"""Bush vetoes Iraq spending bill""" Now Wha?????

blackIpod

Star
Registered
"""Bush vetoes Iraq spending bill""" Now Wha?????

So whats next in? ( IRAQ )

Just asking for your opinions!

If You Believe Al Qadr in Iraq has already won please explain!

What will the next President do?

What will the Democrats do next?

What will Republicans do Next?

How long will military families keep the faith and believe in the Mission?

What about breaking up Iraq into 3 Independent States that share oil revenues equally under a UN or Arab League supervised mandate?

What are the foreign policy benefits of a US withdrawal from the Iraq battle field?

If the President had it to do over, would he have invaded Iraq, if not explain why?

Can this Iraqi administration improve or even survive without American aide?

Who will they turn to for assistance if American forces withdraw cutting off all aide?

I'm hoping some1 answers :lol: :lol:
 
I commend the Democrats for bringing the issues towards the front and center. Unfortunately, more of a debate or a close examination of the issues is exactly what should have occurred BEFORE we ventured into this war. Again, unfortunately, Bush and his neoconic masters took full advantage of the shock and fear of the American people following 9-11, hence, most in Congress were afraid of debate and clearheadedness because their constituents were being pumped a steady dose of fear.

Its unfortunate that I have to start so many sentences with Unfortunate, but, unfortunately, we've just been unfortunate.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that the timetable for withdrawal proposed by the Democrats is realistic. The best evidence available (then and now) shows there was no real Al Qaeda link with Iraq. Unfortunately, because of a most serious blunder by the Bushites (invading Iraq), there is now. However, I cannot see how we can just pull out leaving Iraq in the condition it is now. On the other hand, I am mindful that the same thing was said about the Vietnam pull-out -- but that didn't turn out to be the predicted disaster -- so maybe there is hope for Iraq. But I don't kid myself that there are that many similarities between the goals of the Viet Cong and those of the Islamic extremist.

What now ??? Without question the Democrats are posturing for 2008. In the meantime, however, this back and forth between Bush and the Democrats WILL re-shape the debate and our prespective of the debacle called Iraq -- and, hopefully, this examination and re-examination of our policy will force a more sensible strategy in the conduct of the war and an exit.

QueEx
 
Last edited:
What happens now is when troops die, the Bush administration will point to those who bargined away their support for pork barrel projects. That bill was loaded with pork and it was the only way the democrat ledership could get the votes they wanted to pass this bill.

The fact is the democrats will cause soldiers to die and then it will become a question of who first will blink to end the bloodshed as a result of this spending bill.

-VG
 
VegasGuy said:
What happens now is when troops die, the Bush administration will point to those who bargined away their support for pork barrel projects. That bill was loaded with pork and it was the only way the democrat ledership could get the votes they wanted to pass this bill.

The fact is the democrats will cause soldiers to die and then it will become a question of who first will blink to end the bloodshed as a result of this spending bill.

-VG
Now I know that you know that what you just said is untrue. The troops have not and will not go without adequate funding (anymore than they've already gone underfunded over the last 4 years). Pork has nothing to do with the funding issue -- thats just one more of George's play on the American people ... and like a lot of his bullshit lately, people aren't buying it.

I won't be surprised if next we hear George hyping-up that a terrorist strike is imminent or that there are terrorist underneath our beds. George and his gang will say damn near anything to sway public opinion to get his way.

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
Now I know that you know that what you just said is untrue. The troops have not and will not go without adequate funding (anymore than they've already gone underfunded over the last 4 years). Pork has nothing to do with the funding issue -- thats just one more of George's play on the American people ... and like a lot of his bullshit lately, people aren't buying it.

I won't be surprised if next we hear George hyping-up that a terrorist strike is imminent or that there are terrorist underneath our beds. George and his gang will say damn near anything to sway public opinion to get his way.

QueEx
Pork has everything to do with this bill. You know what else was in this bill? A hike in the minimum wage. What does that have to do with war funding? Secondly, don't even sit there and attempt to suggest your beloved democrats are above getting shit for their districts on the backs of the people including the soldiers that are fighting in Iraq.

The fact that you would conclude this is a Bush ploy is to believe in the tooth fairy. The war funding bill was LOADED with special interest pork. The kind of shit that could not get passed on it's own.

-VG
 
When the republicans held congress, republican districts got drunk on pork. While the democrats complained, politics says its their time to do the same. BOTH sides drink thirstily from the pork trough.

But for you to even suggest that pork is diverting funds that otherwise would have gone to fund he Iraq war is, well, absurd. Yes, it may have gotten the democrats some support on the "Timetable Issue" ... but bottom line: until the day there is withdrawal, the war will be funded. Neither party is stupid enough not to. No one would have troops in Iraq without bullets or bombs -- that would be political suicide.
 
It is no longer a war, the war ended a long time ago. It is the “occupying of Iraq”. If the media can use “occupying of Iraq” instead of “War in Iraq”, it would make a huge difference.
 
Wasn't there "occupation" from day one of the invasion? Aren't there segments of the population that are saying don't go? Wasn't there de-stabilization from day one; and, isn't Iraq still, unstable? So, how does occupation really differ from war?

Now, I don't have shit for GW, on the other hand, I honestly believe that he and the rest of his crew pray every night that this debacle could some how come to a reasonable conclusion so that there could be withdrawal of our forces.

I'll say it again for the umpteenth time: Fuck GW. Truth is, however, he's trapped, the republicans are trapped, the democrats are trapped and the American people are, trapped. Iraq needs a political solution. But short of that happening, our presence is the only thing, I believe, thats preventing a bloodbath (if they aren't already bathing in their own, and our, blood).


QueEx
 
VegasGuy said:
Pork has everything to do with this bill. You know what else was in this bill? A hike in the minimum wage. What does that have to do with war funding? Secondly, don't even sit there and attempt to suggest your beloved democrats are above getting shit for their districts on the backs of the people including the soldiers that are fighting in Iraq.

The fact that you would conclude this is a Bush ploy is to believe in the tooth fairy. The war funding bill was LOADED with special interest pork. The kind of shit that could not get passed on it's own.

-VG

if I'm not mistaken, didn't the democrats vowed to end special interest pork?
 
actinanass said:
if I'm not mistaken, didn't the democrats vowed to end special interest pork?

What is Pork? - the other white meat when somebody else is getting it?

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
When the republicans held congress, republican districts got drunk on pork. While the democrats complained, politics says its their time to do the same. BOTH sides drink thirstily from the pork trough.

But for you to even suggest that pork is diverting funds that otherwise would have gone to fund he Iraq war is, well, absurd. Yes, it may have gotten the democrats some support on the "Timetable Issue" ... but bottom line: until the day there is withdrawal, the war will be funded. Neither party is stupid enough not to. No one would have troops in Iraq without bullets or bombs -- that would be political suicide.

You didn't read my comments just right. What I am saying is these bullshit democrats that not only tricked the voter base into voting them into office saying they would end this war, they agreed to vote for these strings if the bill could contain billions of dollars in "riders". Ala pork projects. Which if you look at it closely, these same democrats are not delivering what they said they would, they are spending billions more insuring the war would continue.

I told you this would happen during the campaign and yall was so caught up in the bullshit democrat retoric you got suckered yet again. lol.

Keep following those far left liberals.

Guess what the wall street journal is reporting today QueEx? I'll create a seperate post otherwise Colin might visit this thread. :yes:

-VG
 
First off, I don't know what that "yall" means; of course, I'm a proud southerner but if you are referring to something "I" said, how about referring to it so that I can respond.

Secondly, you keep getting caught up into these republican and democrat labels -- and by doing so you insinuate, quite wrongly, that I am one too. I AM NEITHER OF THE TWO.

If I read your post incorrectly, I apologize. I don't agree, however, that anyone was "tricked" into doing anything. What we are witnessing is the political process, albeit, flawed. Also, I don't know if the voters elected the democrats to end the war or rather attempt to bring it to some kind of close. I doubt most of the same people who pulled the levers last November want to see the money just point blank cut off -- but rather, most I believe want to see movement towards winding the war down. That, in my opinion, is what we are witnessing.

... now if you could only drop the labels

QueEx
 
P.S.

I am not a cheer leader for the democrats, I'm not sittin here keeping score (republican or democrat); and I'm not hoping one side or the other wins some silly game.

I'm interested in whats best for MY country: silly republican or democrat games aside.
 
I thought it was funny how you said "George hyping" and "George and his gang will say damn near anything to sway public opinion" like that's not what the Democrats have been doing from day 1 of his election.

I was reading your first response to the question also and you do the same thing that the Democrats have been doing; You come out swinging about how we should not have been there in the first place. We are long past that debate. We are there are will not leave while Bush is in power. Deal with that and address the question.

Last night I watched the Republican debate and it was a huge contrast between that and the Democrats. The Democrats focused on the same position that you made about we should not have been there but they were not making any real suggestion other than pulling out except for 2 candidates. The Replicans were coming up with real solutions. It was a huge contrast. I was actually considering voting Democrat for president but after watching the two debates I come to the conclusion that the Democrats don't have any real solution. Their whole plan is just to be anti-Bush. Thats not a real position. I want to know what's next after Bush.

I thought the Republican debates were really more substantive than the Democrats. I particularly like the one candidate, I forgot his name, but he said he would encourage the breaking up of Iraq into states like we have in USA and the states vote for representatives. He would have the oil revenues broken into three where a third for the private sector, third for government, third for the people, where every Iraqi would get check and therefore has a vested interest in the welbeing of his country.

Barack Obama needs to get this guy on his team if this guy doesn't get the nomination cause Barack plan sucks. Actually he has none. He totally blew it on what he would do if we got attacked on his watch. Fucking pussy!!!!!!



QueEx said:
Now I know that you know that what you just said is untrue. The troops have not and will not go without adequate funding (anymore than they've already gone underfunded over the last 4 years). Pork has nothing to do with the funding issue -- thats just one more of George's play on the American people ... and like a lot of his bullshit lately, people aren't buying it.

I won't be surprised if next we hear George hyping-up that a terrorist strike is imminent or that there are terrorist underneath our beds. George and his gang will say damn near anything to sway public opinion to get his way.

QueEx
 
kjxxxx said:
I thought it was funny how you said "George hyping" and "George and his gang will say damn near anything to sway public opinion" like that's not what the Democrats have been doing from day 1 of his election.

I was reading your first response to the question also and you do the same thing that the Democrats have been doing; You come out swinging about how we should not have been there in the first place. We are long past that debate. We are there are will not leave while Bush is in power. Deal with that and address the question.
Stop selective reading. I believe I made my views clear in the second post in THIS thread above:
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the timetable for withdrawal proposed by the Democrats is realistic. The best evidence available (then and now) shows there was no real Al Qaeda link with Iraq. Unfortunately, because of a most serious blunder by the Bushites (invading Iraq), there is now. However, I cannot see how we can just pull out leaving Iraq in the condition it is now. On the other hand, I am mindful that the same thing was said about the Vietnam pull-out -- but that didn't turn out to be the predicted disaster -- so maybe there is hope for Iraq. But I don't kid myself that there are that many similarities between the goals of the Viet Cong and those of the Islamic extremist.​


Last night I watched the Republican debate and it was a huge contrast between that and the Democrats. The Democrats focused on the same position that you made about we should not have been there but they were not making any real suggestion other than pulling out except for 2 candidates. The Replicans were coming up with real solutions. It was a huge contrast. I was actually considering voting Democrat for president but after watching the two debates I come to the conclusion that the Democrats don't have any real solution. Their whole plan is just to be anti-Bush. Thats not a real position. I want to know what's next after Bush.

I thought the Republican debates were really more substantive than the Democrats. I particularly like the one candidate, I forgot his name, but he said he would encourage the breaking up of Iraq into states like we have in USA and the states vote for representatives. He would have the oil revenues broken into three where a third for the private sector, third for government, third for the people, where every Iraqi would get check and therefore has a vested interest in the welbeing of his country.

Barack Obama needs to get this guy on his team if this guy doesn't get the nomination cause Barack plan sucks. Actually he has none. He totally blew it on what he would do if we got attacked on his watch. Fucking pussy!!!!!!
I didn't see either of the debates so I'll have to take your word on both. I didn't watch because, like a boxing match in the first round, no one is throwing any serious punches or letting on too much to their real strategies -- almost like shadow boxing. Instead, I prefer to "read" what they're putting out and decipher what they may really stand for. So far, I haven't seen where any of them have a realistic approach to Iraq.

You must have just come on the scene. There have been suggestions long ago about breaking Iraq up into separate Shia, Sunni and Kurd areas and redistributing the oil income accordingly. And you thought that was novel??? LOL. Many argue separation wouldn't work -- including, by the way, many repbulicans. Not that I give a shit, but the republicans who argued against the idea did so after Joe Biden brought it up. Go figure.

Understand something: I don't give a shit who has the answer to Iraq, lets just get it on the way to being solved. I would prefer that Bush does it; he's in power now and the solution wouldn't have to wait until whatever rookie gets a shot at it in January, 2009. So stop with your republican/democratic crap -- and make some real arguments.

By the way, what did Obama say to earn the characterization: "Fucking pussy!!!!!!" ???

QueEx
 
kjxxxx said:
I thought it was funny how you said "George hyping" and "George and his gang will say damn near anything to sway public opinion" like that's not what the Democrats have been doing from day 1 of his election.

I was reading your first response to the question also and you do the same thing that the Democrats have been doing; You come out swinging about how we should not have been there in the first place. We are long past that debate. We are there are will not leave while Bush is in power. Deal with that and address the question.

Last night I watched the Republican debate and it was a huge contrast between that and the Democrats. The Democrats focused on the same position that you made about we should not have been there but they were not making any real suggestion other than pulling out except for 2 candidates. The Replicans were coming up with real solutions. It was a huge contrast. I was actually considering voting Democrat for president but after watching the two debates I come to the conclusion that the Democrats don't have any real solution. Their whole plan is just to be anti-Bush. Thats not a real position. I want to know what's next after Bush.

I thought the Republican debates were really more substantive than the Democrats. I particularly like the one candidate, I forgot his name, but he said he would encourage the breaking up of Iraq into states like we have in USA and the states vote for representatives. He would have the oil revenues broken into three where a third for the private sector, third for government, third for the people, where every Iraqi would get check and therefore has a vested interest in the welbeing of his country.

Barack Obama needs to get this guy on his team if this guy doesn't get the nomination cause Barack plan sucks. Actually he has none. He totally blew it on what he would do if we got attacked on his watch. Fucking pussy!!!!!!

Exactly the point I was trying to make. These democrat debates are still fighting aganist Bush and he's not running. I expected to see who would stand out with the clearest ideas going forward but it seems they are only playing to their base. In fact I know they are based on the venues they chose to debate under.

Maybe the Breck girl was right. There are two Americas. Too bad he won't admit to contributing to the concept.

-VG
 
There not 2 americas. Their many americas. Redneck america. Black america white america mexican america, po america, middle america, rich america, green america, getto amerca, straight america, fag america, and mix dem up conservative, liberal, center, right of those and left of those and in between and add some $more and u got America
 
kjxxxx said:
Barack Obama needs to get this guy on his team if this guy doesn't get the nomination cause Barack plan sucks. Actually he has none. He totally blew it on what he would do if we got attacked on his watch. Fucking pussy!!!!!!
kjxxxx

QueEx said:
By the way, what did Obama say to earn the characterization: "Fucking pussy!!!!!!" ???

QueEx

This article explains it all about his answer to the question
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
G.O.P. Moderates Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains</font size>

<font size="4">telling the president that conditions needed to improve
markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war</font size></center>

New York Times
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY
Published: May 10, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.

“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”

Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.

Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. “We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq,” he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.

Lawmakers said Mr. Bush made no commitments, but seemed grateful for their support and said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could cause the sort of chaos that occurred in Southeast Asia after Americans left Vietnam. The lawmakers said that Mr. Bush and others at the meeting — including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley — appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

“It was very healthy,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who attended but let the moderates do most of the talking.

“I walked away from it feeling I got a chance to make my points,” Mr. Davis said.

The delegation included Representatives Mark Kirk of Illinois, another leader of the moderate coalition; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania; James T. Walsh of New York; and Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. Mr. Kirk, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Emerson declined to discuss the meeting.

White House officials said Mr. Bush welcomed the observations of the lawmakers. “The president encouraged the members to give unvarnished opinions and views,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She also noted a “persistent push” by the administration in recent days to put new pressure on the Iraqi government via a secure video conference by Mr. Bush with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the surprise visit to Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The White House on Wednesday promised a veto of the emerging House bill, which would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said White House officials, led by Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, would try to reach a compromise with Congress. Mr. Bolten met Wednesday with Senate leaders.

While the Pentagon awaits the money, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the military continued to shift funds, terminate contracts and slow spending so troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not run out of money. The cost-cutting measures could sustain the troops until July, he said, “if we pulled out all the stops.”

Mr. Gates, who also attended the White House meeting on Tuesday, told lawmakers that the Pentagon would evaluate the violence in Iraq and the progress of the administration’s troop buildup plan by early September to determine the next phase of the military strategy.

“I think if we see some very positive progress and it looks like things are headed in the right direction,” Mr. Gates said, “then that’s the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of these forces.”

Senators vigorously questioned Mr. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Pentagon’s announcement on Tuesday of potentially mobilizing 35,000 more troops by December. Mr. Gates said the decision to send those forces to Iraq was not “foreordained,” adding that a decision would be made after the September review.

“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.

“I think people want to hear what the general says,” said Representative Gerlach, of Pennsylvania. “We will all go from there.”

Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
 
Moderates need to make sure that they are putting forth bills so that they can go back to their districts and campaign on the stong economy and the bills the put forth and let the Democrats try to micromanage the president and his war. They can use that against them in the election. If they make that the strategy and help the Democrats attack Bush then by the time the election comes around the Democrats will have to campaign on something new because people will surely be tired of hearing the same old story again. I know I am. I have been saying it for a while. I wish they would come up with something that improve our lives. This goes for both sides.




QueEx said:
<font size="5"><center>
G.O.P. Moderates Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains</font size>

<font size="4">telling the president that conditions needed to improve
markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war</font size></center>

New York Times
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY
Published: May 10, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.

“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”

Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.

Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. “We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq,” he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.

Lawmakers said Mr. Bush made no commitments, but seemed grateful for their support and said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could cause the sort of chaos that occurred in Southeast Asia after Americans left Vietnam. The lawmakers said that Mr. Bush and others at the meeting — including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley — appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

“It was very healthy,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who attended but let the moderates do most of the talking.

“I walked away from it feeling I got a chance to make my points,” Mr. Davis said.

The delegation included Representatives Mark Kirk of Illinois, another leader of the moderate coalition; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania; James T. Walsh of New York; and Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. Mr. Kirk, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Emerson declined to discuss the meeting.

White House officials said Mr. Bush welcomed the observations of the lawmakers. “The president encouraged the members to give unvarnished opinions and views,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She also noted a “persistent push” by the administration in recent days to put new pressure on the Iraqi government via a secure video conference by Mr. Bush with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the surprise visit to Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The White House on Wednesday promised a veto of the emerging House bill, which would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said White House officials, led by Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, would try to reach a compromise with Congress. Mr. Bolten met Wednesday with Senate leaders.

While the Pentagon awaits the money, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the military continued to shift funds, terminate contracts and slow spending so troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not run out of money. The cost-cutting measures could sustain the troops until July, he said, “if we pulled out all the stops.”

Mr. Gates, who also attended the White House meeting on Tuesday, told lawmakers that the Pentagon would evaluate the violence in Iraq and the progress of the administration’s troop buildup plan by early September to determine the next phase of the military strategy.

“I think if we see some very positive progress and it looks like things are headed in the right direction,” Mr. Gates said, “then that’s the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of these forces.”

Senators vigorously questioned Mr. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Pentagon’s announcement on Tuesday of potentially mobilizing 35,000 more troops by December. Mr. Gates said the decision to send those forces to Iraq was not “foreordained,” adding that a decision would be made after the September review.

“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.

“I think people want to hear what the general says,” said Representative Gerlach, of Pennsylvania. “We will all go from there.”

Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
 
<font size="5"><center>Congress Passes Deadline-Free War Funding Bill</font size><font size="4">
Measure Includes Benchmarks for Iraqis</font size></center>

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 25, 2007; Page A01

Congress sent President Bush a new Iraq funding bill yesterday that lacked troop withdrawal deadlines demanded by liberal Democrats, but party leaders vowed it was only a temporary setback in their efforts to bring home American troops.

War opponents dismissed the bill as a capitulation to Bush and said they would seek to hold supporters in both parties accountable. But backers said the bill's provisions -- including benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid -- represented an assertion of congressional authority over the war that was unthinkable a few months ago.

Bush, who had vowed to veto any legislation with restrictions on troop deployments, announced he would sign the $120 billion package, which was approved 80 to 14 last night in the Senate, after a 280 to 142 House vote.

He said the 18 benchmarks should signal to the Iraq government that "it needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice." But he added, "We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months" ahead.

The focus now shifts to September, when the new funding runs out, and when U.S. commanders say they will be able to assess the results of an ongoing troop buildup.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, announced that he will remove Iraq war funding from the 2008 Pentagon spending bill that is expected to reach the House floor in July. Instead, Murtha said he will bring up a separate Iraq funding bill in September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to deliver a key status report to Congress.

Bush's first report to Congress on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks is due on July 15. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who wrote the benchmark provision, said he added the mid-July report because September is too far off.

"This is a very dynamic and changing situation in Iraq, every single day losing brave men and women in uniform, and casting a greater burden upon their families and the many wounded each day, each week," Warner said.

The votes yesterday marked a rare moment of bipartisanship in an otherwise contentious and emotional debate. The first Iraq spending bill, which included a withdrawal timetable and was vetoed by Bush on May 1, split lawmakers more or less along party lines.

Antiwar groups demanded that Democrats continue pressing for withdrawal dates and bombarded congressional offices with angry phone calls and e-mails in the hours before yesterday's votes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), both war opponents, called the benchmarks woefully weak.

But Democrats were reluctant to hold up troop funding. Nor could they override a second presidential veto. In an anguished floor speech, Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a longtime war opponent, said he would reluctantly support the spending bill. "We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land," Durbin said.

Republican support was nearly unanimous in both chambers. In the Senate, 37 Democrats supported the bill, while 10 opposed it.

In the House, a majority of Democrats rejected the Iraq funding. A separate domestic spending measure that was packed with lawmaker priorities, including a federal minimum wage increase, passed easily by a 348 to 73 vote. In the Senate, the two bills were merged into one package.

"We have moved the ball forward. Far enough? No," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), one of the 86 House Democrats who supported the Iraq bill.

Pelosi was among the 140 House Democrats to oppose it. "This is a token," she said moments before the vote. "This is a small step forward. Instead, we should have a giant step forward."

In the Senate, the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), were among the 14 opponents. "This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one," Obama said.

Antiwar groups warned lawmakers who supported the spending bill that they could become election targets. Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition led by MoveOn.org, announced new radio ads aimed at Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), two moderates on the ballot in 2008. The ads urged the senators to break with Bush and vote to end the war.

"We are moving backward," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a war opponent. "Instead of forcing the president to safely redeploy our troops, instead of coming up with a strategy providing assistance to a post-redeployment Iraq, and instead of a renewed focus on the global fight against al-Qaeda, we are faced with a spending bill that kicks the can down the road and buys the administration time."

The final bill includes $17 billion in unrelated domestic spending, a slight reduction from the $21 billion that Congress added to the first package. The minimum-wage increase would bump the hourly rate to $7.25 an hour from the current rate of $5.15 over the next two years. The wage increase was one of the Democrats' 2006 election promises, and was attached to the war bill to guarantee that it would reach Bush's desk.

The bulk of the funding -- around $100 billion -- would continue military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nonmilitary spending includes $6.4 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery efforts and $3 billion in emergency aid to farmers, for relief from drought and other natural disasters. An additional $1 billion would pay for port and mass-transit security upgrades. Children's health-care funding would increase by $650 million.

Other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection. About $3 billion would fund the conversion of U.S. military bases that are scheduled to close.

After weeks of insisting that the Pentagon could fund the war into July, Democrats abruptly changed their tune yesterday. Murtha said Congress had no choice but to act this week, because the war would run out of funds on Monday. The Defense Department could shift funds around, he said, but such accounting tricks would be a "disaster," Murtha said.

Staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402570.html?hpid=topnews
 
<font size="4">
Did the Democrats Capitulate; lose a battle but not necessarily the war; or is all this just a prelude to The Battle in September (when the "Surge Progress Report is due)???

</font size>
 
Back
Top