House Dems To Propose New Iraq Funding With Timetables For Withdrawal

Speaker Pelosi today announced:

House Democrats said Thursday they would send President Bush $50 billion for combat operations on the condition that he begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The proposal, similar to one Bush vetoed earlier this year, would identify a goal of ending combat entirely by December 2008. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as they do in combat, as well as effectively ban harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding.

In a private caucus meeting, Pelosi told rank-and-file Democrats that the bill was their best shot at challenging Bush on the war. And if Bush rejected it, she said, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.

"This is not a blank check for the president," she said later at a Capitol Hill news conference. "This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.

As always, we know Bush will veto.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush would veto any bill that sets an "artificial timeline" for troop withdrawals.

As always, I applaud the Speaker's STATED stance today.

As always, the important point here is that the House Dems MUST stick to their guns and tell the President - if he vetoes then he is abandoning the troops in the field. I repeat, the President of the United States will be ABANDONING AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE FIELD!

President Bush is proposing to stab the troops in the back by vetoing funding for them.

A disgraceful man. The worst President in history.

< Obama Is Right To Support Peru Free Trade Pact | Bernie Kerik Indicted >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow, what a bold and (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by DA in LA on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    predictable stance, leading to a predictable cave.

    The cave is the thing (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    If it happens, which it probably will, then we criticize.

    In the meantime, let's encourage NOT caving.


    We Are All (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:36:42 PM EST
    Well trained by Pelosi. Hard to believe that they will follow through on what they say. But I am keeping an open mind.

    She'll follow through (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    as soon as she gets a veto proof majority:
    "It will resemble what we have done before," Pelosi said at a press conference today. "'The same' is pretty different than what the president wants."

    In an interview, Hoyer quipped, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

    Democrats hope they will win GOP support for ending the war by tying restrictions to funding, and by switching a mandate for withdrawing troops with a less stringent goal for withdrawal.

    ...Harry Reid (D-Nev.) punted when asked about his plans to take up a bridge fund.

    Where's talex? Queen Nancy needs him now like never before.

    Doesn't she look radiant and wonderful in her coronation picture?


    Queen Nancy (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:05:41 PM EST
    You must actually believe that, she just waves her magic wand and poof the entire house votes at her will.

    Bravo for your unlimited faith in 'dese Dems (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ellie on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:55:53 PM EST
    It makes me almost feel bad that I threw in the towel for supporting a party so milquetoast, they're  fretting about coming down on the wrong side of calling out Dick "11%" Cheney. Yep, "Total" Dick Cheney, the Baby-Eating Bastard of the Beltway.


    [I've omitted the remainder of this post as being too vicious even for me, figuring that believing in these worthless sacks'o'crap beyond seven years of no-shows is humuliation enough.]


    Same Language As (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:33:43 PM EST
    Senator Craig who said that he intends to resign.

    "That, well he hasn't resigned," Specter said. "Bear in mind Chris, if you look closely, listen closely to what Senator Craig said he said he intends to resign. Once you resign, you're out. But when you have a statement of intent to resign, that intent can change.

    Its illegal now (none / 0) (#29)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:21:09 PM EST
    if Pelosi and the LeaderSheep would just prosecute the offenders.

    Impeachment is not the result of a Constitutional crisis. It is the CURE for a constitutional crisis (ala Bill Moyers).


    These people are international criminals. War criminals. And all of you are aiding and abetting them.


    And if Bush rejected it, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    she said, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.
    January will be fine.... she's got her headline.

    Man (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:30:10 PM EST
    You are cynical, and rightly so.

    Sad huh? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:33:22 PM EST
    I am... and I wish I wasn't. But these days cynicism and realism are that same thing, no?

    I just saw her press conference on C-SPAN (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    She as much as admitted that the vote was intended to show "contrast." There will be no sticking to guns, and it's time to hold our no funding letter signers to the fire.

    What did I miss? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:36:37 PM EST
    I did not hear that. I was "watching" with one ear.

    Got You Trained Too (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    It seemed subtextual to me (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:55:21 PM EST
    It's what I got out of her "contrast" remark.

    You've learned to ::read:: her? :-) (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 06:00:41 PM EST
    Caving 'R" Us. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    Democratic Spelunker's Club (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ellie on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    Cave-ins galore!

    Stolen from my sister without apology, but she owes me damages I'll never see (for 1000 items of clothing borrowed w/o permission; and writing "Ellie is a Fink" on a board game that was supposed to belong to both of us.)


    "harsh interrogation techniques" (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by s5 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    They misspelled "torture".

    sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jen M on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    that happens when one is changing the dictionary.

    Good for her (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    I hope she now understands that standing up to him would bring political benefit to all Democrats.    I'll call her and my own congressman tomorrow to encourage the process.

    I'm not going to get cynical yet. Plenty of time for that if it becomes warranted.

    Recent study states one of four (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:34:06 PM EST
    who are homeless are veterans, not all older veterans either.AP on homeless vets

    dick cheney, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cpinva on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:48:51 PM EST
    before he dicks you!

    god, i almost miss nixon. geez, he was actually smarter than the bozo in there now, just radically paranoid.

    i don't agree with the "we won't send him another bill for the rest of the year" approach. frankly, that's nearly as good as a cave-in. send it back, again and again and again. make him veto it again and again and again. make him explain to the troops why he hates them so much, he wants to make them stay in iraq.

    yep, while jenna and barb are bopping around town, hitting the bars, their contemporaries, volunteers all, are stuck in the republican horrorshow that is iraq. make him explain to those families why dad/mom/sis/bro/son/daughter won't be coming home anytime soon, from mr. bush's broken war.

    to paraphrase a well known commercial, "this administration has fallen, and can't get up!" a phone call won't help.

    I'm frustrated too (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    But enough with the speaker Pelosi attacks.  She has accomplished a lot with the congress we gave her.  She is pushing them to the left of where they would like to be.

    I know for some of us rather than, you know, looking at roll call and seeing where the problem congressmen are, its fun to just pretend that speaker Pelosi has some magic powers to make bad democrat vote correctly.

    We can all come up with ways we would like congress to behave, but no one can ever come up with how she is supposed to make them vote in that way.

    That's what it would come to, you know (none / 0) (#20)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 06:41:31 PM EST
    That's what I have emphatically said, for months, that Bush would do. Veto he will unless there is an adequate amount of groveling to satisfy his urge to belittle and destroy others.

    Go buy and read Bush on the Couch, by Justin Frank, MD; the second edition has just come out. Do it, and don't laugh at 'psychobabble'. We have a dangerously ill person in the White House who should be instead in a psychiatric hospital--and it's not just Justin Frank saying that--lots of psychiatric professionals are saying it.

    However, it is unlikely Pelosi will follow through; she needs to go to Bushanon meetings.

    Do the right thing (none / 0) (#23)
    by AshleyA on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:26:33 PM EST
    Come on, its time for the houses to pull through for America's families,and do the right thing. Override the president's veto, that's why congress has the power to do so in the first place, right?; to correct a president's stupid mistake or mis-judgment or in the case idiotic mistakeS and rash judgmentS.

    OK but just keep in mind... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ctrenta on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    the Dems still should not get off the hook for not holding Bush & Cheney accountable for very obvious and very grevious impeachable offenses.

    If lighting strikes and this thing gets the light of day (which Bush can certainly veto, with impeachment Bush & Cheney can't) their work is still not over. Accountability must be followed through. That's what many Americans are calling for and as Ed Schultz told Debbie Wasserman Schultz on his radio program today:

    ...that she was completely out of touch with the American people on this, that the politicians inside the beltway don't have a clue on what the people want. He told her "to hell with the newspapers, it's about the constitution, the rule of law, and justice!"

    Amen. Thanks for standing up for the rest of us Ed!

    Obey's pledge to report out nothing? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:49:55 PM EST
    Is Pelosi going to bypass Appropriations, or has she bullied him?

    WSWS on proposed $50 billion war funding (none / 0) (#30)
    by Andreas on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 02:26:36 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    The language in the proposal, including the call for a phased and partial withdrawal of US troops, closely tracks similar provisions attached to war-funding legislation that either died in the Senate or was vetoed by Bush last May.

    Asked at the press conference whether tacking this language onto the war funding was merely an attempt to placate antiwar sentiment among Democratic voters, or if she saw a change in Congress that would allow its passage, Pelosi launched into a rhetorical attack on Bush's war policy, dodging the question.

    "We are restating the differentiation between us and the president of the United States," said Pelosi. "This gives voice to the desires of the American people."

    In other words, the supposed challenge is nothing but hot air. Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership refuse to exercise the one power in the hands of Congress to actually force an end to the war--rejection of any further funding. Such a complete cutoff of money to wage the war requires a simple majority vote against funding measures and would be immune from presidential veto power.

    While the Democratic leadership routinely justifies its refusal to take such a course of action in the name of "supporting the troops," the reality is that this party continues to support the aims of colonial conquest for which the war was launched in the first place, whatever its tactical differences with how it has been waged by the Bush administration.

    Congress proposes $50 billion more in Iraq war funding
    By Bill Van Auken, 9 November 2007