Posted on 05/21/2007 1:14:27 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.
The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.
While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.
Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict later this year.
Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party's rank and file later in the day.
Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society.
Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.
Several officials said it was possible that Democrats would attempt to draft a second bill, to include much of the domestic spending that Bush and congressional Republicans have said they oppose.
Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush's desk by week's end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.
Bush vetoed one bill this spring after Democrats included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Republicans in the House upheld his rejection of the measure.
The House then passed legislation to provide war funds in two 60-day installments. Bush threatened a veto, and the measure was sidetracked in the Senate in favor of a non-controversial bill that merely pledged to give the troops the resources they need.
That set the stage for the current House-Senate negotiations on a measure to send to Bush.
The MSM will still spin this as not a defeat for the DEMs nor as a victory for GWB.
You are exactly right - It is just some fools can't be bothered with facts / nor reality.
The majority in Congress remains not fully Anti-American.
JV, you are assuming the Congress will fully fund the Pentagon for 2008, the fiscal year of which starts on October 1, 2007. The democrats can game the appropriations bill in the House for 2008 just like they have and will continue to do so with the supplemental bill for 2007. Again, they will attempt to punt a decision on funding the Iraq war down the road as far as possible so they can use the issue to pound on the Pubbies with an assist from their allies in the DBM, while avoiding painting themselves as the ‘owners’ of the Iraq war. Whether that strategy will work or not depends on the reaction of the voting public as to what the perception of progress on the ground in Iraq is by the end of this year.
The Iraq war will not disappear into oblivion anytime soon. It will be still be going on long after the end of 2008 no matter which party occupies the White House.
Time magazine is stunned.
They blinked. Blanked. Blunk.
I agree. It’s way too soon to be setting our hair on fire and giving up.
Yes, they blinked.
I hope all the naysayers on the Free Republic learn something, that the Democrats can be beaten if confronted.
LOL!
The Dems simply want to be seen as opposing an unpopular war, they don’t really want to take responsibility for the alternative.
Exactly!
Is American Samoa included this time?
Sad, but true.
Amen to your post!
Douchebag underground is taking it well...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2854026
I’ve got to agree with many of the comments posted here. I do believe that this is a juggling act for the Democrats between Iraq timelines and the juicy, abundant Latino vote that comes upon passing the amnesty bill.
Here’s the thing that the Democrats miss, over and over and over again:
It’s better to go down in flames and LOSE while fighting for something you truly believe in than it is to sell yourself out for the quick win.
All of the Democratic chest-thumping over Iraq has been a sham. They’ve been playing to their own base. They want power, plain and simple. The only problem is that once they get past their tough talk, they have nothing, other than a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance. In my circle of acquaintance, that’s two strikes. So they give up their “highly principled” stand on the Iraq war and hope that 12 million legalized illegal aliens will put Hillary in the White House.
That will happen when pigs fly. The Democrats have nothing except hot air and photo ops.
Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society.
Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.
Several officials said it was possible that Democrats would attempt to draft a second bill, to include much of the domestic spending that Bush and congressional Republicans have said they oppose.
Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush’s desk by week’s end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.
Bush vetoed one bill this spring after Democrats included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Republicans in the House upheld his rejection of the measure.
The House then passed legislation to provide war funds in two 60-day installments. Bush threatened a veto, and the measure was sidetracked in the Senate in favor of a non-controversial bill that merely pledged to give the troops the resources they need.
That set the stage for the current House-Senate negotiations on a measure to send to Bush.
The Democrats’ attempt to draft war funding legislation occurred after an inconclusive meeting on Friday involving White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress.
Democrats criticized the administration for rejecting calls for a troop withdrawal timetable even if Bush has the power to waive it.
For his part, Bolten criticized Democrats for persisting with an approach that had already sparked one veto. He noted the president had already said he was willing to consider legislation that included so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4823344.html
who do you support for Pres in 08?
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.