home

Ending The Iraq Debacle Is Up To The House

I have long said this. Today, I am proven right:

Senate Democrats appear ready to omit Iraq withdrawal timelines from a supplemental spending bill in hopes of clearing in December funds for the troops — but House leaders have no intentions of following suit.

Good for Speaker Pelosi and good for House Democrats. Now who do we have to worry about? The eternal capitulation leaders, Hoyer and Rahmbo. Watch out for them.

< Mudslinging By The Clinton Campaign? | Obama Campaign Mudslinging? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    You have been saying this for months. The problem is holding out hope for either of them.

    WTF, over? (none / 0) (#1)
    by po on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    Why do some in the Democratic Party wish to telegraph their intent to cave weeks / months in advance?  Why?  is Rahm teaching everyone that this is the 21st century way to negotiate?  

    W, the GOP and most of the country believe, by now, that the Democratic leadership in the Senate believes that nothing can be done without 60 votes.  That's BS, as proven by the fact that there is no Iraq spending bill on W's desk at the moment.  Giving the President nothing, when the past 6 years have seen the GOP controlled Congress giving W everything and then some, is progress.  if only they'd keep it up.  

    Leading by omission is a wonderful thing.  Especially when the other side is so incredibly stubborn in its refusal to compromise.  So we tried the bipartisanship angle (I was never much in favor of) and it didn't work.  Now, let's try taking pages from the GOP playbook and see if what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Thus, if W is against strings and his minions in Congress wish to continue kowtowing at his feet (and the feet of KRove, opinionator to the masses), then don't give him strings.  But, don't give them what they want either.  And that goes for FISA as well.  There are many ways to reach an outcome.  

    Is Pelosi still "standing firm" (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    that if Bush doesn't accept meaningless guidelines, that she will not allow a vote on money for the occupation this year?

    Only six more weeks till January....

    I actually find (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    this whole "no funding THIS YEAR" ploy more annoying than anything else she has done.  

    Parent
    It is kind of like her (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    intentionally insulting and flipping people off.

    Parent
    Well, she managed not to cave in to pressure to (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    fund the troops before Veterans' Day.  Holidays such as Veterans' Day and Memorial Day have caused her to buckle in the past.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 07:19:40 PM EST
    continuing resolution makes that pretty debatable, I think:
    "A bridge fund is always possible," said OMB Watch policy analyst Adam Hughes, referring to a measure that would cordon off funds in the defense bill to be used only for war. "But even without it, they would have enough in the budget to sustain what's currently happening."

    Moreover, even if no baseline budget money is used for war costs, Congress plans to continue financing the war at the current rate, House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha told the Congressional Quarterly on Wednesday night.

    Congress is currently operating on a "continuing resolution," or CR, which allows the war to be funded at the same levels it was funded last year. According to Murtha, Congress plans to renew the CR in mid-November, allowing war spending to continue unabated into the new year.



    Parent
    Surprising the link is to DK, as opposed to, (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    say, a newspaper.