Bush vetoed it and the House failed to override.
What now?
They take out the timeline for withdrawal, keep in he stuff about “benchmarks”, and Bush signs it.
What would be the point of that?!
Why the hell would they do that?
Jimmy: I want a piece of cake!
Mother: Not until after dinner.
Jimmy: But I want one now!
Mother: You’ll ruin your dinner.
Jimmy: But mooommmmmmmmm!
Mother: Well, ok; but just a little piece.
Jimmy: Sweet. </Cartman>
I agree with Pelosi’s comment:
LilShieste
If the dems give a single inch I’m going to be pissed. Now is the time to step on Bush’s neck, not to cave in. If he wants to starve the war to death, more power to him.
Well, shit! I was hoping never to have to attend another goddam anti-war demonstration. Sure, its a small sacrifice, but I still resent it! Shit!
I’m all in favor of Pelosi and Reid sending a short letter to Bush saying, “It’s your war - have a nice time funding it,” and moving on to other issues for the duration of the year, or until Bush crawls to them with a compromise.
If the Executive wants to fight a war that the people (and their elected reps in Congress) don’t support and don’t want to pay for, it’s really his problem, not theirs.
String 'em up!
Hallelujah!
Cowards! Traitors! Worms!
Patriots!
Do those really help? No American anti-war movement has ever succeeded in persuading an administration to end a war until the administration was damned good and ready to end it for the admin’s own reasons. The anti-Vietnam War movement peaked in 1970; the American military presence in Vietnam lasted another four years.
There’s apparently a poll which shows that only nine percent of the American public support fully pulling the plug on “funding the troops.” It is pretty clear that most folks want the war to end, but not through starving the war/troops of money.
Congress is going to hold many more votes on Iraq in the next year and a half. I think someone has got to be severely deluded to think that if Congress keeps sending the same bill to the President over the next several weeks, that Bush is going to crumble and sign it, or that the votes would magically appear to override his veto. In fact, I think Congress would probably get a disproportionate share of the blame if “the troops” don’t get their funding “in time.” Hell, even if we want to have our troops pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, it is going to cost billions upon billions of dollars to pack them up and get them back here. That’s a fact.
OTOH, I think we can all see the handwriting on the wall, that if the troop surge doesn’t fix Iraq by the fall, the number of Republicans who will abandon the White House’s side will go from a few here and there to probably pretty substantial numbers. IIRC, appropriations bill was approved by the House by about 20 votes, and by the Senate by 2. I bet that if that exact same bill were voted on this fall, and Iraq is in the same condition it is in today, it’d probably win by 50 or 60 votes in the House and 15 or 20 votes in the Senate.
Two things about this:
First, Americans are morons and their opinions should almost always be completely disregarded. I realize these are politicians, though.
Second, It wouldn’t be Congress pulling the plug, it would be the President. If the Dems had any balls, they would make sure their idiot constituents understood that.
I don’t know - the GOP’s caught between Iraq and a hard place on this one. The country is solidly against the war, including a majority even in all but a few red states. But the GOP base is solidly pro-war. They can’t afford to vote against the war until Congressional primary filing deadlines have passed.
Glad you said “almost,” or you’d be ruling out elections.
One way to get the funding is to sign the bill.
Just saying, is all.
-Joe
Because they’ll lose in the court of public opinion if the troops don’t get funded. It’s going to be very, very difficult for Congress to end this war unless they, sit down for this… end the freakin’ war. If they have enough votes to override a veto of a funding bill, they should have enough votes to override a veto of a bill that would unAuthorize the Use of Military Force. I think Americans would get behind that. End the war, then cut off the funds. Don’t cut off funds while the war is still authorized.
Let me guess… we should listen to them only when they agree with you? 
Dunno. But failing isn’t wrong, not trying is wrong.
But, they don’t.
They haven’t proposed cutting off funds. The spending bill gives MORE funding than what the President asked for. It’s Bush’s veto that cuts off funds. Congress needs to make that clear to the public. For once in their lives, I wish they would get out ahead of how a conflict is going to be framed and preemptively stomp on the lie that Congress is trying to cut funding. They aren’t. They’re trying to RAISE it. The Dems need to keep saying that like a broken record. Public opinion is on their side this time, if only they’d have the courage to recognize it.