Dems To Fund Troops - NO SURRENDER DATE

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, May 22, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    It seems Dems are going to cave on their surrender date, and fund the troops (as they should have done four months ago)

    Pres Bush had the Dems cornered all along, and this is not going to play well with the anti war left


    Deal Near to Fund Iraq War Without Troop Withdrawal
    Tuesday, May 22, 2007

    WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders indicated Tuesday that a compromise is near over how to fund U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan after Democrats confirmed they will abandon plans to include a troop withdrawal timetable in the war supplemental spending measure.

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer pledged that Democrats would try to include a timetable for withdrawal in next year's spending bills.

    "We can't pass something without the president's signature and the president can't pass something without our agreement," Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters. "So we can be at a standoff and go back and forth at each other, or we can come to an agreement."

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to call the compromise a defeat.

    "I don't think there's any way you can stretch saying whatever we decided to do in this legislation is a defeat, for heaven's sake, look where we've come. We've come a long, long way," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Capitol Hill.

    Reid vowed to continue pushing to change the direction of the war in Iraq through the upcoming defense appropriations bill, expecting to vote on the 2008 fiscal year funding measure Thursday night or Friday.


    For complete article

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274559,00.html
     
  2. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,782
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,102
    funded until september, when those repubs who also decided to 'surrender' come september ...the ones that made the visit to the whitehouse telling the president, enough is enough.... will vote with the dems to cut off funds and override the veto....

    care
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Dems do NOT have the political guts to cut off funding

    No wonder the approval numbers for your party are in the toilet

    Tax increases, pork, more travel perks, changing the rules of the House, ethics problems, and pudhing for surrender

    I do hope the Dems keep up the good work Care
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,567
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    Well considering that things are now being marginally reported as improving in the press one of two things will happen before September...

    One, the Libs will be more specific on what it is the Terrorists must do before the deadline to keep the " we have lost line" going

    Two, the Republicans will not vote against the President because in fact we are succeeding.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Do you think the Dems 27% approval rating had anything with their surrender to Pres Bush?
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,567
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    Yes. Historically Congress not the President, gets blamed for impasses like this. Happened in the 80's with Reagan and would have happened in the 90's under Clinton if he had any balls or credibility.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Looks like MM will have to get updated talking points before jumping into this thread
     
  8. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Seems to me someone has forgotten how many bills Bill vetoed.

    Yeah Im dissapointed in them but not alot they could do with not enough to over ride a veto.

    Like Care said maybe the Congressional Rs will grow some brass ones by sept.

    The have said for the second time now "If it doesnt work by (fill in a date)".
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    It is the Dems who caved

    They see their falling poll numbers and perhaps they are beginning to understand voters do NOT want the US to surrender
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,567
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    They never had a chance. The Senate is not going to play ball and the only reason the bill made it to the President's desk was he told the Republicans to let him VETO it. He played the cards the right way. The ones with egg on the face are the Democrats.

    Doesn't help they are planning ( or talking) about seriously undermining the process in the House with changes that they promised would never occur. Someone has forgotten that the "majority" has 20 or so "conservative" democrats in it, these people did not get elected to cut and run.
     

Share This Page