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.
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.
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.
And how many do you really need to fight terrorism in Iraq? 1000? 1500? All of them there now and then some?
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
I say we take up a collection to buy a few cruise missles to visit Qom, Mecca, & Medina for starters.
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.
Forgive me for saying so, but it looks like ol' Peloser is stuck between Iraq and a hard place...
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.
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.
The problem being there are plenty of Sh*tty RINOS in the Senate, who might just go along with something like this.
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.
No chance, not even one.
They got what they voted for, leaders who are about as moronic as can be possible.
"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
They are desperate to do something that looks like they are in charge.
Apparently, there is an objective number. What is it?
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.
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.