Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable but Vow to Fight on Other Areas

[jmc247]

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517.html?nav=hcmodule

[bdamomma]

1. geez, just when we think we have * over a barrel, we back down again

geez, what is * saying to them????

[Bobbieo]

2. alyce - What do you suggest? geez!!!

[msongs]

3. I suggest the Dems stand for something and MEAN IT nt

[bdamomma]

24. to stand up to this jerk, and keep that timeline in.

* went crazy with that timeline, why are going to take it out?

[leftchick]

30. also a clear majority of Americans WANT a timetable

It makes no sense at all. One thing about the dems you can depend on, the loudest voices out of the DLC will win in any so called showdown wih repukes. Keep that powder dry and all... :puke:

[Virginia Dare]

54. Americans WANT a timetable...

Democrats WANT a timetable. The Repukes, led by a dimbrained monkeyman won't let that happen. What do you think the political consequences of that are going to be? It's the Republicans who should be hearing from their constituents today, they are the ones blocking bringing the troops home, not the Democrats.

[leftchick]

62. if they really want a timetable

why are they taking it out and settling for useless, unmeetable benchmarks? Who blinked here and who will be blamed by the american public? Here is a clue......

"Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517.html?referrer=email

it will not be hard for the american public to imagine the democrats caving. again.

[Virginia Dare]

66. If you want to believe the media spin, so be it...n/t

[kenny blankenship]

51. Can't speak for her, but I suggest they send him the SAME bill this afternoon

go on the airwaves and tell the American people they have sent Bush the money he asked for--all of it--and they have also sent him the timetable the American people asked for, and that it's now up to Bush to take the money or not.

If he wants the people's money for his war, he has to take the people's timetable.

Even the Kings and Queens of England had to take their money with strings attached from Parliament, and we're supposed to have a democratic system in this country, not a monarchy. Bush wants even less restraint on him than a King? He can't have it.

[Cha]

4. Forget the timeline..

Fucking Bring Them Home NOW.

Before anyone else gets BLOWN TO FUCKING SHITE.

Send that "commander guy" over there to fight the fucking civil war in Iraq until he gets the oil his pnc buddies want..and won't let our troops come home until they do.

[Democrats_win]

5. Democrats could not have done worse! Now they'll legitimized the war.

They are giving us the tyranny of the status quo when the consequences of not making drastic changes is national death.

[shadowknows69]

7. The will and voice of the people

has been ignored.

[Bobbieo]

8. We are finding out we really don't have a majority in Congress.

We just think we do!!!

[jmc247]

15. I guess so

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Send up a bill calling for $9 Trillion for the war, a Draft, & perm. bases in the oil fields.

The $9 trillion to be made up from taxes on the richest 15%, the Draft for 2 Million in the next 12 months, federal takeovers of Halliburton and KRB, and the permanent bases to 'own' Iraq's oil, staying until Iraq is peaceful.
Bush wants a bill that'll help him "win the war"? Let's call his bluff.

[TahitiNut]

9. I guess the pink tutus came back from the cleaners ... only to get pecker tracks again.

:puke:

[leftchick]

31. yep

though I doubt they ever sent them anywhere. Those tutus were always in the closet ready to whip out at the first signal of trouble.

:puke:

[grytpype]

10. The Dems are doing fine.

There's no way to stop the war as long as Bush is president. Period.

But they are forcing Bush and the Republicans to commit again and again to their failed strategy.

Because March 08 is going to roll around and the war will still be raging, and the Dems will be say ing "if you listened to us we would be out by now."

Sorry, that's the best we can do without the presidency or a 2/3 majority in Congress.

[Diogenes2]

19. Discouragingly enough, you may have sized up..

the situation exactly. I'm not sure history will think "see, we told you so" will be all that our soldiers deserved in terms of ending our participation in the war at this point. But, as you say, at least it will be on record that the Repubs were the ones who ALWAYS repeatedly insisted on drawing the tragedy out, year after year after year. Is this Wrath of Vietnam blowback karma, or what?

[Le Taz Hot]

27. The most gutless Democratic

majority in history. "Elections have consequences?" Well, apparently they don't with this bunch. They aren't forcing Bush to do anything. The war is still going on. He's still ignoring subpoenas. Gonzo is still there. Kucinich can't get more than 3 people to sign on to H.R. 333. There IS something they can do. STAND UP and DO THEY JOB THEY WERE HIRED TO DO -- get us out of the war. How do you do that? STOP FUNDING IT! While these bozos are playing politics, there are actual human beings DYING.

[grytpype]

34. There's nothing Karl Rove would like more than that.

I'm glad we have intelligent people leading the congressional Dems who would never make a mistake like cutting off funding for the war.

Because if the war ends due to a funding cutoff by the Dems, they will be held responsible for the catastrophe that happens next.

If you think Iraq is bad now, it's going to be much worse when we pull out. It's going to be another Rwanda.

The strategy has to be: keep Bush and the Republicans responsible for the war and the consequences, all the way through January 2009 when the Dems will have no choice but to take responsibility for it because we will have the presidency and a huge majority in Congress.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. We have cowards

"leading" the Democratic party. There was a very clear mandate via the 2006 elections AND every poll out there says the same thing -- GET US OUT OF IRAQ! The Democrats are in a position of power. It's * who is on the ropes, why are they acting as thought it is them who are backed into a corner?

And please, spare me the "if we leave now" shit. We were told the same thing in Viet Nam. Just like in Viet Nam, Iraq is going to fall anyway and no amount of pandering to * will change that.

What is it the "go-along-to-get-along" people don't understand? PEOPLE ARE DYING while these losers are playing politics. You know what the American public is seeing? Not that GEorge Bush will be responsible for the war, but that the election of 2006 made absolutely NO difference. The consequence will be thousands more lives needlessly lost and people will either stay home for the 2008 elections or rightly come to the conclusion that there IS NO difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and vote 3rd party. Mark my words on this. It will BACKFIRE.

[grytpype]

47. Oh, go vote for Nader.

[endarkenment]

50. Nader has a valid point.

Our opposition party generally refuses to oppose as it is nearly as corrupt as its sister party. Nader's analysis is basically correct. His prescription of a third party effort is wrong. We have no choice but to work within the institutional framework. Our model should be the successful efforts of the right to take over the Republican Party, not the quadrennial failure of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas to make any real headway with a third party of the left.

[meldroc]

64. You do not have a fucking clue.

Breaking news: IRAQ IS ALREADY LIKE RWANDA! Do not give me this "people will die if we pull out" crap. People will die no matter what the US military does, but by pulling out, at least we're not throwing gasoline on the fire.

[Virginia Dare]

39. The problem is, they don't have a big enough majority to stop this alone..

they've got to get some Repubs on their side. It's not happening yet, but it will.

[Virginia Dare]

38. Precisely, the Repubs have just committed political suicide..

they were going to try and hang their failure on the Democrats, but their stupid fucking moron leader has painted them into a corner they can't possibly get out of now, short of a miracle.

[Truth2Tell]

11. I'm contacting my legislators

to urge them to OPPOSE this compromise position.

This is where the rubber meets the road for the Democrats as far as I'm concerned. All who agree should press their own Democratic congress critters to please NOT vote to further fund this war without a deadline for withdrawal!

[Bobbieo]

14. Is that Cheney sneering? Looks like he won the bet!

[jmc247]

17. He called it

[bdamomma]

26. yup he did say we would blink first.

FU Cheney and your filthy smirk too.

[calimary]

20. Welcome to DU. Frustrating, isn't it?

We're already at "I told you so," though. I'd like a little more, frankly.

[NewJeffCT]

56. Welcome to DU - we do need to contact our legislators on this!

To let them know that imposing timelines and withdrawing from Iraq are the popular positions!

[ecstatic]

12. right. I'll be waiting

Is there a yawn smilie? I guess I'll settle for :eyes:

[jmc247]

13. We knew this would happen

[Tom Joad]

16. Despite this, i refuse to say anything against the horses Pelosi and Reid

rode in on.

[Miss Chybil]

18. What happened to the days when people had the balls to fight until the govt. shut down? nt

[Solly Mack]

21. I just can't imagine why this doesn't have 5 recommends already

she says in her authentic southern accent

[rodeodance]

22. i just gave it a 3rd. It is depressing article.

[WA98296]

23. So, they truly are "gutless"....I am so UMIMPRESSED with them.

[bdamomma]

25. I just went through my e-mail and received so many just asking

for contributions and all pledging that this fight is not over, trying to pacify the American people that they will do something to end this filthy war.

[Atman]

28. There ARE NO OTHER AREAS.

When will these spineless bastards get it through their thick skulls? Everything else revolves around this war, which is sucking up every ounce of cash which could be available for "other areas," not to mention sucking dry the spirit of the country. They just don't seem to get it.

.

[bigtree]

29. Why are folks just focusing on half of the story & passing that off as truth?

That's what the author of the article wanted . . .

Further down from the bullshit about our Democratic leaders backing down from their fight to end the occupation:


"While deadlines for troop withdrawals had to be dropped from the spending bill, such language is likely to appear in a defense policy measure that is expected to reach the House floor in two weeks, just when a second war funding bill could be ready for a House vote. Democrats want the next spending measure to pass before Congress recesses on May 25 for Memorial Day weekend."

more,

"Already, liberal Democrats think that public opinion and circumstances in Iraq are on their side, and they view benchmarks alone as far too weak. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.) has repeatedly told Democratic leaders that he would not report a war funding bill out of his committee that he could not support. Pelosi is also reluctant to embrace such a compromise until she sees how far congressional Republicans are willing to bend."


It looks like many folks are just looking for an opportunity to dump on the Democrats. But they are not in ANY position to dictate ANYTHING on Iraq with the present balance of power. And I'm not falling for the bullshit line that they can just sit on their hands and refuse to pass a bill which funds our troops. That would direct Bush to do NOTHING as he limps our troops along. There has to be some accounting from those who want to leave our soldiers in Iraq, the soldiers in support positions abroad and here at home, and our veterans without the funds Democrats attempted to provide in their withdrawal bill.

The Democratic leadership signaled weeks ago that the next step would be to address the issue of withdrawal in the overall defense budget. Senate leader Reid also promised to introduce Feingold's withdrawal bill. None of that has been shelved. This confrontation has played itself out with this funding bill. If Democrats manage to get Bush to sign a bill which includes 'benchmarks' or any other measures of accountability, this Congress can then follow up by addressing any lack of progress toward those 'benchmarks' with another legislative effort, likely in the defense budget as the article indicates. If they manage to achieve the support of enough republicans and counter the WH obstinacy the 'benchmarks' will be more than helpful as a point of accountability, ripe for decisive action.

There is little alternative but for our legislators to continue to press their withdrawal demands in legislation. That continued effort, along with the increasing pressure from the investigative committees, will make a lie out of the premise of the self-serving spin of this article.

[Atman]

32. Please don't oversimplify it like that...no one is looking to "dump on dems."

That helps nothing. There are all sorts of reasons for being pissed off, and most of them are valid. We KNOW that soldiers are dying because of Bush and Cheney's lies, and yet they keep lying even more. There was an election and while not all of us actually expected a LOT of change, nor did we expect that the Democrats, in their strongest political position in recent memory, would repeatedly allow the murdering liars to continue their rampage unchecked. While you make some valid points, you do a disservice to all the DUers who worked their asses off trying to affect some change -- I doubt anyone here, save the moles and trolls -- are actually "just looking for an opportunity to dump on the Democrats." Why would we want to do that?

.

[bigtree]

33. no one (here) is looking to dump on Dems?????

what a crock. Maybe not you, Atman, but the response to this bullshit title has brought out the predictable chorus of folks who believe they care more about ending this occupation than our Democratic legislators do.

Don't ask ME why there's dumping on our Democrats . . . and don't try and pretend it hasn't happened, because it's all over this site for anyone without blinders to see.

[Atman]

37. I'm not saying people AREN'T dumping on the democratic leadership

What I'm saying is, I doubt there are very many that actually WANT to. I'd be willing to bet that we'd all much rather be singing high praise to them for finally making some serious difference.

.

[bigtree]

44. I don't think many of the critics I've seen would recognize an serious effort

to make a difference.

We manage to bring the majority of our party to support legislation which actually reached Bush's desk and there was almost no acknowledgment from the critics for the work that went into that effort by our leadership. If we want to be able to dictate action with our majority then we have to elect even more to Congress to enable an override of filibusters and vetoes. But, the majority of our legislators deserve our praise for their efforts so far, which they'd of course admit were not enough to move Bush off of his occupation. But our legislators are doing the best they can with what they have. They deserve our continued support as they press forward with their demands Bush withdrawal.

[endarkenment]

36. Because " a defense policy measure "

won't even get to Dumbfuck's desk for a veto.

[bigtree]

40. Attaching language to the Defense bill would pressure Bush even more

than language on the 'emergency' supplemental. It would really be something for him to threaten to veto the entire Defense budget just to preserve his occupation.

They will attempt to attach their withdrawal language to the defense authorization and appropriation bills.

[endarkenment]

43. It won't get to his desk.

It will be filibustered until our idiots back down on that too.

[bigtree]

48. I don't know why our Democrats are the idiots for doing what they can

Their critics haven't come up with anything more confrontational which would advance to Bush's desk, so the criticism of the ones who just achieved that confrontation is amazing.

In order to advance anything through Congress you need support. Those who advocate Congress sit on their hands and do nothing but vote 'no' on funding bills take no responsibility at all for refusing to direct Bush to do anything at all with that insignificant act. Others who have more confrontational legislative proposals have to accept responsibility for their failure to achieve the necessary amount of support to advance their initiatives.

I don't see what has been so 'smart' or courageous about critics of the Democratic leadership's efforts who are just TALKING about proposals which truly have no chance of seeing the light of day. If there's a coalition in Congress which they can manage to advance their more strident ideas then they should get on with it. If not, it's completely disingenuous to trash other efforts which intend to end the occupation which have managed to advance.

[endarkenment]

55. They are idiots because they always back down.

For years when push comes to shove, we give up. Why you are happy with that is beyond me.

[bigtree]

59. because I don't see them 'backing down'

just because they're moving their fight to a different legislative vehicle.

Cute how you attempted to paint my support for their efforts with the same biased bullshit as in the article. We do not have the majority that I would necessarily want, but that doesn't let me or anyone else off of the hook of trying to manage SOMETHING legislatively which would cause Bush to begin withdrawing our troops.

[endarkenment]

67. Always look on the bright side of life. nt.

[bigtree]

70. SAFE Despair it is that raves,

Agony is frugal,
Puts itself severe away
For its own perusal.

Garrisoned no Soul can be
In the front of Trouble,
Love is one, not aggregate,
Nor is Dying double.

-Dickinson

[Virginia Dare]

41. Exactly, this bill was symbolic...

the Democrats made a point by working up a Bill that they knew monkeyass couldn't or wouldn't sign. How many times did the dimbrain say he wouldn't sign it even before they passed it? It was a political move, and a good one.

[endarkenment]

42. Symbolic?

This was the un-filibusterable funding bill that enables the occupation. Symbolic? Everything else - such as 'defense policy measures' will be symbolic.

[Virginia Dare]

46. The symbolism is...

The Democrats want to end the war, the Republicans don't. That's easy enough for even the most dense voters to understand. The failure, with all of its futile death and destruction is back on the Repubs.

[bigtree]

49. and, some folks want to disregard the fact that this is a political process

which is draining public support (and republican legislator's) for continuing the occupation.

[endarkenment]

69. oh bullshit.

We managed to get two house republicans to vote for our bill. Assuming that Pelosi and Reed return a no timetable bill to Dumbfuck, we just got our political asses handed to us, and you are too blind to see it.

[bigtree]

71. oh bullshit yourself

you want what is presently unavailable politically. Our leadership is working to make legislation effecting a withdrawal possible.

[endarkenment]

35. That reminds me of a really bad joke.

Im Fuckin Dis Custard.

[bdamomma]

52. I know my Senator Reed was for this timeline all the way.

I going to call his office this afternoon, and tell whoever who answers the phone, that they must keep that timeline in there, I don't know if it will help but I going to call anyway.

[meldroc]

53. A better idea would be for Congress to fund only three months at a time.

Instead of giving Bush a $122B blank check, if the Democrats are forced to give out a blank check, then we should dole out only $30B, which is enough to stretch the carnage out for three months, then tell Bush that if the situation's improved in Iraq, we might give him more.

[Babsbrain]

57. Great idea!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Politics as usual...as usual...as usual...as usual...as usual..as usual..

With all the usual excuses.

[bigtree]

63. as if the nature of 'politics' would somehow change

Our political institution of Congress is not meant to be a platform for dictating our views down to anyone. Our political institution of Congress is the place where we should expect the myriad of different and, sometimes, competing proposals to be reconciled into action. That is our democratic process. It is an inherently political process because that's the way our society has managed our differences since the country's founding. Just blurring our eyes and pretending the balance of power favors such dictating action as many of our leadership's critics expect from our Democratic majority doesn't change the reality or the nature of the republican obstruction.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Our political institutions, and the way they operate, is the problem.

The politicians, of both parties, are in thrall to the institution that so obviously doesn't work for the benefit of the people. To allow them to do the "practical politics" that end up killing people without criticism is to be bystanders to a crime.

I have the quaint notion that politicians should be held accountable for what transpires as a result of their inaction and should be badgered, pushed, threatened, pleaded with, kicked, bankrupted, and forced to abandon "practical politics" when necessary to save lives.

The spectacle of the alleged servants of the people throwing up their hands and crying "we don't have the votes" while people die is a shameful indictment of our glorious political institutions.

[endarkenment]

68. "bystanders to a crime"

That is it. They are throwing up their hands and saying 'oh well what can we do?' The answer is to not fund the war. That has always been the answer. The answer is to have the courage to say no to the ongoing criminal occupation of Iraq.

We on the antiwar left gurdgingly went along with this stupid 'symbolic' compromise. We warned you all that nothing good would come of it. And here we are with our 'opposition party' about to cave in and refund a carte blanche continued occupation, about to give that criminal in the white house everything he wanted, and our 'moderates' are saying 'good show'.

[bigtree]

73. just flailing around with unsupported proposals and initiatives

is as ineffective as anything else in 'working for the benefit of the people'.

As we can see, if we bother to look, the Democrats aren't 'throwing* up their hands and crying' about the lack of votes. They are actively working to advance legislation which would further their goals. Their failure is anything but inaction. That mantle should be applied to the folks advocating sitting on their hands and merely voting 'no'.

[Individualist]

75. ...and the usual apologists

are, as expected, spinning like tops.

[bigtree]

76. nice to have a point of view reduced to some petty cheerleading

It must feel empowering for you to put those you disagree with in your little box to ridicule.

[Individualist]

78. If sig lines were on,

you'd have seen that mine is as follows: "don't those who insist on excellence always make trouble for those who're all too willing to settle for mediocrity?" Tom Robbins, Wild Ducks Flying Backward

[bigtree]

79. silly sayings

Attaining even mediocrity is often a struggle. -Cooley


There are some faults so nearly allied to excellence that we can scarce weed out the vice without eradicating the virtue. -Goldsmith

[iamthebandfanman]

60. im extremely upset

if democrats dont show more backbone AFTER WE ALL PUT THEM BACK IN POWER then they are gonna hafta lose my support and ill hafta stop coming to DU cause ive had enough of this crap. they treated us like pure shit for 6 years and what do we do when we take power? still give them what they want n take their shit.
fuck that.

they dont grow some balls, im gonna go change my voter registration.
hate to be brutal, and i know some people here will go THEN DO IT! WE DONT NEED YOU ANYWAY! but frankly every one of you should be pissed off about this. if youre not, then what are we fighting for here exactly?

[bbgrunt]

61. there goes my heart again

[BurtWorm]

72. WRONG: Pelosi And Reid's Offices Deny WaPo Story...

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

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 (63) // 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?

[bigtree]

74. I maintain that many of the critics WANT this to be true

so they can point to the leadership and say, "I told you so" that the leadership wasn't as serious and resolved as the rest of us in wanting a withdrawal.

[BurtWorm]

77. It's the only time they'll take a WaPo story at face value.

;)