http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/...01?ecid=RSS0001

The timeline would be non-binding. Reid is introuble for remarks made. And one Democrat Senator says she does not want to fund the troops. She is "hoping" Bush vetos the bill.
Lengthy article, just click the link to read it.

I find this cartoon hateful and insensitive. If you were a radio talking person you would be fired!!!

Story Highlights• Bush: Don't "test my will" on war-funding bill with pullout timetable
• Both sides laying groundwork for a high-stakes, post-veto negotiation
• Leaders accept White House invitation for bipartisan Iraq discussion
• New bill with benchmarks could allow both sides to claim measure of victory

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto -- unlike the one Congress will send him next week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Bush repeated his promise Friday to veto the war spending bill and any such measure with a pullout date, even as Democrats renewed their calls for the president to sign the $124.2 billion bill.

"If the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one," Bush declared. (Watch the political theater in the funding showdown )

At the same time, both sides were laying the groundwork for a high-stakes, post-veto negotiation. The president invited Democrats and Republicans to the White House next Wednesday to talk about it, and leaders in both parties said they would attend.

Democrats were already looking for ways to draw Republican support for a new spending measure, knowing they would need GOP votes to pass any bill that Bush would sign.

However, a move to water down the withdrawal language is virtually certain to cost them the votes of liberal Democrats who have been uneasy about supporting any war funding.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, the minority leader, about how to move forward.

Senior House leadership aides have held "very preliminary" discussions with White House staffers about post-veto negotiations, although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, has not yet reached out to GOP leaders on the issue, one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks were not public.

Still, as they hunted for the votes to pass their Iraq bill earlier this week, Democratic leaders were quietly reaching out to some moderate Republicans on a backup plan. They would need GOP votes to pass a new war funding measure once Bush executed his veto, Democrats told the Republicans, and they wanted to start assembling a bipartisan group that could write one.

"There's been talking behind the scenes about how to do this, because they know if they make substantial changes to the bill they will lose a series of Democrats," said Rep. Michael Castle, a Delaware Republican and a leading moderate.

"They understand that they're going to need a solution that goes beyond their own membership, and there are a number of Republicans who want to get this behind them, too."

GOP will consider benchmarks
Republican leaders say they would consider including benchmarks for the Iraqi government as part of the war funding measure, although they have not said how they would be enforced.

Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican, said he is open to the idea of blocking further reconstruction or other aid funding to Iraq -- though not military spending -- if the government does not meet such requirements.

Democrats are "going to have to pull out the surrender dates -- clearly those are the most unacceptable items -- as well as the strings on our troops," Putnam said in an interview. "Democrats and Republicans alike would like to see accountability, particularly on the Iraq government, and that can come in the form of benchmarks."

"There could be some kind of bipartisan agreement" on benchmarks, McConnell said, but he declined to say what the consequences would be, if any, for failing to meet them.

"Consequences are a little more divisive," he said.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican and another prominent moderate, is proposing ending the surge within four months if the Iraqi government cannot live up to key political benchmarks. She was working Friday to garner Democratic support for her measure.

Including benchmarks could allow both sides to claim some measure of victory. Democrats could say they had fulfilled their promise not to give Bush a "blank check" to continue a war that has lost popular support and cost more than 3,200 American lives.

Bush and Republican lawmakers could signal they don't support an open-ended U.S. commitment in Iraq without embracing efforts to end the conflict.

Senior Democratic aides say there may be little point now in pressing their confrontation with Bush on the Iraq spending bill, and suggest it is more likely they will try to use future measures -- such as a defense authorization bill or other spending bills -- to challenge the president.

"It's like a mystery story in which we've all read the last chapter," said Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution congressional expert. "We all know that the president is going to get his money -- the only question is when and how."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Story still developing. American people still hopeful that their wishes will be honored by the Congress and President. Republicans worried about Iraq still being an issue in the 2008 election.

So which is it? Are people wanting their wishes for the troops to come home safely or do we side with which ever team wins in elections? Please tell me the Democrats are not worried about the elections of 2008 and the Iraq War! I beg you to say that!

See...this, my dear, dear RS, is why I do not vote party lines and am an Independent.

While we are on the subject, SEVEN Democrats voted not to override the veto.
ONE voted neither yay or nay.
TWO Republicans voted to override.

I HOPE they come to an agreement on it all as well, but an agreement not based on politics, elections or who looks bad/good. I hope they do what is right by our troops and what is right for the rest of the funds needed for OTHER matters. No pork. Benchmarks (realistic benchmarks) for the Iraqis. Stop playing games with the troops, stop using them as political puppets.

You haven't figured out yet that bush2 has been using the troops all along. What do you think his flying to the aircraft carrier dressed as an action hero was all about? What do you think his posturing under the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was all about? What do you think the lies to get the US into war with Iraq was all about? What do you think his response when the subject of an insurgency in Iraq first came up (his "Bring 'em on" speech) was all about?
You call that supporting the troops?

Looking back to "Missioned Accomplish" and how we got into Iraq qill not solve problems in Iraq now. "Coulda... woulda... shoulda"s do not help in life.

As for the "Mission Accomplished"...I think Bush was referring to bringing down Saddam. That part was accomplished, it was everything afterwards that "shoulda" been handled differently.

But as I said, coulda woulda shoulda does not help in life. It is time for both sides, Repubs, Dems and most especially the administration to come together as I said in my earlier post. Put aside elections, put aside who is running for POTUS and actually work on a strong resolution bipartisan to end the war in Iraq. Both sides are posturing, and not because they "support the troops", because of upcoming elections in 2008. Especially the big one...POTUS.

I am sorry, RS, that you cannot see that. I am sorry that you are so blinded by partisan politics that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

You say you are a soldier, retired, but once a soldier always a soldier. Then why are you listening to the Dems or the Repubs, listen to Petraeus, really listen to him. Set aside your politics, and stop taking him out of context to fit your side of things.

I still have no idea who I will vote for in 2008, because right now my attention is on the war in Iraq. Not who is showboating and grandstanding more as they posture like peacocks for the elections in 2008. As the Dems did in 2006 for the votes and have not really done much. As the Repubs did in 2004 and did not do much.

You haven't figured that Petraeus is talking politics, not military strategy? Trust me, generals that believe in their missions don't weasel talk like he has. The administration has been trying to recruit a war czar, but has been unsuccessful because nobody really believes military victory in Iraq is any longer an option.
Petraeus got his 4th star. He has hopes of becoming the CofS of the Army and maybe Chairman of the JCS, but that will not happen.

Well now ait a minute, RS. Did you not tell us that Petraeus said the war is not winnable at all? I mean speaking in military terms, did you not say Petraeus said we cannot win it militarily?
Now he is jumping through hoops for political gain? Nooooooooo...say it aint soooooo?

You called Petraeus my hero, but sure like to quote him when it favors your side of things.

Where is my supposed it conflict? I said that he was not speaking the truth about the surge, that he and his predecessor have said the war is not winnable militarily and that insurgencies take 10 years or more to defeat. No conflict there. General Casey was replaced because he had the courage and integrity to say the surge wouldn't work and would be counterproductive because it further delays forcing the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and make the hard decisions they have so far refused to make. No conflict there.
You say you no longer support bush2 who's failed policy this is, but are backing Petreaus. However, Petreaus has become a politician. He took the job to get his 4th star, but has never said the surge will work. He said the surge could work. When asked by the Senate he admitted that he agreed with Casey's assessment that it would take over 9 years to stabilize Iraq. (I remember his writing in an Army journal that he thought it would take 10-15 years, but in any case, it WON'T HAPPEN IN THE NEXT 4 MONTHS. In September Petraeus will put out another weasel worded statement that progress has been made, but the violence can be expected to continue to increase. In otherwords, bad news is really good news - unless it happens to be your family member killed or wounded or indicted.

Again you mention the "10-15 years" you said Petraeus has said/written. First you said he stated it, then you said it was in an article you read, then it was part of the counterinsurgency handbook, now it is back in an issue of an Army Journal. But...you cannot find it on the internet.

Now you are trying what with your last line? You don't think I know the perils my son will face in Iraq? You don't think I know that he could be wounded or worse over there? I know all of that, and it scares the crap out of me. But INDICTED? So, now you think that my son will become a criminal for being in Iraq?
You are a real sleazeball piece of wannabe crap that has no clue about my son. You are nothing but a hack. I pity you for having to portray yourself as something you could never be. You do not have the honor needed to have been a soldier.

Denying the reality that every soldier or marine in Iraq and Afghanistan faces all those possibilities doesn't change anything.
The question is, is it worth it? The American public no longer thinks so. Only bush2 who avoided combat still does.

Most of the American Public does not want war PERIOD. So stop flaunting that percentage figure like a white flag. MOST Americans would rather get this thing over and come home.

A few more things azzwipe. My sister is not your freaking sweetie.

You are not a "Retired Soldier".

You are a WWP hack on a tiny forum trying to sway opinion with BS post after BS post.

And what you said to SBJ about her son, INFERRED ABOUT HER SON BEING KILLED is far worse than DESPICABLE.

It shows your true colors; flaming azz hole red with streaks of yellow and putrid green.




Back off biotch.




~

You are not in a position to lecture anyone on manners. You are an embarrassment. Your language skills and understanding are those of a middle school dropout.
You couldn't make it in the Army and can't make it in life. You are attempting to associate yourself and live off the sacrifices and honor of the present generation of soldiers, as a way to expiate your own failures.

HAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHA! You are just too funny, RS. You do not even know my brother. But, all you have to do is Google his name to see he is NOT a failure by any means. Not in life, not in the Army, not in anything he has done in his life.

He takes nothing FROM the troops, no spotlight, no honor, nothing. He gives to them, and to his fellow vets. He does not need anything in return from them. He gives them what you fail to which his faith, respect and if nothing else, a welcome home that VN vets did NOT get. He does not expect anything in return from them.

What do you have, RS? A few meaningless letters behind your forum personna's name? A washed wannabe? You "retired" in the middle of a war you were not part of? But, hey let's keep knocking on Sky's service in VN for not being able to return. What is YOUR excuse for not being in Iraq at this very moment or Afghanistan? Or some far off out of the way post playing soldier?
What made you stay here in the states and cozy up to "retirement"?

You are the one who is a wannabe and has nothing to show for it in his life....sir!

You lied when you said you "never mocked" Sky's wounds. You most certainly did. But, you do not have the honor in you to apologize for that at all. You sir, are no gentleman and I highly doubt you were ever an officer. How long did it take you to achicve your "LTC"? Hmmmmm????

This can't be SJ. She who never speaks for her brother(s). Oh, that was a couple of hours ago. Can't remember what your position is on anything, can you?

I am not speaking for him at all. I know my brother and his attributes, you do not.

I can remember my position about you, you are a wannabe with no honor or respect for the men and women in uniform.

I even know YOUR position on EVERYTHING. It involves you being double jointed and being able to stick your head where the sun dont shine...and have kept it there for most of your life, it seems.