You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Dems Drop W'drawal Dates from Iraq Funding Bill
2007-05-23
Democrats reluctantly gave up their demand for troops withdrawal dates in an Iraq war spending package today, conceding to President Bush on their number one goal in a debate that has roiled Congress for months. The confrontation sparked bitter exchanges between liberals and conservatives, yielding no middle ground where party leaders and Bush could compromise. In the end, Republicans had the ticking clock of troop funding and the presidential veto pen on their side, and Democrats were forced to blink.

War opponents had hoped that Democratic control of Congress would force a swift end to the Iraq conflict. But the package requires Bush to surrender virtually none of his war authority. Instead of withdrawal dates, Democrats accepted a GOP plan to establish 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government and to require Bush to report on progress starting in late July. If the Iraqis fall short, they could forfeit U.S. reconstruction aid.

The final agreement was hammered out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and followed extensive consultations with GOP leaders and the White House. Party leaders did secure two other priorities, a long-sought minimum wage increase and $20 billion for domestic projects, both of which Bush had initially resisted. Reid called the benchmark language "extremely weak," but noted that Bush had initially demanded a bill with no strings attached. "For heaven's sake, look where we've come," Reid said. "It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

Republicans remained unifed throughout the debate, despite strong public opposition to the war and growing doubts within the party that a military victory in Iraq can be achieved. But GOP reaction was restrained when details of the deal circulated this afternoon. Early in the year, Republicans refused to allow an Iraq debate from even starting, when GOP senators blocked a non-binding resolution opposing Bush's troop escalation plan from coming to the floor. Today, many Republicans are prepared to reassess the entire war effort once the current funding bill expires on Sept. 30.

From the beginning, Democratic leaders knew their options would be limited by the party's slim governing majorities in both chambers. In the 51-49 Senate, Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) was absent following a brain hemorrhage, and independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), a member of the Democratic caucus, backed Bush on the war. Passage of the first spending bill was secured by two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.).

"Both sides are in a position where neither can do something without the other. That's the reality," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
Posted by:Pappy

#11  They're dropping the dates and getting the pork.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2007-05-23 23:30  

#10  a whiny, fickle, and largely uninformed populace. The ratio of baggage to baggage-carrriers may be reaching the breaking point ....

Verlaine, I hope you are wrong about this. I worry that you might be right. I think the elected officials (mostly demonrats) got so much heat about dragging their feet on military funding that they had to back off. I hear less and less from Harry (We Lost) Reid and Nancy (Burqa) Pelosi; probably due to the outrage expressed. I think they backed off on the immigration bill because so many people raised hell with their elected representatives(?). Most voters, I sense, are fed up with Washington and their shennanigans. Tea Party time?
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-05-23 14:51  

#9  It's not about the war. They don't give a rat's ass about the war or the troops. It's all about making George Bush look bad.

Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-05-23 14:46  

#8  They didn't even make a good show, they are just made themselves look like grandstanding, self-indulgent twits.

There. Fixed 'er for ya.
Posted by: Mike   2007-05-23 12:21  

#7  "they just made themselves look like grandstanding, self-indulgent twits."

As a movie producer said about Liz Taylor and Richard Burton on the set of Cleopatra: "They aren't acting"

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2007-05-23 11:47  

#6  They didn't even make a good show, they just made themselves look like grandstanding, self-indulgent twits.

Posted by: Bobby   2007-05-23 10:43  

#5  it is all show theater at the expense of the troops.
Posted by: Nero Cloluse5219   2007-05-23 09:19  

#4  watch the Nutroots explode in 3...2...
Posted by: Frank G   2007-05-23 07:34  

#3  This strategy will buy the Democrats time. Frankly this vote went further than what I thought the Dem's should have done; I would have simply voted "NO" to the funds, and stood before the American people and said I did my best. Wash my hands of it, like Pontius Pilate, and wait for the 'Saturday Night Massacre' coming on election night this year for the 'Coat Tail' Republicans. The other shoe to drop, is coming soon!! Praise be, for the defiance of The 16.
Posted by: smn   2007-05-23 03:01  

#2  Nice to see the losers lose, as most of us expected, but that's partial consolation for what remains an infuriatingly passive and inept administration, a pathetic and cowardly GOP, an astonishingly irresponsible and despicable opposition, and a whiny, fickle, and largely uninformed populace. The ratio of baggage to baggage-carrriers may be reaching the breaking point ....
Posted by: Verlaine   2007-05-23 01:47  

#1  Bought you time.
Posted by: newc   2007-05-23 00:06  

00:00