Democrats Would Make Iraq Timetable in Bill 'Advisory'

[cal04]

Source: Washington Post

Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "advisory" as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.

The compromise language would keep the deadlines included in the original House bill but make them nonbinding, as the Senate version did, and would allow President Bush to waive troop-readiness standards, lawmakers said. Bush has vowed to veto legislation with timetables in it, calling it a schedule of surrender, but Democrats hope to show that they are being flexible and the president rigid by softening the terms. The compromises may cost Democrats votes among antiwar liberals, but they hope to pick up some Republicans.

The haggling between congressional Democrats came as their leaders met at the White House with Bush to try to hash out their dispute. Both sides termed it a polite, productive meeting in which they restated their positions but emerged without an agreement. Democrats promised to send Bush their bill next week.

"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience, and decide what is best for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on the White House driveway. "I believe signing the bill is that."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800253.html

[babylonsister]

1. Bullshit. They're caving...again. nt

[katsy]

2. "The compromises may cost Democrats votes among antiwar liberals,

but they hope to pick up some Republicans."


I guess that means they don't need us anymore. Who wants ordinary anti-war human beings when the can have repukes and the big bucks.

:shrug:

[pocoloco]

8. It's already cost them a few dollars..

I told the latest Dem caller no backbone no bucks!

[patrice]

3. When you've never done anything but go along to get along . . .

You become incapable of recognizing when it MUST stop.

[unlawflcombatnt]

4. Caving In

Any agreement to make any portion of the bill "advisory" is the same as completely caving in. Bush will ignore all advice, as he's extensively proven in the past.

However, there was one suggestion in the article that was encouraging
"One House Democrat said Congress might pass a 60-day spending bill without conditions for Bush to sign to keep troops funded while the debate continues."

If Bush vetoes the current bill, it is he who is cutting off funding, not Congress. All money from Congress comes with strings attached, as it should be. No President has never insisted on the right to funding for his own pet projects without any restrictions. At least, no President before Bush.

Congress appropriates funds, not the President. If the President wants funds, he has to abide by the rules Congress attaches to the funding. If he doesn't want to go by rules, and doesn't want the funding, he can veto the bill.

It is only Bush who is denying the troops funding. If Congress caves in, it is Congress who is denying (and defying) the will of the American people.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[HuffleClaw]

5. WTF????

oh, please tell me this is pro-bush WaPo propaganda.

[movonne]

6. Well Dick Cheney called it....he knows the Dems are wimps..this

makes me sick...

[Xipe Totec]

7. The House is up for reelection in two years.

they better remember that.

[Peace Patriot]

9. "Bush, Democrats: No give on Iraq"--1,144 related articles at Google News.

The most recent, 30 minutes ago. The Guardian...via AP...

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush sparred across the table with Democratic congressional leaders opposed to the Iraq war on Wednesday in a prelude to a veto showdown over a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

"During an hourlong meeting at the White House, the president told lawmakers directly he will not sign any bill that includes a timetable for a troop withdrawal, and they made it clear Congress will send him one anyway.

``'We believe he must search his soul, his conscience and find out what is the right thing for the American people,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, told reporters after the session. 'I believe signing this bill will do that.'

"But Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, said, `'It appears that they are determined to send a bill to the president that he won't accept. They fundamentally disagree.'''

-----

Further down the article explains the differences between the two bills. And here we have a different group of people--Congressional aides--cautioning against presuming that no-deadline compromise will be made:

"Democrats hope to complete work on a House-Senate compromise in time to send it to the White House by the end of next week, with Bush's veto a certainty.

"The House-passed bill requires the withdrawal of combat troops by Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate measure is weaker, requiring the beginning of a withdrawal within 120 days and setting a nonbinding goal of March 2008 for completion.

"Given the narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, it appears unlikely the compromise will include the mandatory date for a complete withdrawal, although several Democratic aides cautioned that Reid and Pelosi have yet to make a decision on that point."

------

The OP above does not give date or time for this article where "several House members" are saying that Democrats are "moving" toward a no-deadline compromise.

Perhaps the Democrats are waiting to hear from us???

Or somebody has a pro-war agenda they are floating???

Don't believe everything you read--I guess is the lesson. Especially stuff in the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press, and WaPo is the worst among 'em. My expectations are not high for any Congress shaped by Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" vote counting software, and, given the history of the Vietnam war, we know...Democratic war, Republican war, it really doesn't matter, and we never get any other choice. Either they assassinate them or "swiftboat" them, or defund them, or doctor their campaign victory celebration tapes. Still, I wouldn't say that the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is dead yet. I think some folks in Congress are trying to be true to their oaths of office. We shall see.

[man4allcats]

10. My advisory to Congress:

Pull your heads out of your asses, you dumb, unprincipled bastards! Bush is an arrogant half-wit, but he's still smart enough to recognize a bunch of gutless wimps when he sees them. Excuse me while I throw up. :puke: Not another dime, so don't even bother to ask!

[anotherdrew]

11. I do believe there are constitutional procedures for impeachment to originate without congress?

some big money needs to get behind a "recall bush" movement and make it happen ASAP