War Funding Compromise

[TwilightGardener]

Word on the street is that it's going to be benchmarks that will end up on a compromise post-veto funding bill, with no timetable for withdrawal, even as many are trying to drum up support for Reid Feingold. You kids OK with that?

--snip--
Mr. Hagel predicted Congress would break the deadlock with President Bush by striking the deadline for an American troop withdrawal that both the House and Senate have attached to bills approving $100 billion in supplemental war financing for Iraq and Afghanistan that Mr. Bush has requested. But he said the compromise would still involve Congressionally mandated “benchmarks” for progress in Iraq, which he did not specify.--snip--





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/world/middleeast/15cnd-iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Monkeyman]

1. If the Dem's cave goodbye to them

[unlawflcombatnt]

8. Absolutely. Bush is the one de-funding the war

The Dems have already passed a bill funding the war, regardless of whether Bush doesn't like something in the bill.

If Bush vetoes the bill, it's Bush who's cutting off funds, not Congress.

The fact that he doesn't like something in the bill doesn't change anything. If Bush vetoes the bill, he's the one cutting off funds.

Why can't our cowardly, spineless Democratic representatives state this clearly. There's nothing else they need to say. It'll be Bush cutting the funding if he vetoes the bill. Period.

If Bush wants to de-fund the war by vetoing the bill, fantastic. It'll be on his shoulders, and no one else's.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[TwilightGardener]

9. To me, it sounds like a smoke-filled backroom deal in the Senate--

The Dems knew how this was going to play, knew how many votes they had (not enough to override a veto), and knew that benchmarks were going to be all they could put forth--the first bill was theater. Like when you buy a car, and the first figure tossed out is just a negotiation starting point. And I'm willing to bet that my own Senators, Nelson and Hagel, worked a deal with Harry Reid when they both voted for the timetables, in order to stage this showdown--since they both voted AGAINST the timetables two weeks prior. Wonder what Harry owes them? It all sounds suspiciously staged to me, but they seem to want the public to be full of suspense about how it will play out.

[spartan61]

2. No, I'm not OK with that.

I want to see a timetable for withdrawal. The majority of Americans want a timetable and we need to remind georgie that he works for US!!!!

[MODemocrat]

3. Absolutely not, they have already given in too much to Bushkovic

As hard as we've worked for them, they'd better think this over real well. They're actually running
scared of crooks like Cheney and Bush, whose ratings are lower than the snakes they are.

Don't mess with those of us who put you where you are! think about it. Don't be bullied.
:evilfrown: :mad: :argh:

[TwilightGardener]

4. I feel your pain about giving in on the timetable, but benchmarks

are going to be the only measure that Senate Republicans will approve, if that.

[PBass]

5. Dems should be on the record as having voted for withdrawal.

Make the Republicans vote against withdrawal.

It will mean more Dem wins in 2008

[Dhalgren]

7. And in the mean time how many dead and crippled GIs? How many Iraqis?

Trading lives for a victory in '08 is not good bargain - and on top of that, it will backfire. If the Democrats can't deliver, why vote for them? I say, if the Democrats take over the war (and if they continue to fund it, they are buying it) then I say a pox on both their houses! I won't support Democrats if they fiddle while countries burn - George does not need any accompaniment. Why do the Democrats want to join him?

[JDPriestly]

6. Bad news. It's a deal with the devils -- the Bush administration devils that cannot be trusted.

I'm against it.