posted on May 3, 2007 08:56:49 AM new
Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; A01
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."
"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."
Bush said he is "confident that we can reach agreement," and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties.
But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, "The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk."
While deadlines for troop withdrawals had to be dropped from the spending bill, such language is likely to appear in a defense policy measure that is expected to reach the House floor in two weeks, just when a second war funding bill could be ready for a House vote. Democrats want the next spending measure to pass before Congress recesses on May 25 for Memorial Day weekend.
Beyond that, Democrats remain deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.
Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday's White House meeting, participants said. "I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks," said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. "We didn't go into any kind of detail," Durbin said.
Just four Republicans supported the first version of the spending bill: Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.). But a growing number of GOP lawmakers want language that would hold the administration and the Iraqi government more accountable.
"The general sense is that the benchmarks are critical," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a moderate who opposed the original bill but supports some constraints.
White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure.
Administration officials note that they do not oppose benchmarks, and in fact have developed them in the past along with Iraqis. But they are sensitive about provoking Iraqis, who bristled last year when benchmarks crafted by U.S. and Iraqi officials became public and left the impression that Washington was dictating to Baghdad.
But that approach would be too weak even for moderates from both parties. Already, liberal Democrats think that public opinion and circumstances in Iraq are on their side, and they view benchmarks alone as far too weak. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.) has repeatedly told Democratic leaders that he would not report a war funding bill out of his committee that he could not support. Pelosi is also reluctant to embrace such a compromise until she sees how far congressional Republicans are willing to bend.
Democratic leaders have resigned themselves to losing many of the liberals they worked hard to bring on board the first bill. Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), a leading Senate war opponent who helped to build Democratic consensus in the first round, said he will vote against the second version unless it includes "a binding approach to ending the war." Feingold is seeking a vote on legislation he co-sponsored with Reid to cut off war funding on March 31, 2008. But he added: "I'm willing to listen to other ideas."
Conservative Republicans were just as balky. Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska) argued that any benchmarks would make the bill "unconstitutional." Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), another unwavering Bush defender on Iraq, said he would support adding benchmarks, but with no repercussions should Iraqis fall short.
In a speech yesterday to the Associated General Contractors of America, Bush made a more extended argument that his decision to send additional troops to Iraq is bearing fruit there. He cited a decrease in sectarian violence, an increase in cooperation from local residents, and several recent operations against bombers and militias.
Bush acknowledged that violence remains high and that U.S. casualties "are likely to stay high," but he attributed that to radicals affiliated with al-Qaeda and minimized the role of sectarian conflict even as he used the words "civil war," a phrase he has largely avoided. "For America," Bush said, "the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11."
Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this report.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on May 3, 2007 02:32:18 PM new
Yep....they sure are, Bear.
All the while pretending that they're staying 'tough' on ending the war.
========
This site is a leftie one that I read to keep an eye on what they're up to.
And even the dems/liberals there are seeing that the dem leadership is stumbling quite a bit on many things.
One being old reid's 'the war is lost'.
The New Republic, online - in part:
Harry Reid Overplayed His Hand
Wasn't Reid simply making an accurate statement? P
erhaps, but there are at least three things wrong with Reid's strategy.
First and foremost, the Senate Democratic leader turned himself into the messenger of defeat, which of course quickly became the message itself:
Republicans have been extraordinarily stupid in recent months, but they still know what to do if opportunity knocks. "When a top Democrat tells reporters he believes the war is lost," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, "he is telling American troops they have failed. And he is telling our enemies they have won.
While Mr. Reid may be willing to throw in the towel and declare this a lost cause, I am certain that American troops are not."
Second, Reid's statement put some of his own troops--Democratic senators--at risk. Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu (from Louisiana), Tom Harkin (from Iowa), and Jay Rockefeller (from West Virginia), who are all up for re-election in 2008, each became the target of a National Republican Senatorial Committee television ad.
As the phrase "This war is lost" is repeated eleven times, the ad declares, "While our brave men and women fight for out freedom, Mary Landrieu [or Harkin or Rockefeller, in their respective markets] and her liberal leadership make reckless moves for political gain."
In the wake of Reid's comment, Landrieu declared: "I do not agree that the war is lost. ... The administration's mismanagement of the situation in Iraq has been a great tragedy. But when American troops are in the field, we must never--ever--accept defeat as an option."
Landrieu's reference to administration mismanagement points to the third problem with Reid's statement.
Instead of declaring "this war is lost," the majority leader could have gotten his point across far more effectively by saying, "President Bush lost this war." Such an approach places responsibility where it belongs instead of on the bearer of bad tidings. If Reid is right and the war is lost, he didn't lose it; Bush and his subordinates did.
========
So...there you have a liberal pointing out how the liberal leadership was WRONG to say what they did.....wouldn't benefit them POLITICALLY.
Forget we're fighting a WAR....their political gain is MUCH more important than THAT will EVER be to most liberals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 3, 2007 02:38 PM ]
posted on May 4, 2007 12:23:36 AM new
Well, Bear, they're STILL coming up with wacko ideas. LOL
The latest is an Oct deadline and after that the CIC has to get 'permission' to continue this war.
[Democrats eye limit on war mandate (Washington Times) (5/4) - Senate Democrats switched tactics yesterday in the war debate by proposing an Oct. 11 sunset date for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, seeking to force President Bush to ask Congress for permission to keep troops in Iraq.]
They really are NUTS.
And while we continue to read GOOD news coming out of Iraq......get a load of the third article.
Here we just learned that Tenet said clinton REDUCED the CIA's intelligence budget by 25% when we were supposed going after bin laden during clintons admin. lol lol lol gawd...sometimes they're just too much be believe.
But read this third article and see what they're proposing to do now. TAKE MORE FUNDING AWAY FROM OUR intelligence agencies.
They're no longer even TRYING to pretend they want to DEFEND our Nation.
I hope all American voters get to read THIS garbage - and see just how SCREWED up the liberal priorities really are.
And they expect to 'win ANY war' by doing that?
They ARE on our enemies side....I have NO doubt about it.
===
Top officer says U.S. forces stopping al Qaeda flow in Iraq
U.S. forces in Iraq are stemming the flow of foreign al Qaeda terrorists into the country, the commander of the U.S. Central Command told a Senate panel yesterday.
====
U.S.-led forces killed a top al Qaeda in Iraq figure linked to kidnappings of a Christian Science Monitor reporter and other Westerners, the military said yesterday as mourners gathered at the slain terrorist's home in a Sunni insurgent stronghold north of Baghdad.
===
House GOP hits shift of spy funds to study climate
Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.
SAY WHAT????? Start impeachment hearings NOW. What is WRONG with them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 4, 2007 12:51 AM ]
posted on May 4, 2007 12:27:20 AM new
dbl post.
========
And here's the latest....lol....obama really has hillary scared. lol
Best of the Web Today - May 4, 2007
Best of the Web Today - May 4, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
WSJ
Commander in Chief Kennedy
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq," the New York Times reports:
Mrs. Clinton's proposal brings her full circle on Iraq--she supported the war measure five years ago--and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.
"It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible," Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote. . . .
Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.
The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.
Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.
So let's see. Mrs. Clinton supported the war when it was popular, then changed her position after public opinion shifted. She is now pretending Congress can put the toothpaste back into the tube by "repealing" the authority for an intervention that has already occurred.
The legislation she is proposing has little chance of passing, since significant Republican support would be needed to override a veto.
If it did pass, no one has any clue what practical effect it would have. It would be left to federal judges to sort that out.
Mrs. Clinton is seeking the presidency, so maybe the idea here is to make the job easier by delegating her commander-in-chief duties to Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It's hard to see how the Times can keep a straight face while calling this "leadership," though.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 4, 2007 12:22 PM ]
