|
Posted on 04/23/2007 6:46:51 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
WASHINGTON (AP) - A historic veto showdown assured, Democratic leaders agreed Monday on legislation that requires the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
"No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a speech in which he accused the president of living in a state of denial about events in Iraq more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion.
Bush, confident of enough votes to sustain his veto, was unambiguous in his response. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," he told reporters in the Oval Office as he met with his top Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus.
Taken together, the day's events marked the quickening of a confrontation that has been building since Democrats took control of Congress in January and promised to change policy in a war has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
Congressional negotiators for the House and Senate met in late afternoon and ratified the details of the legislation. Republicans voiced opposition, but made no attempt to delay or even seek changes. "We all know this bill is going nowhere fast," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., referring to the veto threat.
"Congress is preparing to deliver a message of surrender just as General Petraeus arrives in Washington this week to brief the commander in chief and members of Congress on the war," he added.
The bill includes more than $90 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the withdrawal timetable that Bush finds objectionable and billions of dollars in domestic spending that he also has threatened to veto. Overall, the bill totals $124.2 billion.
Democratic aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid hope to clear the measure through both houses by Friday and send it to Bush by early next week for his expected veto. The Democratic leaders have not said whether they will attempt to override the veto in what would be a largely symbolic act given the number of Republicans who have said they will back the president.
There is far less certainty about the next steps in the historic wartime confrontation between Congress and commander in chief. Reid and other Democrats have said repeatedly they will not leave the troops without the funds they need, but they have not said whether they will first force Bush to veto at least one more bill before sending him legislation he finds acceptable.
In his remarks, Reid criticized Bush and called Vice President Dick Cheney the president's "chief attack dog," lacking in credibility.
He likened the president to Lyndon Johnson, saying the former president ordered troop escalations in Vietnam in an attempt "to save his political legacy," only to watch U.S. casualties climb steadily.
Bush, he said, "is the only person who fails to face this war's reality - and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq's future, but for ours."
Reid had made similar comments at a White House meeting last week among Bush and top lawmakers, and the president dismissed the comparison with Johnson, according to several participants in the session. This time, Dana Perino, the president's spokeswoman fired back. She said it was Reid who was ignoring reality, not the president.
She said Reid is in denial about the vicious nature of the enemy and about the U.S.-led plan to provide more security in Iraq. "He's also in denial that a surrender date - he thinks it is a good idea. It is not a good idea. It is defeat. It is a death sentence for the millions of Iraqis who voted for a constitution, who voted for a government, who voted for a free and democratic society."
As outlined by Democratic officials, the emerging legislation would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin by Oct. 1, even earlier if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political compromises.
Another provision in the measure would withhold about $850 million in foreign aid funds from the Iraqis if the government does not meet those standards.
Also, the Pentagon would be required to adhere to certain standards for the training and equipping of units sent to Iraq, and for their rest at home between deployments. Bush could waive the guidelines if necessary. Democrats assume he would, but want him on record as doing so.
Under the nonbinding timeline, all combat troops would be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.
After that date, U.S. forces would have a redefined and restricted mission of protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other similar organizations and training and equipping Iraqi forces.
Democrats jettisoned some of the additional domestic spending that Bush has held up to ridicule, including funds for spinach growers and peanut farmers. But Reid, Pelosi and others decided to include money to help farmers hit by natural disasters as well as the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Reid's speech blended criticism of Bush, an appeal for patience to the anti-war voters who last fall gave Democrats control, and an attempt to shape the post-veto debate.
"I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January," he said.
"But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief - and this is his war," Reid said.
Looking beyond Bush's expected veto, he said, "If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve."
I wish 43 were more like 16.
Democrats plan is to have Special Forces attack Ql Qeda in Iraq from bases in Kuwait and Jordan.
Reid was on c-span today trying to explain it.
I was just having an email debate with a friend of mine who is a bleeding heart liberal. I told him that the Dems have just put themselves, or at least their Presidential Candidate in a big hole for 08. Worst case scenario that a Dem wins the White House, they are going to be staring at a huge problem in terms of the “whatever they call it” since War of Terror will no longer be used.
They should really change their mascot to a yellow bellied Ostrich with its head in the sand! (and something else in the other end)
Maybe they should make the attacks from Midway or Guam or Pelosi’s vineyard.
Has America really sunk so low, that a douche like this man can get in the President’s face and say these things, secure in the knowledge that absolutely nothing will happen to him?
Spirit of bipartianship - nonsense.
There is no bipartianship - only dealing with traitors who value their puny goals over our soldiers, our safety and the defense of America.
Don’t I remember that they did not like Bush because the world community would not respect him? Just what does leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered do to endear the world community?
Do the democrats not have the ability to look ahead to how the Iraqis will consider America in the future? We leave them and let them be at the behest of the terrorists that will overtake that country and you give all the oil to terrorists or Iran, you turn the Iraqis against ever trusting America and you show the world community - never depend on America, they cut and run when the peaceniks throw enough fits.
Strength of America? No, no strength under democrats - only quitting a fight and leaving all of us to fend for our own safety.
All the while the democrats will rape the country of our tax dollars while not providing any security for America.
Not on my tax dollars they won’t.
You mean Abe Lincoln?
Yes!
Yeah, give Iran Iraq and all the oil. See how fast they get their nuclear power then.
No brains in any of their heads. I would never ever trust any democrat ever again.
They are cowards and traitors who seek to steal all future elections by getting rid of the electoral college and bringing in enough illegals and giving them voting rights so that California and New York will rule the whole country.
So easy to rule America when you can ship in bought voters.
Americans better wake up if they care about having any say in how their taxes are spent in Washington - Democrats will ensure you have no say.
Special Forces should attack the Democratic Caucus. That would hurt Al Quaeda worse.
Insert knife in the back of soldier and twist.
Lets just get this over with..pass the bill and see if Bush vetoes it.
I'm sick of the arguing.
Force the Dems to cut the funds.
|
“Special Forces should attack the Democratic Caucus. That would hurt Al Quaeda worse.”
Hell......have a high school HomeEc class attack the RAT caucus and the results would be just as effective. No point on bothering the SF with a gaggle of light-weights.
Are we missing something?
Exactly! Reid saying the “war is lost” with our troops in the field shows a reckless disregard for them and that they are nothing to him when there is some political advantage to be gained.
"This is his war" translates to "we're going to force the U.S. to lose it and blame it all on Bush." Harry might be surprised how that one really plays.
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.
I couldn't be happier. The Democrats in the press are conning the Democrats in the Congress into believing that McGovernism is the wave of the future. What a surprise they are in for come 2008.