This should make Democrats think twice before backing down

[bigtree]

this should be in exeryone's comgresspersons' mailbox in the morming . . .


Cheney: Democrats Will Back Down on Iraq

Sunday, April 15, 2007

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney says he is "willing to bet" that Democratic lawmakers will back down and approve a war-spending bill that doesn't call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Top Democratic leaders shot back that Cheney has lost all public credibility.

With President Bush and Congress in a stalemate _ he plans to veto legislation that orders U.S. troops home, which the House and Senate plan to send him _ both sides are looking ahead. In an interview broadcast Sunday, Cheney predicted the Democrats will blink.

He said Congress will end up passing a "clean" bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any troop withdrawal timetables. Democrats control Congress, but they do not appear to have the votes to override a presidential veto.

"They will not leave the troops in the field without the resources they need," Cheney said of the Democrats.

Asked what would happen if they don't back down, Cheney said: "I'm willing to bet the other way _ that, in fact, they will."

"There may be some people who are so irresponsible that they wouldn't support that," Cheney said. But the majority will send Bush the bill he wants "once they've gone through the exercise and it's clear the president will veto the provisions that they want in," he said.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/04/15/ap/washington/d8oh67382.txt

[Monkeyman]

1. You Got To Wonder Who Will Blink First

[MADem]

3. We don't dare blink, that baaastid will shoot us in the face.. NT

[wake.up.america]

4. Bush refuses to sign - then what? Money runs out in June or July.

Can we issue increments?

[bigtree]

12. yep. they got one already to use $1.7b in Defense money already allocated elsewhere

and they've asked to 're-allocate' $1.6b more.

It looks like there is a mechanism by which our leadership could assert that necessary funds are getting to the troops, but then there would be the accountability for cuts elsewhere in the Defense budget. I would start with some of the future weapons systems the Pentagon had included in their 'emergency' budget request.

Bush:

"In the coming days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover the shortfall caused by Congress's failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and Marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to our troops on the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410-1.html

[bigtree]

10. I would go directly to the people before they do anything

make a series of big, formal public appeals to get Bush to back down.

Warm weather coming, I would hope for some street action as well.

We need these folks to look each other in the eye and work this thing out to start pulling our troops out of this mess. I predict more republican defections as this stretches out. They're the key to moving Bush, I think. I'm not going to look away from a compromise with them that intends to begin to bring troops home.

I've gotten some optimism from the way the pressure has risen behind Reid's embrace of the Feingold initiative. At any rate, I think there's going to have be a compromise or it's going to continue to escalate. Right now, we need all of the public pressure we can bring.

[yurbud]

11. Dems track record is not good, but I'm hoping to be surprised.

[bahrbearian]

2. Buurrpp

[Harmonicaman]

5. I tried to think of the most polite way to comment on that report

"The fucking bloodsoaked arrogant bastard"

Was the cleanest version I came up with.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Doesn't sound like they have any intention at all of "backing down."

Even political windsock Rahm Emmanuel is encouraging his caucus to stand tough. So I reject your premise.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

9. I'm confused. Are you saying the Democrats won't stand down?

Because I don't see them "standing down" any time soon.

Nancy is as smart and tough as any Speaker has ever been and Harry Reid is a ranking pugilist.

The Republics are so SCREWN.

:rofl:

/clarity

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. How many ways are the above statements a steaming pile of bullshit?

Almost too many to enumerate. But the meta-bullshit is this:

Cheney is a man without a residual shard of credibility. The Dems know this. But he does have his position and his influence in this most dysfunctional of maladministrations. The Dems know this as well, and they know that their efforts against Chaney and the rest will be efforts that rely a lot on attrition.

So Dick "Dick" Cheney can go out there and natter all he wants. Snarl. Feign toughness. Strut like a bantam rooster. Posture. Know that every time he does, he loses more than he gains.

History...hell, even the next ten years, are not going to be particularly kind to Dick "Dick" Cheney and those around him. The word "pariah" doesn't even scratch the surface of what is in store for him and his.

[EFerrari]

8. And what a relief that Nancy and Harry are leading.

Deadeye Dick must be off his feed. :)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

14. contact Congress

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home