De-funding is off the table

[rodeodance]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Unpopular Iraq compromise looms over congressional Democrats
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior Democratic sources tell CNN that Democratic congressional leaders realize they must drop a timeline for troop withdrawal from an Iraq war spending bill, and that doing so will cost the votes of several anti-war lawmakers.
......

Democratic leaders find themselves in a bind because they have repeatedly promised not to cut funding for troops already in harm's way, but they realize that doing so requires sending the president a bill that he will sign by the end of the month. Sources say the leaders know full well that that means they cannot send the president another war funding bill with troop withdrawal language.

The sources also say that Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are aware that they will anger their base in the short-term and that a significant number of Democratic legislators will refuse to support a compromise war funding bill that does not include a troop withdrawal plan.

In an effort to calm the outrage among many in their caucus, Democratic leaders are already promising to take up the fight again soon as part of the defense authorization and appropriation bills.

[Doctor_J]

1. Once again the 30% approval, worst Resident in history gets his way

This republic is in her death throes. Our reps are so far out of touch with us that it is only a matter of time before a civil war erupts.

[bonito]

2. Great, lets give the idiot more funds

for his meat grinder, then apologize in advance for those who will die in the process.

[flaminbats]

3. haven't the troops already been defunded?

we will not be funding this war in Iraq until Bush's taxcuts are repealed! Democrats can borrow money for this war just as the Republicans have, but how does that make our party any better?

[frogcycle]

4. Put a damned War Tax in the bill and watch him squirm

scrap the deadlines but roll back the tax cuts, and put a surtax on the defense contractors

pay as you go

there is NO valid argument against that. Nothing. Nada. He has to take it; has to sign it.

Gut his friggin neocon PNAC voodoo economics that is ruining the economy, making his cronies rich. If it costs them more than they are making off it, see how long they try to prolong it.

[Kolesar]

5. That's an interesting gambit. Why not tax Exxon and Peabody Coal, too?

[frogcycle]

8. yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2831396&mesg_id=2831461



It may be too complicated to combine a tax bill with a spending bill - I don't know the particulars - what committees do what, etc.

It seems like it could at least include a binding requirement that such a taxation be implemented by such-and-such date or the funding stops

if you can't enforce withdrawal directly, and can't force milestones on the Iraqis (I refuse to use the misused term benchmarks) then enforcing a payment strategy on the congress itself - and the pres - might do it

if you just get the requirement in there and get it signed, then all of a sudden the need to pay for the damned thing takes on the same urgency as the need to fund it. And THAT will suddenly get the attention of all the fat cats who love war because it gives them big paychecks

[frogcycle]

11. I called Bill Press' show this morning on Air America

and made this suggestion. His producer liked it and put me on. Press liked it, and the next caller said "that guy had a good idea" which Press agreed with again.

Maybe it'll get "legs"

[Kolesar]

12. What a thrill

I called into a public radio show when the new governor's energy czar was on. I recommended an efficiency policy and when the governor made a speech this week, the idea was in his speech.

In all honesty, a lot of people lobbied for the idea, but, nonetheless it's there. I know how you feel! :headbang:

[elocs]

6. So they promise to take up the fight again?

Why? The fight was right here and our side was motivated and mobilized. Instead, it makes it look like Bush made them back down because they never intended to stand up to him in the first place and we are supposed to believe that the Democratic leaders are actually going to really fight at a later date? Don't piss on my head and tell me it is raining.

[madfloridian]

7. They don't give names. "some democrats".

Don't fall for it.

[Alamom]

10. I agree, I don't believe "Senior Democratic sources" are telling CNN squat.

That's the reason they have to make up something like this. They have no idea what our Congress is going to do next.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Send him a clean bill. Make sure funding is not more than 2 months.

Have separate bills for the Army, for the Navy, for the Air-Force, for the Marines.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Debunked here:

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

I tell ya - you can't trust a thing the Corporate Whores say. Don't let their psy ops work...

NGU.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Is there anything still on the table?

I did see that the last post referred to TPM debunking this and I hope Josh is right, but I haven't forgiven Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table. Being nice to the enemy never works, they just are emboldened to walk all over you.