|
Reid Threatens No War Funding
President Bush and Congress are wrestling for the upper hand in the Iraq war debate, with neither side willing to back down and a top Democrat saying for the first time he wants to yank money for combat. Bush was expected to speak Tuesday to reporters at the White House on Iraq war funding.  The president's remarks come one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who previously has stopped short of saying he would support measures to cut off funds, announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline to end combat."If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said in a statement. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the bill to cut off funds for the war would likely be introduced as standalone legislation and would not be tied to the supplemental spending bill. No pork attached to garner votes, Harry? Reid's proposal would be the most extreme and divisive measure to be considered by Democrats to try to force Bush's hand on the war. Most Republicans and many conservative Democratic senators, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have been reluctant to embrace a timetable in Iraq. Nelson agreed last week to swing behind the Senate spending bill, which calls for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, only because the date was nonbinding and not a firm deadline. Nelson also agreed to vote for the measure because Reid added language Nelson wanted outlining steps the Iraqi government should take to improve stability in Iraq. Reid's promise marks a new shift in strategy for Democrats. Reid was previously reluctant to embrace the suggestion of using Congress' power of the purse and deflected questions on the matter by saying Democrats would provide troops with what they need to be safe. The safest place is at their home base, eh Harry? His latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008, and allowing troops to conduct only counterterrorism operations, train Iraqi forces and provide security for U.S. infrastructure and personnel. This latest challenge indicates Reid is likely both frustrated by Bush's insistence on the war and his own shaky majority in Congress. Unable to override a presidential veto because he lacks the necessary two-thirds majority support, Reid is trying to ratchet up the pressure on Bush in the hopes the president will cave. A political expert on the radio this morning said the Dems were "caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the President and the hard place is the antiwar activists." [wipes tear] While Bush has remained steadfast in his insistence on keeping U.S. troops inside Iraq in large numbers, he does so without the blessing of voters. Six in 10 Americans say they favor a timetable to remove all troops within six months, and the number grows to 71 percent if all troops are removed within two years, according to recent But threatening to cut off funding for the troops makes Democrats a target for criticisms that they have turned their backs on the military a charge administration officials and Vice President Dick Cheney made Monday. "Standing with the troops means getting them the money that they need now," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-03 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=184798 |