Dems: No withdrawal timeline, but time-sensitive benchmarks with 'consequences'

[babylonsister]

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/22/breaking_no_withdrawal_timeline_in_congressional_dems_bill

Breaking: No Withdrawal Timeline In Congressional Dems' Bill
By Greg Sargent | bio

Harry Reid just said so on MSNBC. More soon.

Update: CNN has this, just posted:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi will present a plan to House Democrats for a war funding bill that won't include a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but will feature benchmarks with consequences, according to Democratic leadership aides...

Leadership aides said the benchmarks would be tied to Iraq reconstruction aid and would require President Bush to present to Congress 18 reports before August.

They said Democrats won't give up on a deadline for pulling troops out of Iraq, hoping to write language into defense appropriations and defense authorization bills over the summer.

More as we learn it.

Update II: Here are Reid's comments from MNSBC:

"We now have the timeline that the Republicans have set, and that’s this September. And that’s the very least, and then as I’ve indicated –the Defense authorization– we’re going to start right where we’ve left off with this bill, continuing our push to change direction in the War on Iraq."

Update III: The Associated Press has Dem leader Steny Hoyer's comments:

WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed Tuesday a final Iraq spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals, but promised that Democrats would try to end the war using next year's spending bills.

"We can't pass something without the president's signature and the president can't pass something without our agreement," Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters. "So we can be at a standoff and go back and forth at each other, or we can come to an agreement."

The House planned to vote Thursday on the bill.

While the precise details remained in flux, officials said the legislation would likely threaten billions of dollars in reconstruction aid if the Iraqi government failed to make progress on political and security goals.

But Democrats planned to drop provisions from an earlier bill _ vetoed by the president _ that would have demanded troops start coming home this fall.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

3. Do you understand how votes work?

Yes, we all want to end the occupation. But you need a bill that is veto-proof...votes...that's what you need to look at.

[Truth2Tell]

7. Wrong. We dont need a veto-proof majority.

Just don't send a new bill.

No Funding. No War. Simple.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. that's too simple for the dems in leadership.

they are too afraid of being called terra-supporters and worse. They forgot their oath to protect the constitution, they forgot their duty to their electorate. I am disgusted with our party today. Shame on them.

[Truth2Tell]

16. and the sad part

is that their fear is misplaced! The people are behind them with a massive majority.

The canard that opponents of this war support terra has no more legs with the public. Why are these Dems still afraid of it?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. E X A C T L Y !

I don't get it. Then again, the dems in leadership DON'T GET IT EITHER.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[primative1]

18. No Money! No Way ...

So there was an impasse. Bush wont sign what they send him. So?

Who wanted to give him money anyways? They should have kept sending him the same bill back until he had to sign it or withdraw. But guess what? Seems noone really is interesting in withdrawal. They just want your vote and know they will get it by telling you they would really have liked to have done something.

No sack, no leadership ... whoo-hoo

Guess what we will be talking about for the 2010 midterms.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. Exactly. We need 51 Senators to stand up and end this war

Or a majority of the House. It is a shame how many people in Congress who profess to oppose the war continue to vote to finance it...

[zulchzulu]

40. What's worse are former Senators who had knowledge that the war was bullshit from the start...

...and decided it would be better to co-sponsor the IWR that basically allowed the war/occupation to start...

Goddamn phony bullshit if you ask me...

[zulchzulu]

37. OK...so just say we won't support the troops...oh OK....

That would be a fantastic issue for someone to grasp that has less than .05% in national polls.

Good luck with that.

[Truth2Tell]

8. sorry, duplicate, nt

[DefenseLawyer]

9. Why do we need a bill?

Bush needs a bill. He is the one that wants the money. He is the one that wants to keep fighting the war.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. that's bull, and so is this caving in by the Dem leadership.

I'll spell it out clearly.

THIS
IS
BULLSHIT.

Nancy Pelosi just lost all respect and support by me. It is an illegal and immoral occupation. It was set up because Cheney and his criminal crew skewed the intel. They have played us, and the Dem leadership for fools for 6 years, and it looks like even with a majority, we were played again, this time by Bush/Cheney AND Pelosi.

I am so angry at this moment that I could scream. SHAME on PELOSI.

(after a deep breath)

What you suggest is that it is impossible to govern in congress or the senate without a veto proof majority. That is absolutely untrue. What it takes is being smarter and using all the tools in your power. The Democrats have barely scratched the surface.

How many subpoenas have been issued? How many times has Cheney, Rice, Addington, Rumsfeld, Libby, Card or other lawbreakers testified under oath with this new congress? How many times have they been "invited" only to be laughed by BushCo?

Of course they don't take our leadership serious in the White House. and as of today, NOR SHOULD WE.

Time to find a new majority leader, one with a spine and a plan.

[zulchzulu]

39. Do you have enough money to take a Civics 101 class at a local community college?

I'd take that class if I were you...then get back to me.

You wrote:

"What you suggest is that it is impossible to govern in congress or the senate without a veto proof majority. That is absolutely untrue."

Did you finish grade school? Do you understand the BASICS in how laws and bills are passed?

[DefenseLawyer]

2. At least we don't have wet powder

Say what you will, but our powder is really really dry.

[GOTV]

11. Yeah. If they do something we really really really don't like BOY will we let them have it! n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. say, our matches are missing. And where did we store that powder, anyway?

I know we put it somewhere for safekeeping. Maybe it is under George Bush's desk, just like the WMD.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[DefenseLawyer]

20. Matches?

We don't need matches. We're keeping our powder dry. If matches get near our powder it won't be dry anymore. You stay the hell away from our dry powder with all that loose talk about matches. You obviously don't understand politics the way we do.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. thanks for that

I really needed a smile, and you provided it.

I cannot believe what a cold fury I feel in my belly. This is a big mistake by Pelosi, et al.

[Greyhound]

27. Yes we do, tons and tons and tons of totally desiccated, desert dry,

unused, and therefore worthless, powder.:nuke:

[Monkeyman]

4. I would like to be a fly on the wall right now

Nancy has the Dem's in a room talking about a deal on Iraq Funding

[Truth2Tell]

5. Litmus test vote dead ahead

Democrats who vote in favor of this new bill need a big giant primary season target on their backs. This is it.

[Double T]

6. More powderpuff legislation on the 'war' funding bill by the Democrats..........

bush gets it his way and only his way again. So much for the mandate by the majority of voters.

[enough already]

13. Ooooooohhhhhh.... "Consequences"

Wow, Nancy and Harry are really getting tough with Chimpy now. "Consequences"....I'll bet the fucking prick is really shaking in his cowboy boots now, eh Nancy? And when Chimpy tells you to go shove THIS one up your ass too, what's next? But keep fucking around while kids die instead of just cutting off every last nickel. I'm sure you know best.

[The Magistrate]

15. This Is By No Means Over, Ma'am

It is going to be a very interesting political summer....

[Monkeyman]

17. We Are ready to Ride

Veterans Convoy's in the works

[The Magistrate]

21. Good For You, Sir

The best form of pressure is general attack on the occupation itself. Votes in the Congress will materialize as people's minds change among the public on whether it is time to pull the plug now....

"Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"

[babylonsister]

23. I AM trying to find a silver lining, The Magistrate, and realize I'm not

yet familiar with what transpired today.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. put simply,

they dressed up a pig in silk and diamond earings, nose rings and a tiara, and claimed that it no longer snorts like a sow, stinks like a sty, or eats well with eggs over easy.

They claimed that they put in hard benchmarks. whoopie.
They admitted that they removed all deadlines. And replaced them with longer lines of our dead.
They added the minimum wage language (talk about shallow, lame and pointless) as pacifier to us.
They caved as only the Democrats can cave. At the worst possible time, in the worst possible way, on the most critical stance they faced.

well, they read it wrong.

[The Magistrate]

26. That Is Way Too Simple, Sir

This sort of thing requires a campaign; it is not done in a day.

My own preference, certainly, would be simply sending the original Bill back,a nd repeating as vetoed. But the Bill proposed today is far from the end of the matter.

The political facts on the ground are simple. A large majority of people say they do not want the war to continue, and an equally large majority does not want funding for it cut now. What is necessary is to reduce the number of people who express the latter view on the question of funding, and funding will not be cut by any affirmative act of the Congress till this is accomplished.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. damn, I spent some time on the pig, too.

and in one simple sentence you take all that work away. :(

You are right, it requires a campaign, unless it turns out that we are the ones who are the victims of the campaign and that the Dem leadership never intended to put up more than a show fight with the president. If that is the case, all hope is lost.

[The Magistrate]

30. If That Latter Is The Case, Sir, We May Meet At the Barricades

The basic ground is on our side, and this is a fight that can be won....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. I hope you are right.

But it takes leadership I think we are missing at the moment.

[rodeodance]

29. ONLY " would likely threaten billions of dollars"----seems lame.

[derby378]

33. No timeline? No love from derby...

George W. Bush has had six, count 'em, six years to figure out how to get past any regulations Congress might try to impose on him. The man actually styles himself as a modern-day Julius Caesar.

If there ain't timelines, there ain't shit. We're back to Square One all over again.

[EndElectoral]

34. One word....bullshit.....They've lost the heart of the voters by caving like this

[Forkboy]

35. The only consequence is that the Dems will draw another line in the sand...

...and say,"Ok,we really mean it this time.Don't cross this line or we'll be forced to draw another one!"

Yippee :puke:

[Bullet1987]

36. The Dems are living up to their name of being Spineless Cowards alright...

[acmavm]

38. Sounds like something out of Animal House (i.e. double top-secret

probation).

[illinoisprogressive]

41. right