CNN: Dem sources say may take Iraq timetable fight to defense authorization and appropriation bills

[sabra]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/unpopular-iraq-compromise-looms-over.html

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.

[MUAD_DIB]

1. Just tell them no. The president has recieved the only bill they will give him.

That's it. No more. Done.


If * doesn't like it he can cry to the Amurkin people...the majority of which want the tooops to come home now!

[bigtree]

2. goddamn right

they're not finished fighting Bush's occupation . . . not by a longshot

[paparush]

3. Bring the Troops Home and they Won't Be In Harm's Way!!!

C'mon Dems.

Let's frame the frigging debate. Show a little creativity.

[On the Road]

4. I Actually Like the Strategy

As Krugman writes, the military funding was a risky game which Bush would probably win. The Dems have put their stake in the ground, which was good, but failed to override the veto.

If this had been just a fig leaf to appease antiwar Democrats, it would be over. Now Reid and Pelosi are talking about other ways to pursue the same goal. To me, that shows they're serious.

I would much rather have them attach a withdrawal clause to an unrelated piece of legislation that won't have the same political impact. Bush can put himself in a bind over some other law or other kind of funding. It would actually be better to shut down the federal government (like the Gingrich/Clinton standoff), than to involve funding the troops.