AP: Democrats Won't Consider Bush War Spending Plan Until November

AP:

Democrats are not expected to take up President Bush's war spending request until November, giving them time to calculate their next move and see if Republican support for his policies deteriorates.

The delay in passing the bill, which Bush says is needed by Oct. 1, is likely to intensify the standoff between the Democratic-controlled Congress and Bush, who says at least 130,000 troops are needed in Iraq through next summer.

Read the whole story: AP

Comments

[Grannysue]

03:13 PM on 09/18/2007

Oh, I can hardly wait for DARTH CHENEY and BUSH and McCain to all run out with their neocon clan saying, Oh my God, the Dems are not supporting the troops. They won't give Bush more money until November! Those nasty, naughty, bad Democrats. Well, maybe Larry and Mitch can go hit them with their purses!

[Nonamnesiac]

02:54 PM on 09/18/2007

The Dems can simply put up their own funding Bill that ends the war. The Bill can provide funds that will protect the troops. They should call it the Support and Protect the Troops Act. It should not include money for any permanent bases or the new Embassy. It should only provide funding for safe, rapid withdrawal. It should include the Webb amendment and the old Murtha amendment requiring troops to be fully trained and qualified before they are sent to Iraq. It should include the new armored vehicles that Biden talks about. It should cancel all contracts with contractors. If the Republicans don't vote for this Bill, they don't want to support and protect the troops. If Bush vetos it, they should send him back a nearly identical Bill over and over and constantly force the Republicans to vote against it and Bush to veto it. Then it becomes clear who is willing to put the troops in danger. That's the only way they'll get the Republican votes necessary to end the war. If they just put up a Bill and back down after a veto, the Repubicans have not been put to the test.

Bottom line though is that Greenspan is right. The war is all about oil and both parties are oil parties and support the war. And that's why the Dems will create the 67/60 fiction and claim that not caving in to Bush's vetos and Repubican Congressional obstinance means they (the Dems) will be perceived as weak. They're making it all up, just like Bush keeps making up reasons to stay in Iraq.

[Semaj51]

01:54 PM on 09/18/2007

Another example of the Dem's great election plan... DO NOTHING.... Let the Repubs take all the blame for the Iraq mess.

Its becoming more obvious that there will be nothing productive done in Congress until after the election next year. The Dem's are saying, "Why stick our necks out now, just wait a few more months and we'll get a free pass at the election." Not what they were elected to do.

When will the Dem's get the gumption to actually make a decisionand be firm? Why do we want politicians who's first and only response to national disasters is to duck and blame the other guy? Why are we voting for these worms?

[vfippinger]

02:02 PM on 09/18/2007

The Dem's have a very narrow majority. Unless some con's vote with them, they cannot get anything passed. The Con's are requiring a super majority of 60 votes - the CON'S are the knuckle draggers.
Damn straight we Dem's are frustrated that nothing can get accomplished.
Try watching CSPAN (or taking a political science class)before you accuse the Dems's of this shit hole Bush and Co has us in.
The frickin Con's are behaving like the still are the majority, spoiled little bitches - all of them.

[bluesnot]

02:05 PM on 09/18/2007

Votes against this bill will follow those Republican losers to the next election.

[Semaj51]

02:23 PM on 09/18/2007

I'm not blaming the Dem's for getting us into this mess. What I'm crying out for is the Dem's to stand up and be counted. All I see is the Dem's speaking/yelling out about the mess in Iraq, but when its time for the votes to be counted, they duck and run for cover. It seems that they are afraid to seen actually making a declaration and then standing up for it.

[vfippinger]

01:50 PM on 09/18/2007

I heard on CSPAN yesterday the little Rep. Weasle from Alabama whinning that the Dems basically need to roll over and give Bush what he wants. Anything short of Bush policy is to be vetoed.
The knuckle dragging Cons will deadlock this Country until another election cycle where they'll either finally jump ship (to save their career) or be voted out.
Damn shame it it all at the expense of our children at war and our grandchildrens inheritence.

[zenhead]

01:48 PM on 09/18/2007

I'd recommend that voters email, FAX, call, or write their own senators, and ask them, regardless of party, to get on Senator Webb's bill as co-sponsors. By November, there will be seven months until Petraeus (yes, he should be BE tray US) and Bush begin their own withdrawal schedule.
Either you're willing to enlist, if you 18-26, male OR female; or, you've served (I did, 3 years, '65-'68, including tours in South Korea and Vietnam, plus 1 year hospitals for gunshot wound; malaria; PTSD); or, you should be honest and drop out of the argument if you're able to serve, but have some lameass excuse.
If you aren't eligible for medical reasons, or any of the above, then ask ALL Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, who wish to show real support by actions for the troops, to vote for Webb's bill. And, we need ten more.
That includes Feingold in WI; any other Democrat Senator who won't go with his party;
Coleman of MN; Voinovich of OH; Lieberman, of CT; Whitehorse-Nelson of CO; Martinez of FL; Snowe & Collins of ME; Sanders, of VT; Smith, of OR; Murkowski, of AK; Sununu of NH; Domenici of NM, and anyone else you can think of.
Same for your house congressional reps.
It's one thing to "honor the troops" with words;
it's quite another to honor them by trying to save their lives. I hope we can all join on this one.

[bluesnot]

02:03 PM on 09/18/2007

There should be a website dedicated to this bill that gives daily updates and vote tallies and the reasons senators are for or against it.

[bluesnot]

01:16 PM on 09/18/2007

It's time for the Democrats to use the Republican strategy of doing nothing.

I'd be putting the defense funding bill at the bottom of the pile. Is Bush going to come over from the White House and make Congress work on it?

[cheshyre]

11:58 AM on 09/18/2007

Dems showing some spine at last! They gonna make Georgie WAIT for their capitulation!

[MissingAmerica]

11:21 AM on 09/18/2007

Heroditus once said: "Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." War breeds more war.

We were once a country of riches and freedom, admired and respected by all. We are now an economically challenged country being led by an incompetent, the second most feared nation in the world. We are losing Democracy to war.

We have been the greatest democracy on this planet, an example to all. If we allow this incompetent administration to continue leading us down a violent path, daily eroding the rights we have held dear for over 200 years, we will lose democracy and prove that there is no place on this planet for a peaceful or prosperous nation, and we become just another enemy. The world cannot survive this way.

It is time to stop funding war, and start funding peace. It is time to impeach this administration before it shreds our Constitution and uses the refuse as fuel to burn our flag.

[kmccaskill]

10:54 AM on 09/18/2007

Does Experience Matter? (Clinton and JFK didn't think so)

This Video Is Showing That Obama can be president because two fmr presidents were
where he is right now, history proves experience makes an either worse president( nixon, bush, vp dick cheney, defense sec.rumsfeld)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBy3AKn_2Fk

[coonce]

10:44 AM on 09/18/2007

What would Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove do if the situation were reversed? Democrats FOR war and they were against it or at least ready to end one.

Reversed psychology - any shrinks out there?

How about an American Idol vote. I'm serious. Every week they have people call in and vote for their favorite singer. Democrats need to provide a phone line (Yeh or Nay) to Americans, one time only phone call, to take a national vote on what THEY want. Let Americans VOTE. Do we Start to Withdraw or Do we Stay?

[po]

11:08 AM on 09/18/2007

Interesting idea. To get the public involved, perhaps they can offer $10,000 to a random voter every hour.

In the end, however, what the people want does not really matter here. Thus, the special ops program to get us into Iraq in the first place.

[Mike169]

11:40 AM on 09/18/2007

The Republicans, as guardians of democracy, would probably jam the lines.

[Mike169]

10:30 AM on 09/18/2007

No more money for this fraudulent war, for this incompetent president, and his corrupt party!

[po]

10:11 AM on 09/18/2007

The anger is not because "A lot of people are very unhappy with the Democrats because we haven't been able to get anything done."

The anger stems from the fact that it does not appear that the Democrats have made any attempt to see what they could actually get done. Instead, they have prematurely caved to every bit of administration fear-mongering for fear of being called "weak", "defeatist", "soft" or, worst of all, being susceptible to being blamed for the next terror attack on the US (an event that is sure to happen some day no matter what civil liberties we do away with).

The anger is because the Democrats are not only not getting anything done but are not doing anything to show anyone, right or left, that they are trying to do something - anything - to back up their convictions. If the war is wrong, if the war is not actually keeping America safer, if the presence of our troops in Iraq is actually making things worse there, then for god's sake, why stay? To save face? To waste some more lives? To give China more leverage to financially blackmail us now and in the future?

Seriously, it's time to wake up and do some major thinking about the cost of doing nothing. It's really quite expensive. And living on a prayer only works for Bon Jovi.

[NotMyPrez]

09:19 AM on 09/18/2007

At least they know the proper use of a "stall" tactic.

[joja]

09:18 AM on 09/18/2007

Hey, Murtha --

Why don't you tell Clueless Pelosi to NOT EVEN BRING THE FUCKIN' BILL UP FOR A VOTE!

She's the gatekeepper on appropriations bills -- just refuse to bring it up for a vote. Do what Prez Cheney & his ventriloquist dummy George do -- be intransigent.

[TerryFL]

08:55 AM on 09/18/2007

.**********************************************

Iraq strategy for the Democrats

Posted by Mark Kleiman

There's been lots of hand-wringing about what Senate Democrats should do about Iraq, all of it premised on the idea that they need either a filibuster-proof (60-vote) majority or a veto-proof (67-vote) majority. To which I can only say, "Huh? Howzzat again?"

Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.

Take, for example, the Webb Amendment, forbidding troops from being required to serve tours in Iraq longer than the spells between tours. If passed, it would force a troop drawdown by spring.

The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.

If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.

As of October 1, there's no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long ...

Really, this isn't very hard. With the voters interested in getting us out of Iraq, the Democrats can make use of the power of the purse.

***********************************************