Deadline pulled from war funding bill

[Lord Zentei]

Dems plan Iraq bill minus timeline but with benchmarks

POSTED: 5:53 p.m. EDT, May 22, 2007

• Benchmarks in bill would be tied to Iraqi economic aid
• White House declines comment on items in proposed legislation
• Bill also would raise minimum wage to $7.25 per hour
• Democrats still hope to write timetable into defense spending bill during summer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi will present a plan to House Democrats for a war funding bill that won't include a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but will feature benchmarks with consequences, according to Democratic leadership aides.

The bill also would raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour from $5.15 per hour, and fund other domestic spending programs, which were still being negotiated.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said any talk of a deal was premature.

"We're hopeful that the discussions over the emergency supplemental funding bill for the troops is nearing a conclusion," she said. "We have not seen the final language yet, and we look forward to reviewing it."

The legislation would provide more than $90 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Leadership aides said the benchmarks would be tied to Iraq reconstruction aid and would require President Bush to present to Congress numerous reports before August.

They said Democrats won't give up on a deadline for pulling troops out of Iraq, hoping to write language into defense appropriations and defense authorization bills over the summer.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said the final bill has yet to emerge. But he said he expects to vote on the spending bill by Thursday night or Friday, and he said that even if the bill goes no further than setting benchmarks, "it's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

"Keep in mind, this is the seventh supplemental appropriation bill that the president has sent us," said Reid. "We don't know what the language will be on this for sure, but it's for certain it'll be the first supplemental ... that he hasn't been given a blank check."

Meanwhile, he said, Democratic efforts to wind down the war will continue.

"We're going to continue our battle -- and that's what it is -- to represent the American people like they want us to represent them, to change the course of the war in Iraq," Reid said.

Republican senators, who had objected to timelines and deadlines, sounded optimistic that a compromise would be reached.

"Hopefully, we will get through this process before Memorial Day," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "I know that's been the desire certainly of the majority leader, to finish the bill, to get the bill to the president for signature without a 'surrender date.' I think that is the direction in which we are headed."

McConnell said Republicans have been "led to believe" that the language on benchmarks will be taken from an amendment backed by Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the influential former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The proposal would require the Bush administration to send progress reports to Congress in July and September, and make changes to U.S. strategy if the Iraqis have made no progress in reaching a political settlement.

Warner said the measure would send the message to Iraq that "we're not there forever," and that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki must "pull your own weight and do your responsible job."

Reconstruction funds could be cut if the Iraqi government fails to meet the U.S. benchmarks, but the president could waive those penalties if he feels it necessary.

A bill written by Warner that included benchmarks tied to economic aid to Iraq received 52 votes last week. The vote was more than a majority but less than the 60 needed to advance under the rules in effect.

Democrats have said they wanted to get Bush a bill that he could sign by the Memorial Day weekend. The vote in the House of Representatives could come as late as Friday, the day the weekend starts.

Bush vetoed a bill last month that included a timetable for withdrawing troops. On Friday, both White House officials and lawmakers left negotiations saying they were "disappointed" that they couldn't agree on a compromise.

Bush also objected to portions of the bill that would have provided domestic funding for items such as rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.

Congressional Democrats offered White House negotiators a bill with a withdrawal timeline on Friday and said the timeline allowed Bush to waive any deadlines.

But White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said he rejected that because timelines "send exactly the wrong signal."

Democrats said they then offered to drop billions of dollars in domestic spending from the bill but the president's negotiators wouldn't budge.

Legislative aides said Democrats expect that they will lose support of liberal members of their caucus who are holding out for language that would assure a troop withdrawal, but they also expect enough Republicans to support the bill to assure passage.

A senior Democratic senator said late last week the last-minute attempts by Democrats to get a withdrawal timeline were "political foreplay."

A Democratic leadership source told CNN some two months ago that Democratic leaders knew they would have to send the president a war funding bill without a timeline, and that would likely mean a bill with significant Democratic defections and GOP support.

The maneuvering over the past several weeks has been a Democratic attempt to show their anti-war base that party leaders were trying until the 11th hour to stand up to the president, the source said.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Fucking surrendercrats

They fucking sold us down the river!

[starfury]

Sheesh the Democrats seem to Just let the Republicans walk all over them, some opposition party, they barely seem like a speed bump in the Neo-con Path.

[Vympel]

Cowards.

[RedImperator]

Fucking surrendercrats

They fucking sold us down the river!

Did you expect anything better? Really, in your heart of hearts, did you think the Democratic Party would do anything but cave to a president with a 27% approval rating?

The fucking benchmarks aren't even binding. What a crock of shit.

[Starglider]

At least part of the problem seems to be that the Democrats are still big on multi-party co-operation, consensus and compromise. The neocons are not, never have been, and likely never will be. Trying to co-operate/compromise with a group who refuse to give ground is inevitably going to produce nothing but verbiage that tries to hide the fact that the opposition got everything they wanted. Right now the Democrats are sufficiently non-confident about PR, and the neocons so past caring about anything but preaching to their own choir, that idiot verbiage like 'the Democrats hate our troops because they won't release vital funding' actually makes them back down.

[SirNitram]

Well, time to find out which Dems are jumping ship. I'm gonna make my bet now: This isn't a concentrated party effort, this is the Blue Dogs and Dixicrats. Then one needs to find ways to undermine those responsible. If it's all of them... Well, then there's alot of work to do.

[RedImperator]

Well, time to find out which Dems are jumping ship. I'm gonna make my bet now: This isn't a concentrated party effort, this is the Blue Dogs and Dixicrats. Then one needs to find ways to undermine those responsible. If it's all of them... Well, then there's alot of work to do.

I'll take that bet. This isn't the Blue Dogs--those guys would be Republicans if it wasn't for the war. This is the same craven, worthless leadership that's never learned to say anything except "Thank you sir, may I have another?" every time Bush fucks them. What else do you think happened? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi suddenly grew enough of a spine to stand up to the Wonder Chimp, but not enough to tell freshmen legislators in their own party to sit down and shut up?

[SirNitram]

I'll take that bet. This isn't the Blue Dogs--those guys would be Republicans if it wasn't for the war. This is the same craven, worthless leadership that's never learned to say anything except "Thank you sir, may I have another?" every time Bush fucks them. What else do you think happened? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi suddenly grew enough of a spine to stand up to the Wonder Chimp, but not enough to tell freshmen legislators in their own party to sit down and shut up?

Reid has publically caved, so I'm hardly contesting that. Pelosi is talking against it, but talk is cheap. As for the freshmen, most seemed to run on this issue. We'll see how the card falls.

It's also a jolly good thing I didn't wager anything of value on this.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'll take that bet. This isn't the Blue Dogs--those guys would be Republicans if it wasn't for the war. This is the same craven, worthless leadership that's never learned to say anything except "Thank you sir, may I have another?" every time Bush fucks them. What else do you think happened? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi suddenly grew enough of a spine to stand up to the Wonder Chimp, but not enough to tell freshmen legislators in their own party to sit down and shut up?

Reid has publically caved, so I'm hardly contesting that. Pelosi is talking against it, but talk is cheap. As for the freshmen, most seemed to run on this issue. We'll see how the card falls.

It's also a jolly good thing I didn't wager anything of value on this.

Don't worry, I wouldn't repo your car to get the money.

[RedImperator]

Christ, the more I think about this, the bigger a piece of shit this seems. Alright, yeah, the Democrats were in an unenviable position: the Wonder Chimp is a sociopath who would have the Army throw rocks at the insurgents before he agreed to a withdrawal timeline, and the GOP is still full of whores who think the role of Congress is to lie on its back with its legs spread whenever the White House says so, so maybe a cast-iron withdrawal timeline wasn't in the cards this time (ditto de-authorizing the war or zeroing its budget). But what kind of limp-dicked "compromise" is this? "Benchmarks" that are tied to reconstruction money, not troop levels, which the president can ignore for any reason he wants anyway? A minimum wage increase that I'll bet you $100 will get gelded or dropped in conference under White House pressure? Domestic pork spending? Fucking-A, the Democrats were supposedly taking out all pork as their end of the compromise--what did they do, trade benchmarks with teeth to get spinach subsidies back?

Jesus fucking Christ, they had the White House on the ropes. 27% approval rating, Abu Gonzales getting pounded into pudding, the Wolfowitz fiasco, and they go ahead and give the Wonder Chimp a huge victory. No wonder these stupid assholes can only win when the opposition blunders into someone else's civil war, drowns an American city, meddles in a single family's end-of-life decisions, and gets caught sending dirty IMs to teenage boys. Even putting the minimum wage increase in there is retarded. It will do nothing to mollify the voters, and it saves Bush from having to either sign a separate minimum wage increase his corporate paymasters don't want or veto an unambiguously good and widely popular law.

What a bunch of assholes.

[Nova Andromeda]

BWAHAHAHA!

I told you so!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I still expect that Gonzales is gone, call me an optimist I guess, and if it's worth anything I predicted this months ago. The war is the sole issue of the Bush Presidency, and he'll do anything to preserve it, including yield on every single other issue to the democrats. The democrats, for their part, neither have the will nor the way to directly confront the President, and so they'll only force their way on other issues, since the President will stand and fight to the bitter end over the war.

[Duckie]

I still expect that Gonzales is gone, call me an optimist I guess, and if it's worth anything I predicted this months ago. The war is the sole issue of the Bush Presidency, and he'll do anything to preserve it, including yield on every single other issue to the democrats. The democrats, for their part, neither have the will nor the way to directly confront the President, and so they'll only force their way on other issues, since the President will stand and fight to the bitter end over the war.

You give them too much credit. There are no Democrats in congress, just anti-war Republicans. If there was an actual Democratic party, Bush would have lost 2000, let alone 2004. If there was a Democratic party they'd be actually doing the work of opposing the Republican party instead of rubber stamping it.

The Democrats aren't even trying. They're a bunch of worthless limp wrists too afraid of being caught supporting something that will lose them a voter to attempt to cause any significant difference in the country.

They won't fight for other issues. Look at how meekly they're accepting the veto of the anti-hate crime law that Bush has promised. Look at how the Democrats observe a code of honour to never make a stink about any Republican scandals.

I'm sick of this fucking country that I think once (not if) the Matthew Shepard Bill is passed in the Senate and Bush vetoes it I'm going to look into leaving.

[Uraniun235]

I'm sick of this fucking country that I think once (not if) the Matthew Shepard Bill is passed in the Senate and Bush vetoes it I'm going to look into leaving.

Depending on your intended destination, moving abroad is likely to be a very lengthy and expensive endeavour.

Also remember that Britain, Australia, and Canada all often bow to U.S. pressure on certain issues. I'm not sure how important that is to you but it seemed worth noting.

[Coyote]

I was listening to the debate about this on NPR, and I understand that the war funding bill stretches out the funds for a few months at best. When the funds start to run out, and it's time to ante up again, Gen. Petreus will be in town to give a report on the effects of the surge (and given the current state of affairs, its not as rosy as they'd hoped). It seems the Democrats' plan is to coincide the discussion of money with the (expected) discussion of 'surge failure'.

In other words, they're picking a better ground to fight on later.

[Patrick Degan]

I still expect that Gonzales is gone, call me an optimist I guess, and if it's worth anything I predicted this months ago. The war is the sole issue of the Bush Presidency, and he'll do anything to preserve it, including yield on every single other issue to the democrats. The democrats, for their part, neither have the will nor the way to directly confront the President, and so they'll only force their way on other issues, since the President will stand and fight to the bitter end over the war.

No, Georgie the Stupider will not yield on a single issue. Keep in mind that this man is essentially a 60-year old spoilt child.

[wolveraptor]

The Democrats don't have enough of a majority to override a Bush veto, which he would inevitably use if a bill with a timeline for withdrawal was forced. Unless they could get a good number of Republicans to defect, anything stronger than this wouldn't have worked.

[The Kernel]

The Democrats don't have enough of a majority to override a Bush veto, which he would inevitably use if a bill with a timeline for withdrawal was forced. Unless they could get a good number of Republicans to defect, anything stronger than this wouldn't have worked.

Then why the fuck not play his game and refuse to put legislation through that doesn't contain binding timetables? Bush can't just invent the funds out of thin air after all.

The fucking Democratic party makes me sick.

[MKSheppard]

This isn't a concentrated party effort, this is the Blue Dogs and Dixicrats. Then one needs to find ways to undermine those responsible.

Can't.

They were elected in predominantly conservative leaning districts; replacing republicans viewed to be liberal; so really you can't do shit about them except perhaps.....fund a liberal republican.

[Glocksman]

Well, time to find out which Dems are jumping ship. I'm gonna make my bet now: This isn't a concentrated party effort, this is the Blue Dogs and Dixicrats. Then one needs to find ways to undermine those responsible. If it's all of them... Well, then there's alot of work to do.

I'll take that bet. This isn't the Blue Dogs--those guys would be Republicans if it wasn't for the war. This is the same craven, worthless leadership that's never learned to say anything except "Thank you sir, may I have another?" every time Bush fucks them. What else do you think happened? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi suddenly grew enough of a spine to stand up to the Wonder Chimp, but not enough to tell freshmen legislators in their own party to sit down and shut up?

Perhaps they tried, but they also realize that a lot of these freshmen come from districts that are basically conservative and could flip right back in 2008.

The Democrat in my district who unseated a six term Repub incumbent is a perfect example.
He won by running on a similar (support the troops, prolife, progun, anti illegal immigration, etc.) platform to the incumbent, but without the 'R' label baggage of the unpopular President and war that Hostettler had, and emphasized the difference by using the tag line 'Washington stopped listening'.

If he starts voting with the Democratic leadership on the hot button issues, he'll be a one term Congressman.

Personally while I'd have liked to seen it left in, the fear of such a vote being spun against you in a soundbite for the next election is a very valid one in many districts.

[Glocksman]

The Democrats don't have enough of a majority to override a Bush veto, which he would inevitably use if a bill with a timeline for withdrawal was forced. Unless they could get a good number of Republicans to defect, anything stronger than this wouldn't have worked.

Then why the fuck not play his game and refuse to put legislation through that doesn't contain binding timetables? Bush can't just invent the funds out of thin air after all.

The fucking Democratic party makes me sick.

The last Congress to play budget chicken with the President lost, and lost badly.
Of course that was back in the mid 90's, and the President was Bill Clinton.

[SirNitram]

I was listening to the debate about this on NPR, and I understand that the war funding bill stretches out the funds for a few months at best. When the funds start to run out, and it's time to ante up again, Gen. Petreus will be in town to give a report on the effects of the surge (and given the current state of affairs, its not as rosy as they'd hoped). It seems the Democrats' plan is to coincide the discussion of money with the (expected) discussion of 'surge failure'.

In other words, they're picking a better ground to fight on later.

I have my extreme doubts. Next time, I beleive, is the 2008 Military Budget(Since the funds run out end of September, allegedly, and doesn't the 2008 budget begin funding October?). If the Democrats can't get their shit together on a supplemental, no one's gonna fight tooth, nail, and shin over the funding of the military.

[jegs2]

When the funds start to run out, and it's time to ante up again, Gen. Petreus will be in town to give a report on the effects of the surge (and given the current state of affairs, its not as rosy as they'd hoped).

Petraeus is in an unenviable position, and he understands the pressure he's under to make something out of nothing. IMO, he understood that he'd be publicly given six months to make something happen in a positive way as the MNFI CDR, and realistically only three months (with tap dancing and chest-thumping of the multitudes of politicians in Washington factored in). Seems like everything is on schedule so far.

[Coyote]

On my way to work I was thinking about this, and it seems that while, yes, the Democrats blinking now on the war funding bill does hand the President a victory, however, it is not as big a victory as he'd have after a successful veto of the timetable-- while simultaneously painting the Democrats as 'pulling the rug from beneath the troops'. The GOP Presidential Candidates will be able to run on that fuel, and the Dem candidates will be on the defensive.

Basically, taking a bloody nose to avoid a concussion.

The Dems still have the Gonzales thing to keep the President's feet to the fire, and the unresolved Plame/Yellowcake stuff; and so on. The war budget has 'legs', it's not likely the situation will go away/clear up, and the Dems can hold off until Petreus comes in with what is sure to be an unflattering report.

By that time, the Democrats can say "we funded you, gave you your surge, and it's for shit" and perhaps build support behind increasingly twitchy Republicns (especially candidates) who are getting ever more nervous of the shadow the war is casting over their hopes.

Obviously, I'm guessing, and admittedly trying to put a positive light on this.