Democrats to fund Iraq war with no pullout date

pjalive21

HEY DEMS WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT HARD LINED STANCE YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE??? YOU SURE CAVED IN PRETTY EASY....



By Richard Cowan and Susan CornwellTue May 22, 5:22 PM ET

President George W. Bush won a battle over nearly $100 billion to fund the Iraq war as congressional Democrats on Tuesday abandoned troop withdrawal efforts for now but pledged to try again in July.

Instead of setting schedules for withdrawing U.S. troops, it appeared the Democratic-run Congress and the Republican White House agreed for the first time to include conditions prodding Baghdad to make better progress toward quelling violence or risk losing some U.S. reconstruction aid.

"We've been led to believe that that is the language that is likely to be in the final version," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky told reporters.

That provision passed the Senate last week, with a few Democrats supporting it. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada said of the language crafted by Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record): "If you look in the dictionary under 'weak' the Warner amendment would be listed under it."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the measure would provide "the funding and flexibility the forces need. That's what we've wanted all along."

On May 1, Bush vetoed Congress' first version of this year's emergency war funds bill because it set an October 1 deadline for starting to pull most of the 147,000 soldiers out of Iraq, a goal of anti-war Democrats.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), a Maryland Democrat, said lawmakers were putting the finishing touches on a new bill, and acknowledged the political realities.

"The president has made it very clear he's not going to sign timelines (for withdrawing troops). We can't pass timelines over his veto," he told reporters.

DISAPPOINTMENT FOR SOME DEMOCRATS

That will be a disappointment for some Democrats who say they won control of Congress last November largely because voters wanted to see an end to the 4-year-old war in Iraq. But it was welcome news for Republican leaders who have argued Congress should not be "micro-managing" the war.

"Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio.

Some Democrats have predicted for months that it would take longer to force troop withdrawals. They argue that even with a weaker bill, they have ended four years of "rubber stamp" war funding bills of the previous Republican-run Congress.

Hoyer and Reid said Democrats would continue pushing for a "change in direction" in Iraq, where at least 3,420 U.S. soldiers have been killed and more than 34,000 wounded.

"Certainly we'll do it in July when Mr. Murtha's bill is on the floor," Hoyer said.

In the meantime, Democrats are fully funding Bush's war financing request.

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) has led efforts in the House of Representatives to end U.S. combat in the Iraq war. In July, Murtha will shepherd a military funding bill through the House for the next fiscal year, starting October 1.

Bush and most Republicans have argued that setting dates for withdrawing U.S. troops would rob military commanders of the flexibility they need to conduct the war.

Despite those charges, even some congressional Republicans, Boehner among them, have spoken of autumn as the timeframe for reassessing progress in Iraq and possibly producing "Plan B."

Under the Democrats' latest strategy, the war funding bill will pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. Aides said there would be benchmarks for measuring Iraq's progress toward stability and setting up a competent army.

There would also be consequences for Iraq not meeting the benchmarks, the aides said -- likely to be limits on about $1.6 billion in reconstruction aid, as in Warner's proposal.

musicismylife78

I know, its so STUPID!

Thats the reason why I am not a liberal or a democrat. I am a radical.

Democrats are worthless, they want our votes and act like they are for change, but they dont give a goddamn about anything.

If they wanted the war to stop, they could stop it. if EVERY democrat, and the few antiwar republicans in congress and the senate voted to end the war and cut off funds, the WAR WOULD END.

Yet the refuse to do anything of the sort.

Anything short of cutting off funds to the war, is silly and useless at this point.

I for one am making a stand, and am stating that, I am not, and will encourage all I know, not to vote for ANYONE WHO DOESNT want to immediately end the war and pull all funding

musicismylife78

how can most democrats look at themselves in the mirror? I mean, please, tell me, how does the democrat party, and most of the dem senators and congresspeople, and the dem base, how are they ANYTHING like a opposition party?

I mean, if Kerry, Gore, Hilary and Obama are the face of the dem party, is that anything different from what Bush is offering.

All I see from BOTH sides is war, war and war, and measly reform.

We all would be wise to watch a You Tube clip of the mighty RATM at Coachella and Zack's speech during Wake Up. He talks about how politicians dont give a damn and that the entire system must be brought down.

Given the choice between a wimpy, mealy mouthed snoozer like Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hilary, Biden etc... and on the other side someone like Guiliani, I say that neither of those are good choices.

The time is now to vote for a third party and make it known to people, that we arent going to fight the war under Democrats either, and that unless Democrats grow some guts and start standing up AND DEMANDING the troops come home, we arent going to vote for them

As Sean penn said "until Dems have a plan that is as binding as the u.s. death toll in iraq, we should refuse to vote for them"

I agree Sean!

El_Kabong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz04TCcOFCQ

Dennis Kucinich on funding the war 2:23

robbie

shameful! first, if the democrats cut off all the funding IT WOULD NOT END THE WAR, george bush would leave the troops over there without funding, without food, without tanks, without bullets. he would blame the democrats for their slaughter, but he would NEVER bring them home. however, the democrats had a bill where the withdrawl was up to the descretion of george bush, and he refused to take accountability. he said he would veto a bill where the withdrawl was non binding and he could be responsible for if they did or did re-deploy. the democrats needs to put this bill on his desk and tell him and the entire world that the funding is there, and the decision of re-deployment is ultimately up to him, and if he refuses to sign the bill, HE is refusing to fund the troops. they should have said "we will not write another bill. when they need the money you know where to find it" unfortunately, they are cowards and as responsible as the republicans for not having the spine to do what they were put in office to do.

blackredyellow

What a bunch of worthless assclowns...

Add that the article below about the failure to get the ethics overhaul they promised, they piss me off. This party - well, both parties actually are a complete joke, and we are all the butt of it.

May 23, 2007
Democrats Find Ethics Overhaul Elusive in House
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, May 22 — House Democratic leaders pushing a promised lobbying overhaul are facing resistance from balky lawmakers and fending off accusations that a prominent member is flouting new ethics rules.

The Democratic leaders were forced to scrap a promise to double the current one-year lobbying ban after lawmakers leave office. Now, they are struggling to pass legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they “bundle” — collect and deliver — to lawmakers. Failing to deliver on both measures would endanger similar provisions already passed by the Senate.

Other House rules changes this year appear to have done little to alter business as usual on Capitol Hill. House Democrats voted along party lines on Tuesday to block the censure of one of their most powerful members, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. He was accused of violating a new ethics rule that prohibits lawmakers from swapping pork for votes.

Still to come is a long-overdue report by a House committee considering the creation of an independent watchdog to monitor compliance with ethics rules. Democrats say the House is unlikely to endorse the idea, which the Senate has already rejected.

Republicans, pummeled by Democratic accusations of corruption during the last election, reveled in the turnabout. “It looks like the Democratic leaders should have brought their caucus along when they were thinking up campaign themes,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois.

Some newly elected Democrats say they worry about potential perceptions that their party has failed to deliver its promised cleanup. “Many of the freshmen ran on a campaign of, as Speaker Pelosi would say, ‘draining the swamp,’ on ethics and ethics enforcement,” said Representative Ed Perlmutter, a first-term Colorado Democrat.

House Democratic leaders say they have already adopted tighter ethics rules than Republicans managed to approve, including a prohibition on receiving gifts and trips from lobbyists. Another new rule requires the identification of the sponsors of earmarks, the special projects inserted at a member’s request into complex spending bills.

“We laid down a marker and said we want to change the way business is done in Washington,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a main sponsor of the rule requiring disclosure of “bundling” by lobbyists. “Now we need to follow through and take the next step of passing a strong lobbying reform bill.”

Mr. Van Hollen said it was “too early to tell” whether House Democratic leaders could muster enough votes to pass the bundling measure.

That proposal, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday, would be the most far-reaching of the year’s rule changes. But many lawmakers dislike the idea because the ability to call on lobbyists for fund-raising is a major advantage of incumbency.

Others say they do not see the point of doing more. “I didn’t make any of those campaign promises,” said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat who questions the bundling disclosure proposal and also opposed the extension of the so-called “revolving door” ban on lobbying by former members.

“I made a career change 20 years ago to be a full-time elected official,” Mr. Capuano said, explaining his position. “I am no longer qualified to be a tax attorney. It is like saying to people, ‘Please, come into public service, give it your all, and when you are done you are completely unqualified for anything else.’ ”

Others grumbled that Mr. Van Hollen, whose Democratic campaign committee duns each member for contributions, was pushing a measure that would make it harder to tap the easiest sources of such money — lobbyists.

“We have dues that we are supposed to raise of several hundred thousand dollars, and in the same breath we are informed that this is something we will have to vote for,” Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said. “I don’t know what we are supposed to do, except cold call all the people in the phone book in our districts.”

Mr. Moran expects to vote for the disclosure rule because, he said, after his party campaigned on ethics reform “we have to be holier than Caesar’s wife.”

Republicans cited the accusations against Mr. Murtha as evidence that the Democrats were already in breach of their own earmarks rules.

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, filed a motion accusing Mr. Murtha of threatening to punish him for trying to delete a $23 million earmark for a drug intelligence center near Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Murtha’s home base.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. Murtha, chairman of the military spending committee, had tried to intimidate him by promising that he would not receive any military earmarks “now and forever.”

Mr. Murtha did not dispute the accusations but said in a statement that the Appropriations Committee considered all requests fairly. Famous as a political horse trader, he has boasted of his skill at doling out or withholding earmarks to prod lawmakers into passing legislation.

When Republicans ran the House, however, they were just as adept at dispensing federal projects as a tool to keep their members in line. Mr. Rogers has sought and received his share. And on Tuesday even some Republicans wondered at his professed shock at Mr. Murtha’s tactics.

“Earmarks are part of the process around here,” Mr. LaHood, the Illinois Republican, said. “That should be no secret to anyone.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23lobby.html?ex=1337572800&en=7d181a4f57bb8e42&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

jlew24asu

Cheguevara6 wrote:

I am a radical.

scary

suntzu98

Hey what do you expect from a democratic congress who has worse approval ratings then the President they despise so very much. Boy I'm glad they took over just gives me a preview of what might just happen in 2009; holy shit that scares me even saying it; go Mitt, Rudy, Fred!

Gremmie95

without generalizing to much, this should not come as a big suprise. Dem's are known to be more image than substance. They will say whatever it takes to get elected then do whatever they want once elected. Not that different from the Republicans mind you.