Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems question latest anti-war strategy
San Luis Obispo Tribune ^ | Nov. 09, 2007 | ANNE FLAHERTY

Posted on 11/09/2007 12:43:30 PM PST by neverdem

Associated Press

Rank-and-file Democrats expressed dismay on Friday over their party's latest anti-war strategy, with some members reluctant to vote to bring troops home around Veterans Day. The House was on track to consider legislation next week that would give President Bush $50 billion for operations Iraq and Afghanistan but insist that he begin withdrawing troops.

The measure identifies a goal of ending combat by December 2008, leaving only enough soldiers and Marines behind to fight terrorists, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. assets.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed off plans for a Friday vote after caucus members told her late Thursday they weren't sure they would support it. Liberal Democrats said the proposal was too soft, while conservative members told Pelosi they thought it went too far.

But Pelosi told reporters on Friday that she was confident the Iraq measure would pass.

"I think the message in the next week ought to be that a heck of a lot of people have been harmed (in combat) and we ought to take care of them," said Rep. Gene Taylor, a conservative Mississippi Democrat who says his constituents mostly support the war.

Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said the vote was delayed because leadership was not satisfied it would pass. The proposal - which also includes a provision that would effectively ban waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques and restrict troop deployments - might be tweaked to address member concerns, he added.

But one guarantee, Murtha said, is that Bush will have to accept some timetable on troop withdrawals if he wants the money.

"I don't think you'll see the House pass anything without restrictions," said Murtha, D-Pa.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Thursday that Bush would again veto any legislation that sets an "artificial timeline" for troop withdrawals.

"We should be supporting our troops as they are succeeding, not finding ways to undercut their mission," he said.

Pelosi, D-Calif., told members in a private caucus meeting on Thursday that if Bush rejected the measure, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.

"It's a war without end," Pelosi later told reporters. "There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it."

The bill is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats stripped the timetable from the bill and approved a $95 billion emergency spending bill, mostly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure established political goals for the Iraqi government and put conditions on reconstruction aid, but Bush ultimately retained authority over the money, which ran out this fall.

Several anti-war liberals said Thursday they were willing to swing behind the measure, as long as it came with strings attached.

"The American people want out," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "And we have to make sure we take giant steps in that direction."

If approved by the House, the Senate also might take up the measure next week.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he did not want to approve a spending measure for Iraq unless it forced a change in Bush's policies. When asked whether that was possible, considering the thin majority Democrats hold in the Senate, Reid said it "is up to the White House and up to the Republicans."

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats face "unfortunate timing" because of the military progress being made in Iraq.

"While our troops are quelling violence and defeating terrorists in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, Democrats in Washington are trying to choke off funds for our troops in the field," he said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 110th; army; cutandrun; defeatocrats; democratparty; democrats; dhimmicrats; election2006legacy; fifthcolumn; iraq; jihad; jihadists; madamespeaker; marinecorps; marines; murtha; nancypelosi; peacecreeps; proterrorist; sanfrannan; surrendermonkeys; usefulidiots; waterboarding; wot
Startling implications of a Jihadi letter
1 posted on 11/09/2007 12:43:31 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You could change the date on this headline 56 times over the last year alone. The anti American rat keeps trying to get us to surrender and Americans don’t want to surrender.


2 posted on 11/09/2007 12:47:43 PM PST by jmaroneps37 (Conservatives live in the truth. Liberals live in lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

It won’t be long before the Dem leadership in the House throw the net over Pulosi. The victory in Iraq cannot be hidden. They lose everything next November.


3 posted on 11/09/2007 12:50:25 PM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
leaving only enough soldiers and Marines behind to fight terrorists, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. assets.

And how many do you really need to fight terrorism in Iraq? 1000? 1500? All of them there now and then some?

4 posted on 11/09/2007 12:52:09 PM PST by KarlInOhio (May the heirs of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski rise up again to defend Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"I don't think you'll see the House pass anything without restrictions,"said Murtha, D-Pa.

Yeah, John, you can pass it in the House that way and watch it die a slow death in the Senate. Even Dusty Harry admitted as much when he said:

"When asked whether that was possible, considering the thin majority Democrats hold in the Senate, Reid said it "is up to the White House and up to the Republicans."

Translation: We can't do sh*t without the Republicans

5 posted on 11/09/2007 12:53:34 PM PST by aroundabout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I say we take up a collection to buy a few cruise missles to visit Qom, Mecca, & Medina for starters.


6 posted on 11/09/2007 12:55:30 PM PST by Paladin2 (We don't fix the problem, we fix the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
This has almost become that definition of insanity, you know, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
7 posted on 11/09/2007 12:56:11 PM PST by don'tbedenied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bush will keep sending it back until the provision of troop withdraw is removed....because we know the Dems don’t have the stones to pull funding.


8 posted on 11/09/2007 1:01:33 PM PST by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed off plans for a Friday vote after caucus members told her late Thursday they weren't sure they would support it. Liberal Democrats said the proposal was too soft, while conservative members told Pelosi they thought it went too far.

Forgive me for saying so, but it looks like ol' Peloser is stuck between Iraq and a hard place...

9 posted on 11/09/2007 1:03:19 PM PST by Mygirlsmom (Mrs Clinton! How'd your campain fund get so big????? "Ancient Chinese Secret!!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

Folks, I am very concerned. The Democrats may be, in their craven evaluations, finally realizing that they are funding victory, and that victory could destroy them next year.

They truly face a situation where they must make a choice of funding victory that humiliates them during the campaign, or they cut off funds altogether and risk any backlash about not supporting troops in battle. They may indeed choose the latter. That is a risk of unknown magnitude vs the magnitude of humiliation they are beginning to see is certain as victory in Iraq unfolds.

The GOP can talk about this victory non stop and it may not matter. The Democrats may decide that they dare not fund it because it will cost them the election. How does Hillary respond to an opponent in the debates who turns to her and says

The People Remember Who Pimped Surrender.

The Democrats are terrified of that scenario, and in their little world of contorted mindset, the best interests of the country are served by them staying in power even if it means surrender. They can talk around surrender and blame it all on Bush, but they cannot talk around victory.

They are in trouble, and so are we. We DESPERATELY need another increment of money to secure victory. Their base may not let them give it to us.


10 posted on 11/09/2007 1:26:11 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The measure identifies a goal of ending combat by December 2008, leaving only enough soldiers and Marines behind to fight terrorists, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. assets.

What does she think they are doing there now?

They *are* "fighting terrorists, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting U.S. assets. Oh they are also building hospitals and schools, water supply systems and power generation/distrubtion systems. She wants to stop those sort of "for the children" activities? Hmm... Worst case of BDS yet.

11 posted on 11/09/2007 1:29:06 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aroundabout
Translation: We can't do sh*t without the Republicans

The problem being there are plenty of Sh*tty RINOS in the Senate, who might just go along with something like this.

12 posted on 11/09/2007 1:35:09 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Owen

Owen,
You captured the democRat predicament quite well. They have successfully painted themselves in a corner. If the country wins, they lose. If the US loses, they lose.


13 posted on 11/09/2007 1:35:17 PM PST by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

No chance, not even one.


14 posted on 11/09/2007 1:42:34 PM PST by aroundabout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

They got what they voted for, leaders who are about as moronic as can be possible.


15 posted on 11/09/2007 1:57:09 PM PST by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Democrats can press for defeat all they want. Let em go on record as undermining our troops.

"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

16 posted on 11/09/2007 2:01:39 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

17 posted on 11/09/2007 2:12:05 PM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
They want to make a statement that can be sold to their base as "ending the war" without really changing a thing. This way they can jump in front of the parade to act like they are leading.

They are desperate to do something that looks like they are in charge.

18 posted on 11/09/2007 2:13:25 PM PST by been_lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...leaving only enough soldiers and Marines behind to fight terrorists, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. assets...

Apparently, there is an objective number. What is it?

19 posted on 11/09/2007 2:31:30 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed off plans for a Friday vote after caucus members told her late Thursday they weren't sure they would support it. Liberal Democrats said the proposal was too soft, while conservative members told Pelosi they thought it went too far.

A Cessna 337 powered by DNC fuel.

The 337 is nicknamed the "To me come from me" and the "push pull" via it's propulsion it incorporates.

A fitting name for the DNC these day's.

20 posted on 11/09/2007 3:28:58 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; smoothsailing; RedRover
al-Murthawi ALERT --

But one guarantee, Murtha said, is that Bush will have to accept some timetable on troop withdrawals if he wants the money.

"I don't think you'll see the House pass anything without restrictions," said Murtha, D-Pa.

Someone please show me where in the Constitution CONgre$$ has the authority to be become Commander-in-Chief!

21 posted on 11/09/2007 3:48:13 PM PST by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owen

Now their best strategy would be to fund the war to the hilt and encourage another surge to finish the job for 10 years, then they could change the subject to the economy. Berdanke could engineer a recession right here and help the Democrats save face. I doubt they are that intelligent. Idiot traitors could be patriotic and save their own butts.


22 posted on 11/09/2007 3:48:36 PM PST by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: been_lurking

If ever a story deserved a ‘Tard Ping...this is it.


23 posted on 11/09/2007 4:33:09 PM PST by RedQuill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: george76

LOL! Thanks for the toon!


24 posted on 11/09/2007 5:50:59 PM PST by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Dems keep waiting and waiting for the bad news from Iraq to come....

Poor babies. They must be beside themselves with grief and fear right now.

25 posted on 11/09/2007 7:01:35 PM PST by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody; neverdem
Someone please show me where in the Constitution CONgre$$ has the authority to be become Commander-in-Chief!

Senile old man al-Murthawi would like everyone to believe he is relevant, he isn't, not even with the House Dems. That was shown when Hoyer was elected Majority Leader and Murtha was left with the sad, wet dog look on his face. LOL!

26 posted on 11/09/2007 7:24:01 PM PST by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; Just A Nobody
Senile old man al-Murthawi would like everyone to believe he is relevant, he isn't, not even with the House Dems. That was shown when Hoyer was elected Majority Leader and Murtha was left with the sad, wet dog look on his face. LOL!

But, Jaz, John and Nancy were such a lovely couple....

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

;-)

27 posted on 11/09/2007 7:53:21 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; Just A Nobody

LOL!! You’re right, Smooth. They do make a lovely couple and they deserve each other. That pic is a keeper, Stretch Pelosi and Sad Dog Murtha. :)


28 posted on 11/09/2007 8:08:04 PM PST by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody; jazusamo
Now here's a hoot!

And her Ankles and Butt are Gorgeous, Too

29 posted on 11/09/2007 8:09:10 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Hah! Clarice Feldman is right on and she’s also a winner, her pieces are always good.


30 posted on 11/09/2007 8:31:57 PM PST by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; smoothsailing
Murtha was left with the sad, wet dog look on his face.

Like this? ROTFLOL!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

31 posted on 11/09/2007 9:37:29 PM PST by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Sweet couple...LOL!


32 posted on 11/09/2007 9:38:59 PM PST by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Owen
They truly face a situation where they must make a choice of funding victory that humiliates them during the campaign, or they cut off funds altogether and risk any backlash about not supporting troops in battle. They may indeed choose the latter.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You nailed it Owen. This is a very dangerous time for our troops. And sad to say, the Dems just might put a full court pork promise press on enough RINOs to win the vote in the senate.

This is when we miss Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld.

The dems convinced enough RINOs to give up the ghost on things like Amnesty, and McCain-Feingold, and the Filibustering rule change ( nuclear option). The Dems are insanely desperate.

The next few weeks will tell which way it will go.

33 posted on 11/10/2007 12:37:20 AM PST by Candor7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

LOL!! You’re good, Justa. That’s the pic I was thinking of.


34 posted on 11/10/2007 6:51:12 AM PST by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Owen
Actually the Democrats would be far better off to just shut up.

The American sheep,,,I mean voters actually are telling pollsters that they think Democrat are better qualified to deal with the economy and health care then the Republicans. Democrat in the House keep fighting on the issue where the Republicans kick their butts in polling, National Security.

If Democrats would simply shut up about Iraq, the focus of the political campaigns next year would be on the Economy and domestic issues where the sheep think the Democrats are best.

This the danger of having national party policy set by Congressional leadership. They are so blinded by the bubble world consensus of their Congressional Districts they confuse what they are hearing in their little world for “the will of the people”

Actually what might be the “will of the people” in San Francisco isn’t necessarily going to be the will of the people in Anniston Alabama or Norfolk Virgina or Anchorage Alaska. And Control of Congress is dictated by control of a majority of Congressional Districts, not just the few big city dark blue districts.

35 posted on 11/10/2007 10:51:38 AM PST by MNJohnnie ("Hillary is polarizing, deceitful, and liberal. And those are are her good points!" Beaversmom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
You nailed it Owen. This is a very dangerous time for our troops. And sad to say, the Dems just might put a full court pork promise press on enough RINOs to win the vote in the senate.

At which point the President vetos it like he did in May and Democrats have no where near enough votes in either house to override and they go right back to square one. When the actually brought up Feingold's defund Iraq bill they didn't even get enough votes to pass either house. So the Democrats are being insansely stupid to keep beating this way dead horse. They have lost on Iraq. 1st rule of debate. When you have lost the point, change the topic, do not ride the failed arguement down in flames. Thankfully the Democrat Leadership is too stupid to learn from their errors.

36 posted on 11/10/2007 10:54:42 AM PST by MNJohnnie ("Hillary is polarizing, deceitful, and liberal. And those are are her good points!" Beaversmom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

No, man. It doesn’t work that way. You don’t pass a bill to defund troops. You simply do not put forward a bill to fund them. The only thing preventing that approach from them is concern that the public will hear the GOP say that troops are in harm’s way and having their supply lines cut off. Only their concern about that prevents them simply not passing a funding bill.

The problem that can evolve is they decide they are harmed less from that than they will be from outright victory that is clear next year, with troops coming home to victory parades.


37 posted on 11/10/2007 12:44:15 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Owen

“The Democrats are terrified of that scenario, .....”

The scenario that these nitwit cowards should be terrified of, is the Civil War they could force us into within our own country.

There really are folks out here that are damn tired of these traitors doing their best to ruin our country.


38 posted on 11/10/2007 1:20:42 PM PST by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
And how many do you really need to fight terrorism in Iraq? 1000? 1500? All of them there now and then some?

Only General Nancy knows.

39 posted on 11/10/2007 1:40:05 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

When this goes to a vote, this will be the THIRTY-SECOND time the Dems have voted to defeat victory in the WOT. And it will also be the THIRTY-SECOND time they’ve been defeated, LOL!

The Loonie Left needs to put THAT in their bong and smoke it.


40 posted on 11/10/2007 2:04:47 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This entire scenario was started to cover the Democrats over thier enraged moonbat base being denied thier impeachment by these very same Democrats...

Pelosi KNOWS it isn’t going to pass, but she’s scared of the whacko’s now...


41 posted on 11/10/2007 2:07:04 PM PST by tcrlaf (You can lead a Liberal to LOGIC, but you can't make it THINK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
At which point the President vetos it like he did in May and Democrats have no where near enough votes in either house to override and they go right back to square one>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I certainly hope you are right, BUT, you will notice that the president had a veto over-ridden last week. The coalition to do soi has been formed on other issues, and if the viggy is comprehensive enough, it could happen. What a disaster that would be.

42 posted on 11/10/2007 8:47:03 PM PST by Candor7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson