Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding: House Likely to Pass Bill With Pullout Date

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Washington Post, Page One

Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding
House Likely to Pass Bill With Pullout Date
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 23, 2007; Page A01

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.

Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10....

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200944.html

[John Q. Citizen]

1. I hope the moderates realize they owe us big time...

[Frances]

2. I think that Bush owes the people who have done their best

to defeat this bill big time.

Kos explained the situation much better than I can. I'll provide a link if you like.

[Monkeyman]

3. We have some major problems

I will have even more wounded troops to fight for. I want this war of lies over now. Maybe these people should see what I do everyday. 2008 to bring them home is to dam long. Hell by that time 151,000 wounded kids on waiting list will double or be worse. Why can't people get this? Angry in Chicago

[Mojorabbit]

9. I totally agree

I don't care about political maneuvering. Everyone knows it will get vetoed. Why not make the statement to end it now and keep bringing it up for him to veto till he can't anymore. The coming widows and grieving parents won't care about the details of this bill. I am just furious.

[Frances]

6. This is the entire article by Kos, not just the link

How it looks from the outside
by kos
Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:00:50 PM PDT
With all the hand-wringing over the details of the Iraq supplemental, one of the arguments many are making is that the bill "doesn't go far enough" and that it'll make the Democrats look "weak" for caving the to Blue Dogs and "watering it down".

I'm actually quite proud of the progressive caucus -- it's time House progressives start flexing their muscles a little. And the concessions they've won are important ones. Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

At the end of the day, this is a message battle. It's a chance for Democrats to show that they are interested in ending the war and getting our troops safely home, while the other side wants to escalate the war and get our troops killed.

To that end, look at the headlines the Supplemental is generating:

US Democrats press deadline for Iraq pullout
Iraq pullout measures moves with war bill
US House opens debate on US withdrawal from Iraq
House Democrats seek votes for Iraq exit timetable
Dems labor for sure majority on pullout
Iraq pullout measure moves ahead
After 3 decades, Congress again tries to end a war
Dems seek votes to order pullout from Iraq



You get the point. Few care about the details. The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq.

That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.

So the particular of the bills matter little. Whatever we pass, no matter how weak or strong, will be vetoed and we won't have the votes for an override. The war will go on until we get some sane people in charge of the joint.

So we use this as part of the message war.

If we can't end the war right now (and we can't, thanks to King George), then we lay the foundation that will ultimately accomplish that goal.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. All spending bill start in the House. If the house fails to pass a spending bill

there will be no money to fight a war pretty quick.

The Moderates, however, are afraid if they just don't pass a bill that the Repos will accuse them of abandoning the troops. As long as they vote out of fear of what the Repos might or will say, then the war, the dead and the injured are secondary to the politics.


The only reason to do this, is that the right wing of the Democratic Party (The Blue Dogs) are in favor of continuing the war.

While I oppose the bill, I do understand the politics behind it.

As I said, the moderates owe us big time.

[PSPS]

4. Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

In other words, they'll let bush keep his "war" going through the end of his term, without anything at all hindering the killing, torturing, and the flow of our money into the pockets of his cronies and contributors.

[catnhatnh]

5. WAPO....

...see-until now we've been "unrelenting" not just morally opposed...

[azurnoir]

7. The pullout isn't nearly soon enough

it should be at least a year earlier, but I don't think cutting funding would have stopped the war. The pugs would have made the troops do without even more then they already are, we also have conventional weapons stockpiled. This could have lead to a greater dependancy on bombing and with that more Iraqi deaths.

edited to change is to isn't egads

[bluestateguy]

8. Correct me if I'm wrong here

But Congress doesn't have to "cut" funding for the war, as in rescind money that has already been appropriated.

War money has to be reauthorized and reappropriated every year. Can't the Congress just let the current funding expire and not appropriate anything for next year?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Yes. That was the only effective legislative play we had.

And we are about to give it up. For the remainder of this Congress all we will be able to do legislatively is teeth gnashing. The one remaining power is investigative, and we are about to see if the SCOTUS will nullify that as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Once again we will have voted for war.

And our excuses will stink as usual. Heck we supported the troops, right?

[gimama]

10. Snow,today:"money for Iraq war is running out in a few weeks"

MY favorite quote of the presser. I say let the funds dry up.
according to Kucinich,the redepoyment money is appropriated
(even enough for a big ole Welcome Home party,I read)already.

It IS a 1st step, been a LONG time comin'..but it is ONE step.
There IS real accountability in it,as in cerifying NO ONE ships out before fully trained AND equipped. What a difference that ONE detail might have made,these past 4 years.

Bring 'em HOME, NOW!

[w4rma]

11. If Bush vetos the funds, then he vetos the funds.

If Republicans in the Senate obstruct the funds, then they obstruct the funds.

[OneBlueSky]

15. he won't veto . . . he'll just issue a "signing statement" that negates the withdrawel provision . .

then it will be up to Congress to decide whether to take on the whole issue of signing statements . . . and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the decision will be -- who knows? . . .

[maddezmom]

12. Dems short of votes to set Iraq deadline via spending bill

Dems short of votes to set Iraq deadline via spending bill
POSTED: 0914 GMT (1714 HKT), March 23, 2007
Story Highlights• House Democrats still short of votes for supplemental spending bill
• Legislation includes deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
• Several Democrats remain undecided; Republicans united against it
• Defense secretary warns of consequences if funding not provided soon

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats say they are determined to change course in Iraq, but Democratic leaders are still trying to gather the votes to make that happen.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel told CNN they're at least one or two votes short of the 218 needed to pass binding legislation with a firm deadline -- August 31, 2008 -- for combat troops to leave Iraq.

It's contained in a supplemental funding bill -- a bill that President Bush has promised to veto if it contains the deadline.

The biggest resistance isn't coming from the other side of the aisle -- although Republicans are mostly united in opposition -- but rather from a handful of undecided Democrats, including freshmen Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and Hank Johnson of Georgia.

more:http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/iraq.funding/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[EFerrari]

13. This is a bad bill. We will regret this. I guess the arm twisting

worked.

Dammit.

[sandnsea]

14. If it's difficult to get THIS bill

I don't understand how the left figures they'll get defunding legislation. At least we've got some specific benchmarks and timeline, a framework to hold them accountable to. It's better than the open-ended mess we've had for four years.

[Gman]

16. There's 2 things you shouldn't watch while they're being made

sausage and legislation. Neither is a pretty sight.

[David__77]

19. They should be pressuring GOP to support it, not progressives.

Why shouldn't less fanatical GOPers support it? This is difficult. From a Machiavellian perspective, I understand the leadership view. But I don't believe I could vote money for this war. It's simply a basic moral obligation.