Democrats won't stop funding war, leader says, but no more 'blank checks' for Bush

[Purveyor]

The Senate still is not ready to do everything in its power to end the war in Iraq by completely eliminating war funds, but it is determined not to give President Bush a "blank check" to continue occupying the country either, Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Friday.

Appearing on the Ed Schultz Show, Reid blamed Democrats' inability to affect a course change in Iraq on the party's tenuous majority in the Senate.

But with a renewed debate over war funding coming next week, he said they were committed to passing a war funding bill that would require a troop redeployment begin immediately and have all but a "limited number" of troops out of Iraq by June.

"We're not going to give him a blank check on that, believe me," Reid vowed. "We're going to put conditions any money that is given. ... We're going to fight as we have every step of the way."

The majority leader acknowledged that Democrats have the power to simply refuse to fund the war, which would force a de facto withdrawal, but he argued that such an approach would be wrongheaded.

"Sure we have the power on anything to stop the money. That's what it's all about; that's why we have three separate branches of government," Reid said. "But the thing we have to do is make sure we do it the right way. It's not a question of all or nothing, it's a question of making sure we do the right thing."

---eoe---

http://rawstory.com:80/news/2007/Reid_promises_no_blank_check_to_1026.html

[rodeodance]

1. House Budget committee met this week and NO Repug showed up.

[rodeodance]

2. Reid said he and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) were crafting a bill that would force the president to be

......Reid said he and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) were crafting a bill that would force the president to being pulling out troops. While he acknowledged that Democrats did not yet have the support of 60 senators necessary to break a filibuster, Reid predicted they would be able to garner the necessary support before a bill went to a vote.

Schultz called on Reid to go father and cut of all funding, arguing that a majority of the American people want to see an end to the war.

"The American people want the war stopped, you can say a lot about 60 votes senator, but the public's with you," Schultz said. "If you go to the floor or call a press conference and say, 'It's over, you're not getting any more money,' there would be a groundswell of support."

Reid said even Feingold -- one of the Senate's most ardent war opponents -- was not calling to cutoff funding completely, and he said the Senate needed to approve some more money, just far less than the nearly $200 billion the president has asked for.

"We can't just walk away," Reid scolded, "and nobody suggests we can."

[Bandit]

10. "We can't just walk away," Reid scolded, "and nobody suggests we can."

There sure are a lot of "nobodies" throughout the land. Remember the Iraq war money is completely different than Defense Money. Nobody is suggesting cutting off normal Defense spending which by the way pays for our military. Pays by supplying food clothing and financing (payroll) If all Iraqi money were simply cut off the troops would not suffer one iota if they returned home. If they are forced to stay in a war torn country that doesn't want us there they may find themselves a little strapped. Maybe not enough money for fuel to raid villages with or artilary and rocket rounds which are used almost exclusivly for offensive missions. Stop the Iraq War spending immediately...There is no justifiable excuse not to.

[Tom Joad]

3. No More than another $150 Billion. Congress is really going to put its foot down

(unless you really, really need more, Mr. bush... you know, whatever it takes... if the generals say we need more, of course we can send more... anything to protect us from criticism from the warmaking elite)

damn why is anybody here at du... ain't everyone at a peace rally?

[tjwash]

4. Yeah...Reid is gonna haul off and give bush the dirtiest look he is ever gotten.

:eyes:
That'll show 'em.

Pansy mother fuckers. All of them.

Sorry, but I am still seething after that turncoat traitor Jane Harman just got her pet "lets just shred the constitution into itsy-bitsy little pieces" bill that she sponsored passed.

Now we know why the dems were "keeping their powder dry". They needed it for a preemptive strike against the constitution.

[frogcycle]

5. yeah, right

if they had the guts to play chicken they could. Send him a bill with strings attached. He vetoes. Send it back. He vetoes. Send it back. etc.

run a huge PR campaign saying he is a spoiled child holding his breath til he turns blue. That it is HE who is putting troops at risk.

This could be done. Polls indicate some 70% or more of the public would approve of it. It might lose a few votes in the early rounds, but by the fourth or fifth iteration, the "stand by the prez" crowd would be jumping ship. Eventually you override a veto (he'd never cave and sign it), he gets his money and issues a signing statement (although he would not be signing) that he is going to ignore the strings, and then you ride him out of town on a rail. This could be done quickly. The bill can be sent to him daily.

He's been violating laws right and left by ordering the invasion and subsequent activities. But he has a vague excuse in the so-called "authorization." All this would do is give a more-concrete, current, overt violation to use, maybe finally get impeachment and criminal proceedings going.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. War criminals.

Their excuses no longer fly. They are complicit.

[Elidor]

7. "We're not going to give him a blank check on that, believe me," Reid vowed

I don't believe you, Harry. Nobody believes you anymore.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. "We're going to put conditions on the money.." Yeah, right.

Translation: We're going to give him the money but, to mollify the people who want the war to end, we're going to pretend that we're trying to end it.

[VP505]

9. If the Dem's won't

stop the funding and Reid says no blank checks, does that mean they (Dem's) will fill in the check for * ?