Democrats dig in for long haul on Iraq

[maddezmom]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democrats in Congress are plotting a new round of political attrition over Iraq, apparently confident their hand will strengthen the longer their clash drags on with President George W. Bush.

A day after Bush vetoed their bid to compel him to start bringing combat troops home within months, his foes vowed to renew their battle.

But signs mounted they were mulling a medium-term strategy, hoping that political ground on the unpopular war would shift in their favor, rather than immediately sending Bush a new timeline for withdrawal he is sure to veto.

"This bill is not the last word," Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives, said Wednesday.

Another senior Democrat, Representative David Obey (news, bio, voting record), added: "it is going to be a long time before this issue is disposed of," in comments on the vetoed 124-billion-dollar war funding bill.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070503/pl_afp/usiraqcongress_070503153046

---

Pelosi And Reid's Offices Deny WaPo Story Saying Congressional Dems "Backed Down" To White House On Withdrawal
May 03, 2007 -- 10:05 AM EST // View Comments (36) // Post a Comment
Check this out -- the 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.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.

Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?

The WaPo front page story says the following:

more:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

[aquart]

1. "Hoping political ground would shift in their favor..."

Uh...November? 63% anti-war polling?

[DUyellow]

2. for real, send the same bill back.

[mancandy]

6. I'll go a step further.....

withdraw funding completely. NOW! I'm not willing to wait for one of our people to be in the WH before we actually do what needs to be done. In fact, anymore bloodshed from this point forward is on the Dems hands as much as Bush and the Repugs. Sorry, thats how I see it. We elected them into power based on withdrawal. Time for them to come through for us

[DUyellow]

8. Agree 100%

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. What was that number for?

Was it people who disapproved of the handling of the war, or people who supported a pull-out plan?

[SledDriver]

3. Way to go Dems!!!

Keep that powder dry! :sarcasm:

[movonne]

5. I'm so sick of them f----ing around with this...I think at this point it is a

game to see how long they can drag this out...I wonder how much the DLC has to do with this...

[ejbr]

4. Am I missing something?

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go.

I would think that even Judge Judy would go off on WAPO. "Are you trying to tell me to believe hearsay testimony rather than the testimony from the horses mouth? Are your sources planning to hold guns to the head of the Democratic leadership so that Pelosi and Reid will do as your sources have told you in order to save face? You people are STUPID! Do you get it? STUPID!" then she rolls her eyes, dismisses the case, pounds her gavel, then glares at WAPO as she leaves the room.

[maddezmom]

9. Democrats weigh revised war funding bill

WASHINGTON - Defiant Democratic leaders in the House are considering a proposal that would pay for the Iraq war at least through July but could cut off funding after that if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals, congressional officials said Thursday.

The bill would be a direct challenge to President Bush, who has demanded Congress fund the war without strings attached. This week, Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have funded operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while requiring troops to begin coming home on Oct. 1.

The developments occurred as White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten held compromise talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill a day after the House failed to override Bush's veto.

In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money for operations after that point but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

[OzarkDem]

10. Are legislative aides running the show?

If so, I find that incredibly disturbing. It means you have a bunch of twenty and thirty-somethings running the US.

Geez, Dems, stand up to your employees. They're not the experts, you are.