Idea RE: War Spending Bill

[Proud Liberal Dem]

O.k. So it looks as though we can't get a war spending bill through to the President with "withdrawal language" and there are indications (according to the MSM) that the Dems, despite the fact that Bush is severely damaged politically and most of the country wants some kind of timetable for getting out of Iraq (how long are we going to need to be there anyway??? Bush: PLEASE explain!) are going to fold again and give Bush what essentially amounts to another "blank check" for his illegal occupation of Iraq. Keeping these two points in mind, why doesn't the Congress drop the "withdrawal language" and approve the funding BUT approve less funds for a shorter amount of time (3-6 months or until September when Bush says that he will re-evaluate the effect of his "surge"?) and keep requiring the WH to come back to Congress to ask for more money if necessary. This way, at least we are keeping our troops funded but forcing the President to continually come back to Congress (and the public) to justify the need for more funding for the occupation. Just a thought.:think:

[dave_p]

1. I was thinking the same

How about 2 months? And drag it out until the election, making him veto each successive timetable?

And vote a funding package specifically for withdrawal, so there can be no case that they're being abandoned there?

It'd be better than these over-generous blank checks.

[msongs]

2. it is NOT a war. it IS an occupation. dems need to reframe the terms nt