Dems push Iraq funding bill with withdrawal timetable; Bush threatens veto

[RTFirefly]

THE PRESIDENT: Today I’m joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today.

You know that it’s against the law to use uniformed members of the U.S. armed forces as political props, right?

Maybe not.

Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror.

Which, yet one more time, you conflate with the Iraq war.

Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.

Where to start, where to start?

1. The reason why it has ‘no chance of becoming law’ is because of you, Chimpy. So deal.

2. The responsibility of the Congress, with respect to war, is to decide what the policy is. What the goals are. It’s the Executive’s job to decide how best to execute that policy, and attain those goals.

For the first time since 2002, one house of Congress took up that responsibility, deciding that the primary goal was to get out.

3. That’s now ‘the job,’ if the House bill becomes law, and the bill provided the resources for it.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding.

The House provided it. Now just tell your Senate minions to step aside and let it pass.

Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.

No, they didn’t. They decided what the policy should be, which is something the generals don’t get to decide.

What really peeves you, I’m sure, is that they substituted their judgment for yours.

And how’s your judgment been working out?

They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground.

That bill’s got loopholes and escape clauses for everything. It’s about as ‘rigid’ as a Slinky.

And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork,

I’m shocked - shocked! - to find that a Congressional leader used pork to pass a bill.

And I know how vigorously you’ve opposed Congressional pork over the past six years.

too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

Sure, the withdrawal timetable is artificial. But the key word is ‘withdrawal.’ The only way to get a non-artificial timetable would be to have a President that was actually seeking to get us out of the war in a non-artificial way. You’re not that President, and you’re not going to become that President. An artificial timetable to withdrawal is the only route to withdrawal, other than waiting two years to begin.

As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today’s action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.

Shorter Bush: they had no right to pass a bill they knew I opposed!

Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we’re beginning to see some signs of progress.

And when haven’t you claimed this? Yet the overall trend is downhill.

Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

They passed a funding bill. You’re going to veto it. Who’s playing with the lives of the troops?

Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough.

Well, yeah. This being a democracy and all, the Congressional majority might try to, um, legislate based on their views.

Shocking, I know.

These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds.

IOW, you will block the funds the troops so desperately need, because you’re substituting your judgment (with its superlative track record!) for Congress’.

The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

Then you’d better change your mind and sign that bill, hadn’t you?

The Democrats have sent their message, now it’s time to send their money.

They sent both. Deal.

This is an important moment – a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people – and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.

“Congress needs to do its duty - rubber-stamp my every whim.”

[RTFirefly]

@Duckster

Then again, Rep. David Obey ripped a new one for the Washington Post.

See —> http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/dem_rep_obey_ri.php

or here —> http://thinkprogress.org/

I called his office, even though I’m not a constituent of his, to say how glad I was that he’d said what he did.

[David_Simmons]

@RTFirefly

I called his office, even though I’m not a constituent of his, to say how glad I was that he’d said what he did.

On Hardball today, Chris Mathews came right out and said that as far as Iraq is concerned the Post is now a neocon paper.

[Syntropy]

@BrainGlutton

This article analyzes how the vote breaks down:

.A handful of anti-war Democrats, who object to any additional funding of the war joined them, incuding Georgia’s John Lewis, Ohio’s Dennis Kucinich, California’s Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey.

Several anti-war Republicans, including Texan Ron Paul and Tennessee’s John Duncan, also voted “no.”

One anti-war Democrat, California’s Pete Stark, vote “present.”

These are the votes that the Dems need to concentrate on. It’s absurd on the face of it to insist for a troop pull out and then vote against a bill that that makes that happen. I understand what they’re holding out for, but it simply isn’t going to happen. At some point, practicality dictates that it has to be a compromise, and this is it. There is no way a bill calling for immediate troop withdrawal will pass. This is the best shot we have at getting the troops home in the foreseeable future.

[RTFirefly]

Blogger TBogg and the author of the WhiskeyFire blog noted Bush’s complaint that the House Dems were engaging in “political theater,” and rounded up some pix to remind us of just how deeply Bush abhors political theater.

Had to share.

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

Explain to me again what the point of having elected representatives making policy is when the Dictator in Chief is free to veto whichever policies he doesn’t like? I’m not believing a word about these famed ‘checks and balances’ until this kind of dictatorial power is removed from the chief cheese.

[ElvisL1ves]

The check in this case is that Congress can override the President’s veto. It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses rather than a simple majority, though.

[RTFirefly]

Bush: “The Democrats have sent their message, now it’s time to send their money.” He needs the money, and the only way for him to get it is if they appropriate it.

If the House keeps sending up the same bill over and over again, and Bush keeps vetoing it, or his allies in the Senate keep filibustering it, the war runs out of money.

That’s the fundamental check. And it rests with the House, where all appropriations bills must originate.

[David_Simmons]

@RTFirefly

That’s the fundamental check. And it rests with the House, where all appropriations bills must originate.

Right. Bush has to sign something before, I believe, 26 April which is when current authorization for spending expires.

And I don’t think appropriations have to originate in the House. Bills for raising revenue, i.e. taxes and the like, do but I think either house can get the spending ball rolling.

[Syntropy]

@David Simmons

Right. Bush has to sign something before, I believe, 26 April which is when current authorization for spending expires.

This started out as an emergency spending bill. The budget for the war for this fiscal year has already passed, so really all this bill addresses is the additional troops, correct? And if this is the case, why is it being noised about that the troops will be without support? No funding is being cut; extra funding is being denied.

[David_Simmons]

@Maureen

This started out as an emergency spending bill. The budget for the war for this fiscal year has already passed, so really all this bill addresses is the additional troops, correct? And if this is the case, why is it being noised about that the troops will be without support? No funding is being cut; extra funding is being denied.

all I know is what I read and hear on the news. They keeps saying that spending authorization runs out next month.

And I think so far, the whole war has been funded by off-budget, so-called emergency appropriations. The budget was approved, or was supposted to have been approved, Last October when Republicans were running Congress and I think didn’t include Iraq war money. Even if it wasn’t approved then, it was marked up then and Iraq money wasn’t included. Supposedly the FY 08 budget will include it.

[Squink]

Appropriations for the war in Iraq are supplemental rather than regular, which means that our military costs in Iraq are off-budget. Over 90 percent of the costs of the “war on terror” have been provided for in supplemental appropriations bills or as “emergency” funding.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-24.htm

There’s talk of rolling the wars into the regular budgeting process next year.

[Merijeek]

@Squink

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-24.htm

There’s talk of rolling the wars into the regular budgeting process next year.

I could have sworn that it was in Bush’s budget but that the GOPers had dragged their feet and not actually passed it last term.

-Joe

[David_Simmons]

@Merijeek

I could have sworn that it was in Bush’s budget but that the GOPers had dragged their feet and not actually passed it last term.

-Joe

Here is the Washington Post story on theFY 2007 (this year’s) budget proposal by Bush.

The breakdown on “major” items in the DoD budget proposal.

The nearly $440 billion defense budget contains $110.8 billion for military personnel, including a modest 2.2 percent pay increase, as well as $84.2 billion for weapons systems and $73.2 billion for research and development.

Some of the major budget items include $6.6 billion for the Army’s program to expand and modernize its brigades for easier deployment, and $3.7 billion for the Army’s next generation of vehicles and communications known as the Future Combat System.

Also included are $2.6 billion to begin construction of two Navy DD(X) destroyers, as well as nearly $1 billion for two Littoral Combat Ships aimed at improving the Navy’s ability to operate in coastal waters. An additional $1.9 billion will go toward developing and purchasing new unmanned aerial vehicles as part of the Pentagon’s goal of expanding reconnaissance by the drones.

The growth in defense spending has slowed compared with earlier this decade, suggesting the defense buildup that began in 1999 and accelerated in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is winding down.

If the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan were in the proposal, at over $200 billion it surely would have been mentioned.

[RTFirefly]

@David Simmons

I don’t think appropriations have to originate in the House. Bills for raising revenue, i.e. taxes and the like, do but I think either house can get the spending ball rolling.

My pocket copy of the Constitution - which I shoulda checked before I posted - says you’re right. (Article I, Section 7, for anyone following along at home.)

[RTFirefly]

Today, by a 50-48 vote, the Senate kept the withdrawal timetable in the bill by defeating the Cochran amendment that would have stripped it. And Mitch McConnell has said he’s not gonna filibuster the bill itself. So it looks as if something very similar to the House bill will shortly wind up on Bush’s desk.

And then he can veto the bill, to “play politics” by denying the troops the funds they need.

So after the veto, what’s next?

The supplemental funds both Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m thinking that, after the veto, the Dems should split the two wars, pass an Afghanistan funding bill, pass a 30-day ‘clean’ extension on Iraq funding to give everyone a few days of breathing room, then pass the same Iraq bill they just passed.

[RTFirefly]

And it’s official: the bill in its entirety passed the Senate, 51-47. All 48 Dems (other than Tim Johnson, who’s still out) voted for the bill, plus Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Republicans Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith.

Next stop, House-Senate conference committee (no longer a GOP-run farce), then quick passage of the reconciled bill by both houses, then a Bush veto.

[Duckster]

@RTFirefly

And it’s official: the bill in its entirety passed the Senate, 51-47. All 48 Dems (other than Tim Johnson, who’s still out) voted for the bill, plus Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Republicans Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith.

Next stop, House-Senate conference committee (no longer a GOP-run farce), then quick passage of the reconciled bill by both houses, then a Bush veto.

And, if Reid and Pelosi can get their act together, they could offer the bill up to the president at the last possible moment, say, Friday the 13th? Bush will have less than 24 hours to either sign the bill (and keep the war going), or veto it and all hell breaks loose. But waiting until the last possible moment to report out the bill to the announced Bush veto, there is insufficirnt time for Congress to introduce new legislation, debate it, pass it and get a Bush signature without a funding gap occurring.

So who is gonna blink first?

[Dob]

GW from CNN.com

“We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded,”

I mean the BALLS on this guy!!! Does he not remember all the families buying body armor for their kids because the Army couldn’t? How troops were stripping junk piles to armor vehicles that should have had armor already???

How the hell does this man walk and chew gum at the same time!?

[elucidator]

Simple. Attach “signing statement” that interprets the bill as complying with The Leader’s Imperial Discretion to implement the bill as he sees fit, under such conditions as may or may not apply, depending on circumstances, unforseen or otherwise.