***BREAKING*** DEMS IN SENATE SAY NO TO COMPROMISE

[cali]

Democrats Won't Temper Iraq Legislation
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

(09-18) 13:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --


After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so.


The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.


"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.


Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday night he would have agreed to turn the summer deadline into a nonbinding goal if doing so meant attracting enough votes to pass. Several Republicans have said they are uneasy about Bush's war strategy but do not like the idea of setting a firm timetable on troop withdrawals.


Reid's hardline stance reflects a calculation by Democrats that Levin's proposal probably would have failed either way. Democrats hold a thin majority in the Senate and similar legislation has repeatedly fallen short of the 60 votes needed to break a GOP filibuster.

<SNIP>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/n/a/2007/09/18/national/w131138D56.DTL


Yeah, I know it's not cutting off funding. Still, it's a step.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Hunh? I'm getting whiplash.

[Hekate]

2. KnR. Dare we hope they are finding their spines? nt

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Every withdrawal bill Republicans defeat is another step towards their electoral oblivion.

Pour it on.

[formercia]

13. Let those chickenhawks vote it down.

It's another nail in the GOP coffin.

[babylonsister]

Next summer? Unacceptable imo. nt

[ClayZ]

16. How about "NOW" ????

[babylonsister]

19. MUCH better! nt

[madinmaryland]

4. Let's see. They will pass the proposals.

Bush will veto them, and then congress will give bush what he wants.

:grr:

[Truth2Tell]

39. Ding Ding Ding!

No mention of NOT bringing another funding bill. No mention of that guy - Phil A. Buster. Those are the only ways to stop this war.

These bills he's touting are for the consumption of the anti-war base. Yum Yum, delicious propaganda.

[KansDem]

5. About ****ing time!!!

About time to stand up to The Pricktator and end this madness once and for all!!!

[MiniMe]

6. Bush's reaction to the Iraqi's not hitting the benchmarks is probably

part of what brought this on. They have done NOTHING to hold themselves to their own benchmarks. Meanwhile, they took a month off while our soldiers died. They also probably heard an earful when they took their break. Everybody said, wait until September until General Petreaus's report. Well, they got the report, and the message.

[rockymountaindem]

7. But have they tased anybody?

Otherwise this just doesn't grab my interest.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Next year?

How many will die before then?

Sorry, not good enough.

[cali]

17. It's a step in the right direction

Stopping this war is going to be a long and painful process. That would be true even if they had enough courage to completely cut the funding by not doing anything. Bush would simply take the money from someplace else in DoD.

It's like so many things; easy to get into, hard as hell to extricate yourself from.

[rateyes]

40. We've taken this step before...

only to have the rug pulled out from under us.

"No blank check" ended up with at troop surge.

This isn't a "first step." It's the same step we took 10 months ago. I only hope this time, that we won't back down.

[tekisui]

27. 339 US dead since dem house gave 95BIL

another 700-1000 soldiers will probably die by next summer.

[MiniMe]

44. From what I have heard, that is how long it will take for withdrawl.

Logistically, they can't withdraw any faster without a lot of soldier deaths. I think it was either Murtha or Clark that said it. At least they are finally trying to do something. And they are trying to do it responsibly.

I want the troops home now too, but most of all, I want them home as safely as possible.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. dupe

[spanone]

10. Good. Let the Republicans Stand By Their War.

they will get KILLED in 2008

CNN just showed a poll that showed fewer people believe in this war AFTER petreaus' report and juniors' speech.

[liberalmuse]

11. Don't tease!

I'll believe it when I see it, but GOOD!

[Roland99]

12. Finally some action!!

[mudesi]

14. As long as they MEAN IT this time! (nm)

[AuntPatsy]

15. Good news to a degree I guess but the thousands that will surely perish in a years time

I wouldnt think find such news all that great to hear.

[Disturbed]

20. Is it really as simple as this?

Send funding Bill with definite Draw Down of Troop with actual numbers. Expect Busholini to veto that Bill. Keep sending similar Bills that are even more exacting that will be vetoed. Keep this going month after month until there are just enough funds to begin the deployment to Kuwait.

[spanone]

22. why not?

[dkofos]

18. Pissing into the wind again.

NO FUNDING= NO WAR

[The Doctor.]

21. One can hope.

[LSK]

23. and when the vote fails, then what?

[Nite Owl]

24. Wasn't the last one April?

And what happens if/when it gets vetoed? Will they then refuse to pass anything else or is this just for show?

[Disturbed]

26. Dems have said there will be no action on funding until Nov.

A lot can happen between now and that month. Basra & surrounding area is falling apart.

[Nite Owl]

33. I didn't mean the vote

I meant the date for the troops to be home, wasn't it April 1st?

[Raster]

25. Memo to Harry Reid: Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!

The powder won't get any drier. It's time for good people--in Congress or on the streets--to say NO! We have had enough! No more despicable deeds in our names! We have witnessed illegal and immoral vanity wars for profit and Americans maimed and killed for a corporate bottom line.

Wake up, Congress!:kick:Wake up, America!

[Jim__]

28. Let's hope that if they pass a bill and he vetoes it ...

... they pass it again and send it right back to him. It doesn't mean anything to pass a good bill, have him veto it, and then give him the bill he wants.

[robinlynne]

29. so why not let them filibuster? why the hell not talk about the war? At some point,

during the filibuster, maybe a few might change their minds?

[alfredo]

30. Webb's bill will put Reps in a bad position. It will show the Reps

don't care about our troops if they vote against Webb's bill.

[tekisui]

32. And Gates recommends bushit veto the bill

and continue to bleed the reservist and nat.l' gaurd dry if its overridden.

and if blackwater is actually expelled, it will be used as an excuse to keep the *surged* 30,000 there.

the pukes don't give a shit.

[alfredo]

35. None of the people in the ruling class would have to pay the price.

If things go bad they can always pack up and move to a place without an extradition treaty or with leaders that can be bought. Bush has covered his ass by buying land in Paraguay.

[Me.]

31. They Must Have Finally Figured Out How To Read Poll Numbers

or someone explained what the American people have been saying to them. Forgive my cynicism but why now? I'll be delighted ( and relieved) if they follow through, but that other shoes has dropped after so many promises that I'm taking a wait and see position.

[11 Bravo]

34. Now THAT'S more like it!

[AlecBGreen]

36. cue Jon Stewart

"Whhhaaaa!!??!?!"

(Anybody have that as a video clip?)

[LiberalCompassionate]

37. A firm timetable on troop withdrawal

is the least Congress can do. I sent this to Pelosi and a similar letter to Reid:

Dear Honorable Speaker Pelosi,

Today, September 13, 2007, I listened to your counterpart, Honorable Senator
Reid, being interviewed on National Public Radio on my drive home from work. I
incredulously heard him state, in effect, that because the Democratic Majority
in the Senate is very slim, he can only count on just 49 votes for any
legislation to end/shorten/defund the war. In fact, Congress does not have to
pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq--it simply has to block
passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or
60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41--the number of senators needed to
maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other
words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War--if they
choose to do so.

It appears that The Democratic leadership, in both houses, are afraid that such
a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different
from being unable to affect policy. To insist that the Constitution makes it
impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the
nation--by confusing "can't" with "won't."

I look forward to hearing from you an explanation on why you won't stop the war.




P.S. This poll needs our help! "Do you support President Bush's current plan for a gradual reduction of troops from Iraq?" http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINI...




Currently over 60% support Dear Leader's 'plan'.
:wtf:

[rateyes]

38. If he holds firm on this, regardless of a presidential veto,

and refuses to bring up any legislation without the firm timelines after a veto...and the Dems keep sending the legislation with the firm timelines in place to the president's desk, so that the asshole who sits in the oval office is given only one choice....accept the timelines and the money, or get neither....

then I will start saying nice things again about the Democratic Leadership.

But, right now, I'm holding any praise. I'm thinking we'll pass the timeline legislation, like we did before, and after a presidential veto...we'll cave again, like a Utah mine.

I hope I'm wrong.

We'll see.

This is good news. I hope it stays good.

[bbgrunt]

41. whiplash--no kidding. They better stand firm this time.

[mzmolly]

42. Thanks Cali

:yourock:

[terip64]

43. kick!

[EVDebs]

45. To cut off funding would take Rep Obey in the House to simply NOT allow a funding bill out

No bill out, no bill veto, no Iraq Occupation funding...

[EVDebs]

46. Obey berates woman over war funding, later apologizes

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obey-berates-woman-over-war-funding-later-apologizes-2007-03-09.html

He has the power to do something. Obey need to stop obeying BushCo.

No bill out, no bill to veto. DoD can't locate $2.3 TRILLION

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

and Billions Over Baghdad speaks about BILLIONS more

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710?printable=true¤tPage=all

tells us about even more that's wasted ... Let the DOD get its OIGs asses in gear (like Joseph Schmitz, the ex OIG who rubberstamped much of this). Then Obey can save some face.

Get this,

"...$9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam's palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled."

now go here:

"It's all part of a growing ongoing investigation into corruption in defense and intelligence contracts, which already has sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison and, legal sources say, may threaten others in Congress and the CIA. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

I hear that Rep Murtha is now subpoenaed for the Cunningham/Wilkes trial. One of the 'others' or not, the pressure is on to keep the black ops extra-Constitutional funding sources the DOD has from becoming PUBLIC.

Obey needs to investigate THAT story before further war/occupation funding proceeds. PERIOD.