ah, if only the world worked that way...
I’ll take No. 4 and the dems favorite programs will go first: NPR to start with.
Bingo!
The subtext of all of this is that Speaker Pelosi and her cohort of far leftwingers are perfectly happy to destroy our military by playing politics.
If the Iraqi parliment goes on vacation for two months while our men are fighting and dying for their freedom then the Dems will be successful in their attempt to dole out funds piece by piece. When that happens they will fund the first two months and then have support for ending all funds. The American people won’t back a prolonged surge when the Iraqis refuse to aid in their own liberation.
I am irrate at Maliki and his cowardice government!!!!!
Commander and Chief.
Oh gawd -- don't get me started on that!
It is so outrageous that I sometimes wonder if we've been had.
What no demands on the actions of the terrorists and their enablers in Iran and Syria?
Not too surprising. America is always wrong to the left over Hippies, Yippees and Yuppies now in control of the Congress of the United States, never mind the MSM.
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.