Dems Vow To Waste Time

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Apr 2, 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
    Despite the fact Dems cannot override a veto, libs vow to push for their "Surrender At All Costs" bill




    Senate Democrats vow to push withdrawal

    WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leaders said Sunday they will keep pushing for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq even if President Bush vetoes legislation calling for a pullout.

    Meanwhile, the Senate's top Republican leader dismissed as unacceptable any legislation that sets deadlines for a troop withdrawal. He called on Democrats to cut short their Easter recess so lawmakers can quickly send a final version to Bush for a veto.

    "This bill is not salvageable," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky.

    The comments were the latest in a war of words over funding and the future course in Iraq as Congress lurched closer to an epic veto confrontation with the president.

    "The president as well as his staff are more than willing to sit down and talk to congressional leaders," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Sunday. "But what we haven't seen from this Democratic leadership is a willingness to drop this very restrictive language that basically substitutes the judgment of politicians here in Washington with the judgment of our commanders on the ground."

    The Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed measures last month that would provide more than $90 billion to sustain military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, while setting conditions for an eventual withdrawal of troops.

    The Senate bill would require the beginning of a troop exit within 120 days, with a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008 for its completion. The House version is more sweeping, mandating that nearly all combat troops pull out by Sept. 1, 2008.

    Bush has said he would veto any funding legislation with timelines, saying imposition of a "specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous" for U.S. troops in Iraq. Before Bush can act, House and Senate negotiators must put together a compromise bill.

    The Senate is in recess for one week, but the House does not return until April 16. Even if a tentative deal is reached by then, getting it through the House and Senate and to the president would take at least a week.

    Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified that the Army "will be forced to consider" altering training schedules for reserves and units, as well as delays in repairing equipment and renovating barracks if a funding bill is not passed quickly.

    On Sunday, Sens. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democratic leader in the Senate, and Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D.-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not say whether House Democrats should come back early.

    But they said lawmakers had some time to maneuver with either a compromise bill or a new measure that sets "target dates" for withdrawal, citing a nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report which indicates the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for war operations until July.

    Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships.

    "I think we'll end up doing what the Senate did, not what the House did, set a target date," said Biden. "You've got to change the mission to get a political solution. That's what we're saying."

    "The memo is not to the enemy. The memo is to the president: Mr. President, get straight on this war," he said. "Get us out of the middle of a civil war."

    Durbin, D-Ill., insisted Democrats in the House and Senate will work out a compromise despite differences in the proposals about calling U.S. troops home. The final legislation, he said, will start winding the war down.

    "If you follow this escalation of the war by President Bush, you can understand that there is no end in sight," Durbin said.

    Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., predicted that if Bush vetoes the withdrawal legislation, Congress will quickly approve funding for the war because it won't "play chicken with the troops."

    He suggested that Congress' only recourse is to mount public pressure in hopes of building a two-thirds majority that could override a presidential veto.

    Biden and McConnell appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Durbin and Bartlett spoke on ABC's "This Week."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AhzdZp1RhH_D3momq4NANdADW7oF
     
  2. Rosotar
    Offline

    Rosotar Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +45
    Hey! I like that!

    "Surrender At All Costs" bill......

    I'll have to check Rush's website today. I'll bet I'll find this little ditty on there huh?

    I always count on ditto-heads to keep me supplied with their latest, misleading, melodramatic talking points.

    BTW I notices you put the title of this bill in quotations. Could that be because it's not the real title of the bill and it isn't in fact anything that Democrats have actually said? Could it be that Republicans like to make up catchy, misinformative slogans like this and then repeat them over and over in order to shape public opinion?

    We call that propaganda in civilized circles.

    Bullshit!

    Translated this means the President and his staff are willing to sit down with Congressional leaders and whine about how they never had to work with Congress before and they don't see why things can't be just like the "good old days" when the timid, cowering, Republican lap dogs were in control. Basically they are in tantrum mode. Don't expect it to end anytime soon either!



    Well whose fault is that?

    Maybe Bush should quit asking Congress for emergency funding for this war and start planning ahead and putting it in the yearly budget.

    Of course that would be like telling the American people they actually have to PAY for this war now instead of simply charging it. That probably wouldn't go over too well.

    Especially with Republicans. You know how they piss and moan at any suggestion that they might have to carry their fair share in financing our government!
     
  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
    Lets see Dems promised not to raise taxes (they want a huge tax increase - even increasing the marriage penalty) they said they would not cut and run from Iraq (they are) they said they would stand up to terrorists (they are crawling away) they said they would stop the prok (they are increasing it)

    So far they are 0 - 4 on their promises and keep the books open
     

Share This Page