Democrats didn't back down on Iraq timeline?

[JaJae]

[T]he offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

The story they are referring to here is:
Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable - washingtonpost.com

So if the Dems didn't back down on the Iraq pullout, it's still in the bill right? No.

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Despite agreeing to remove the timeline from the bill Nancy Pelosi had this to say:

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

So basically they're removing it from the bill, but they promise to attempt to pass future legislation regarding a timeline. So essentially Pelosi and Reid are lying about not removing the timeline language from the bill because well they even admit they have and wish to attempt again in other bills in the future.

It's good to see Bush didn't back down on this ridiculous bill. Bush did the right thing here. Hopefully if a new timeline is proposed it will be ethical and won't be as silly as the one they just tried to pass.

[DosEquis]

Why don't they vote on the funds every 3 months? Why take out a 125 billion dollar loan all at once and have to pay interest on all 125 through the year.

Just that move alone would probably save millions in interest for us tax payers

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So basically they're removing it from the bill, but they promise to attempt to pass future legislation regarding a timeline. So essentially Pelosi and Reid are lying about not removing the timeline language from the bill because well they even admit they have and wish to attempt again in other bills in the future.

It's good to see Bush didn't back down on this ridiculous bill. Bush did the right thing here. Hopefully if a new timeline is proposed it will be ethical and won't be as silly as the one they just tried to pass.

If congress really believed there should be a timeline they should have insisted on it. Since they have the power of the purse they could have have forced Bush's hand.


Bunch of wimps

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Kytro

If congress really believed there should be a timeline they should have insisted on it. Since they have the power of the purse they could have have forced Bush's hand.


Bunch of wimps

he vetoed it

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The story they are referring to here is:
Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable - washingtonpost.com

So if the Dems didn't back down on the Iraq pullout, it's still in the bill right? No.


Despite agreeing to remove the timeline from the bill Nancy Pelosi had this to say:


So basically they're removing it from the bill, but they promise to attempt to pass future legislation regarding a timeline. So essentially Pelosi and Reid are lying about not removing the timeline language from the bill because well they even admit they have and wish to attempt again in other bills in the future.

It's good to see Bush didn't back down on this ridiculous bill. Bush did the right thing here. Hopefully if a new timeline is proposed it will be ethical and won't be as silly as the one they just tried to pass.

So you are criticizing them for not crossing their arms and pouting? Or is working with the other side make them hypocrites now?

[thomez]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

he vetoed it

then pass it again

[thomez]

The Dems have no fucking nuts at all, this was very predictable. Fucking pussies.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

he vetoed it

I mean they could have said "pass this or you get no money"

If they never wanted to create a timeline, they shouldn't have tied it to funding. Pass law should not be used to send "messages".

[motivez]

Some folks at Daily Kos called Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid's offices

Pelosi's staff:

Not true. Speaker just told members of the Democratic caucus that the story is totally untrue. We are still deciding what provisions the new bill will include.

Reid's office:

No decisions have been made on this yet. No options have been ruled in or out.

I hope they don't back down. I think a disorderly withdrawal would be a bad thing, but that would be Bush's fault.

If they authorize anything, it should be a temporary two week spending bill or so at a time while they continue to discuss compromise with Bush.. who by the way, doesn't actually understand what it means:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday he wants to work with Democrats on compromise legislation to pay for the Iraq war even though he'll carry through on his threat to veto a spending bill that also sets a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.... "I'm optimistic we can get something done in a positive way," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference....

Bush said that once he vetoes the bill, he's ready to work with Democrats on a new version that provides funds without strings attached.... "I have made my position very clear. The Congress chose to ignore it, and so I will veto the bill," Bush said.

Apparently, compromise to him is "I get what I want, while the American public gets nothing."

I really hope Congress continues to assert their Constitutional authority over the power of the purse to get this war moving in a better direction.. one that ends it.

[garbagemanlb]

I really hope the Democrats don't back down, but I'm afraid they will. Hopefully they will keep bringing it up, however, in future legislation.

I am basically hoping that Bush cannot go one day without being hassled about the Iraq war.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by motivez

Some folks at Daily Kos called Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid's offices

Pelosi's staff:



Reid's office:



I hope they don't back down. I think a disorderly withdrawal would be a bad thing, but that would be Bush's fault.

If they authorize anything, it should be a temporary two week spending bill or so at a time while they continue to discuss compromise with Bush.. who by the way, doesn't actually understand what it means:



Apparently, compromise to him is "I get what I want, while the American public gets nothing."

I really hope Congress continues to assert their Constitutional authority over the power of the purse to get this war moving in a better direction.. one that ends it.

No, for the supporters of this war, it is only a one way street. Bush doesn't have to compromise, the congress does.

[Phantom]

So why don't the Dems stand up and refuse to fund the war?

The public seems to be in favor of this. I'm pretty far from a Dem supporter and even I support this course of action. What's stopping them?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Phantom

What's stopping them?

A spine?

[motivez]

The fear that the Republicans will be able to successfully lay the "failure" of the Iraq war at the Democrats stopping it "before the plan had a chance to work" is what's stopping them.

I mean, yeah, they could use some testicular fortitude for sure, but the reality is that Republicans would go on spin overdrive and start talking bullshit about how the surge was working, and the Democrats caused us to fail, and blah blah blah blah blah..

It's a valid concern, which is why I think a compromise is in the best interest of both parties, the nation, and Iraq.

If we leave right now with no preparation, it will be chaos and genocide. However, if we set a timetable and tell the Iraqi's they need to get shit done by a certain date and start working toward that, perhaps our leaving will lead to less chaos (although it should be noted that there will be a lot of bloodshed and chaos either way..)

[hsmith]

They are trying to get the war over by the next election so it isn't an election issue.

End of story.

[Donkey®]

I would love to see something OFFICIAL on this other than wild and random speculation because you hate Democrats. When a new bill comes out and the language IS or ISN'T in there...that's when we know the real deal.

With that said, if they back down it would be the most pathetic event in the Democrats LONG history of uselessness.

[Thorgrim]

it took awhile to compromise, the story was inaccurate when it was published, this is just another anti-democrat post based on taking things out of context...*yawn*