Dem Iraq Funding Bill Is Most Aggressive Pursued Thus Far

House Democratic leaders are slated to introduce the toughest-worded war funding resolution since taking office, one that would appropriate money only for a drawdown of troops from Iraq, according to a copy obtained by the Huffington Post. As a sign of cohesion within the party, moreover, Senate Democrats are likely to follow suit with virtually identical legislation.

But neither measure is expected to overcome a veto from the President or even a filibuster from the Republican minority. And Congress will more than likely have to resume Iraq legislative battles early next year.

"[Leadership] is committed to pushing this as far as it can go," said one Democratic aide. "But it will get filibustered or vetoed. Regardless, this will be the last funding bill in 2007."

The emergency Defense Department appropriations bill is set to be introduced to the House on Wednesday. A draft obtained by the Huffington Post reads: "Within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the President shall commence an immediate and orderly redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq." Additionally, the draft states, "It is the sense of Congress that the war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as possible and that our troops should be brought home."

The legislation would also require President Bush to provide Congress with a plan to complete the redeployment by December 15, 2008. It would prohibit deployment of forces to Iraq who are not fully trained, and change the strategy of U.S. forces in Iraq to diplomatic missions, force protection, and counterterrorism operations.

Finally, the supplemental language reaffirms that they won't be considering any additional war funding beyond this bill until early next year

"The amounts appropriated by this Act are sufficient to fully meet the immediate needs of the United States Armed Forces deployed to Iraq," the legislation concludes. "Congressional action on additional funding shall be deferred until [February 1, 2008]."

Comments

[lisakaz]

Deeds, not words. DEEDS, NOT WORDS!

Wake me when the Dems actually do something to end this cluster#$&@.

[slobone]

The Republicans won't even need to filibuster -- the Democrats have nowhere near enough votes to pass this bill. Another empty symbolic gesture.

The only thing the Democrats actually have the power to do is hold endless hearings to piss off as many members of the Bush administration as possible.

And that's what they should be doing, of course. Anything else they need the cooperation of the Republicans.

[plages]

What do you think Feinstien whispered in Pelois's little left ear: "Honey, its all about cash, and not US!"

[gallstones]

Yea, yea, yea, uh-huh, right.
I'll sleep better tonight now.

[HypocrisyPosse]

This modest proposal has been repeatedly forwarded to/ignored by Congressional Dems.

Once again Democrats will ultimately cave in to Bush demands for Iraq supplemental funding. Instead they should consider the following:

1) Pass legislation providing approximately $20 billion supplemental each six (6)weeks, providing that ...

2) Specific milestones are established - and met - regarding the four (4) critical areas identified by the Iraq Advisory Group:

## Political & security progress by Iraq's government
## Diplomatic progress in the region
## Civil reconstruction progress
## Military security within Iraq

3) A firm withdrawal plan is being implemented - with consistent, demonstrable progress toward fixed benchmarks.

4) Hearings are held (before each additional $20 billion is authorized) at which
all of the above are both attested to and DEMONSTRATED by the administration.

This alternative would show the American public that Congress has met its obligation to US troops as well as holding the administration responsible for actual progress rather than mere rhetoric.

[Stevelagain]

She has already been told by her own party she doesn't have the votes to pass it.

With things turning in IRaq, with Al Qaeda on the run and the civil war winding down if not ending, it's getting harder and harder for the radical left (Pelosi, Reid, Etc) to force a US Surrender.

Hillary knows this and she's not going to get caught on the Surrender Monkey side of things in the General Election.

[BrighterStar]

What a waste of time. Any appropriation bills coming any time soon? Pelosi is running Congress like a sixties commune. They spend all their time on irrelevant symbolic gestures while the business of the country is not getting done.

[Bobleblah1]

Some good comments today, but there is something missing. Many of you are operating out of the premise that the Democrats are an actual political party.

A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain political power within a government

Political power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others with or without resistance.

here in lies the problem; The Democratic party on the surface claims to seek political power, however when it is given that power, they REFUSE to use it. This begs the question "what is this organization truly trying to accomplish"? The answer: NOTHING.
Thats their actual role, to stall popular movements with false promises and wasted time.
Understand that the party you are looking towards for leadership has been morphed into a giant (fake liberal) industry, who's purpose relative to the system is front-line subversion of popular movements.

[Dejack]

This is the resolution the Dems should have introduced immediately after the last election.
They are a full year TOO late! Had they done this, by now most of the troops would be out of Iraq.

[notyourproblemYET]

this will not end until the capitalists get their way and not a second sooner.The farce goes on.

[Bobleblah1]

Stop waisting everyones time. You all aren't gonna do shit. You will give bush exactly what he asks. Stop pumping out this bullshit, no one who is sober actually believes you

P.S. I pray to God Cindy Sheehan runs against Pansey-Pelosi.

[DatelessNerd]

From the Congressional Research Service:

"In cases of significant differences with the President over foreign policy, especially
deployments of U.S. military forces abroad, Congress has generally found that use of its
Constituti­onally-bas­ed 'power of the purse' to be the most effective way to compel a
President to take actions regarding use of U.S. military force overseas that he otherwise
might not agree to."

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS20775.pdf

Here's some historical perspective that's newer than Teddy Roosevelt.

[madprogressive]

If this bill is the best they can do, why bother. It is only marginally better than the policy in place. This will leave thousands of troops in Iraq. This is the "strong" leadership we expect from Democratic leaders. Pathetic!

[Anastasia]

Neither Reid, nor Pelosi can "end the war" without leaving the Democratic Party open to charges that they sabotaged the effort to stabilize Iraq.

The surge is kinda sorta working. The violence in Iraqi neighborhoods is way down and attacks on the troops have fallen too. People are even returning to the homes they abandonded, in fear of loosing their lives.

In any case, if the US troops leave, not only will the war in Iraq, not end, it will escalte. As big a mistake as this war was, the worst thing we could do would be to leave now, just as things are improving, however slightly.

The Dems would be crucified by the Republicans and the Iraqi's will still be in the middle of a civil war. Right now, we're like the cops on the beat. If they're taken away, it will lead to utter chaos.

[TXfemmom]

The Democrats do not have to pass a bill to get us out of Iraq. DO NOT PASS ANY BILL AND BUSH WILL HAVE TO START A WITHDRAWL, PERIOD.

They continue to pander to this sociopathic monster and his thugs, and give them power which should be denied him. THEY HAVE THE STRINGS TO THE MONEY AND USE IT, AS IN DON'T GIVE HIM ANY.

If they want to, pass the bill, let him veto it, and then DO NOT PASS ANOTHER. Within that bill, they can clearly state that they are giving him the money to fund and protect the troops, but he must start an orderly and complete withdrawal, and present and implement the plan with the consultation and approval of Congress. IF HE VETOES IT, THEN HE IS NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS OR THE COUNTRY.