FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#564620 --- 04/20/07 12:27 PM Democrats are backing down in Senate
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
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.


Edited by Strawberry Jam (04/20/07 12:31 PM)

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#564890 --- 04/20/07 08:50 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
SkySoldier Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 08/18/01
Posts: 25300
Loc: Finger Lakes National Forest, ...
_________________________
America has problems.

We can fix that.

America is not THE problem.

Next time. Vote for the AMERICAN.


Top
#564931 --- 04/20/07 10:15 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: SkySoldier]
Al Kida Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/06
Posts: 3102
Originally Posted By: SkySoldier



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


Top
#569369 --- 04/28/07 11:53 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Al Kida]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
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.

Top
#569401 --- 04/28/07 01:01 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
"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."

Top
#571900 --- 05/03/07 09:43 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
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.

Top
#571964 --- 05/03/07 11:25 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
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.

Top
#571968 --- 05/03/07 11:28 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
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.

Top
#573416 --- 05/07/07 12:53 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
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?


Edited by Retired Soldier (05/07/07 12:55 PM)

Top
#573831 --- 05/08/07 11:58 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
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.

Top
#574039 --- 05/08/07 08:01 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
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.

Top
#574060 --- 05/08/07 08:37 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
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.

Top
#574091 --- 05/08/07 10:11 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
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.

Top
#574108 --- 05/08/07 11:06 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
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.

Top
#574125 --- 05/08/07 11:40 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
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.

Top
#574146 --- 05/09/07 12:23 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
SkySoldier Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 08/18/01
Posts: 25300
Loc: Finger Lakes National Forest, ...
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.




~
_________________________
America has problems.

We can fix that.

America is not THE problem.

Next time. Vote for the AMERICAN.


Top
#574176 --- 05/09/07 01:12 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: SkySoldier]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
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.

Top
#574202 --- 05/09/07 02:24 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
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????

Top
#574206 --- 05/09/07 02:28 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
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?

Top
#574212 --- 05/09/07 02:33 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
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.

Top
#574337 --- 05/09/07 12:00 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
I love soldiers enough not to want them to be needlessly sacrificed at the rate of 1,000+ a month. That is respect and support.
You don't waste a valuable resource. You save it for when you really need it. In the case of the military you don't send them to war unless there is a compelling national security reason to do so.

Top
#574340 --- 05/09/07 12:04 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
I love soldiers enough not to want them to be needlessly sacrificed at the rate of 1,000+ a month. That is respect and support.
You don't waste a valuable resource. You save it for when you really need it. In the case of the military you don't send them to war unless there is a compelling national security reason to do so.



Umm, I think that number is a little high. Each of the 3300 lives lost are precious, but that does not equal 1000 per month . Tell General Beam you need to stop meeting so much.

Top
#574353 --- 05/09/07 12:19 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Updated:2007-05-09 02:16:14
Pentagon Tells 35,000: Prepare to Deploy
House Democrats Defiantly Push New Iraq Funding Plan
By LOLITA C. BALDOR and ANNE FLAHERTY
AP
WASHINGTON (May 9) -- The Pentagon on Tuesday alerted more than 35,000 Army soldiers that they could be sent to Iraq this fall. In Congress , House Democrats defiantly pushed a plan to limit war funding to two-month installments.


The deployment orders signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates would allow commanders to maintain the buildup of troops through the end of the year if needed. President Bush has ordered nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to quell a spike in violence, particularly in and around Baghdad . There are currently about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the orders do not mean the military has decided to maintain the increased force levels through December. The Pentagon "has been very clear that a decision about the duration of the surge will depend on conditions on the ground," he said.

The announcement comes as Bush is under increasing pressure to pull troops out of Iraq. Bush last week vetoed $124.2 billion legislation that would have funded the war while requiring troops to start coming home this fall. According to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll released Tuesday, just over half of Americans disapproved of the veto.

House Democratic leaders briefed party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war through September.


The proposal is aimed at appeasing Democratic lawmakers who want to end the war immediately and are urging leaders not to back down after Bush's veto last week. But lacking a firm endorsement by the Senate, the challenge by House Democrats seemed more for political show than a preview of another veto showdown with Bush.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., told reporters before meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that "nothing's been ruled out and nothing's been ruled in" as he would continue to try to work with the White House.

House Democratic leaders struck a more defiant tone.

"I didn't commit to any compromise" with the White House, said Pelosi, D-Calif.[/]

Asked whether Democrats were still talking with the White House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said, "They know what we're doing obviously. I don't think their subscriptions to the newspapers ended at any time recently."

Democratic leadership aides said Reid and Pelosi acknowledged in their meeting Tuesday that the House plan would be considerably more difficult to pass in the Senate, where 60 votes are often required and that the two chambers may have to pursue different tracks.

Earlier in the day, Bush met with more than a dozen Democrats, most of whom with fairly conservative voting records.

"They (the White House) seemed to be concerned about their relationship with a number of us, and I think they should be," said Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala., one of the members who attended. "It's perplexing why we couldn't have had a couple of these meetings earlier."

The House bill would provide $30 billion to fund military operations through July, as well as more than $12 billion more to pay for equipment, training security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and defense health. Some $15 billion more would be provided for other high-priority projects, including $6.8 billion for hurricane relief, $3.1 billion for base closings and $2.2 billion for homeland security.

Under the proposal, Bush would have to update Congress by July 13 on whether the Iraqi government was meeting certain political and security reforms. Congress would decide 10 days later whether to end the war and bring troops home or provide funding through September.

The House would vote separately this month on a bill providing about $3.5 billion in agricultural assistance and about $1 billion for rural schools, wildfire relief and aid to salmon farmers.

"We're trying to prepare a second option so that if the administration wants to continue to just hold its breath and turn blue until they get their money, we're going to have another alternative," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who planned to brief White House chief of staff Josh Bolten on Tuesday.

White House spokesman Tony Snow called the approach "just bad management."

"We think it is appropriate to be able to give commanders what they are going to need, and also forces in the field, so that you can make long-term decisions in trying to build the mission," Snow said.

Congressional Republicans also dismissed the Democratic proposal as unfairly rationing funds needed in combat and said their members would not support it.

[b]Democrats "should not treat our men and women in uniform like they are children who are getting a monthly allowance," said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party's leader.


Gates and his military leaders have said that commanders in Iraq will make recommendations in September on whether the buildup has been successful and whether it should continue or if troops can begin coming home.

Snow and other administration officials have tried to tamp down expectations of the September review, although several senior Republicans say it will prove critical to whether the GOP continues to support the war.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, introduced legislation Tuesday that would require the Iraqi government to meet certain benchmarks within four months. If Baghdad fails, military commanders would begin planning to bring some troops home and refocusing remaining forces on noncombat missions, such as training the Iraqi security forces. Snowe's bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., sets a nonbinding goal of ending combat six months later.

Associated Press writer Ben Evans contributed to this report.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been


Edited by Strawberry Jam (05/09/07 12:21 PM)

Top
#574391 --- 05/09/07 01:22 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Sausage Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/03
Posts: 6378
Loc: The Meat Grinder
Originally Posted By: Strawberry Jam
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
I love soldiers enough not to want them to be needlessly sacrificed at the rate of 1,000+ a month. That is respect and support.
You don't waste a valuable resource. You save it for when you really need it. In the case of the military you don't send them to war unless there is a compelling national security reason to do so.



Umm, I think that number is a little high. Each of the 3300 lives lost are precious, but that does not equal 1000 per month . Tell General Beam you need to stop meeting so much.


At that rate, I would want my paycheck done on that calculator!
_________________________
Everybody wants to rule the world..

Top
#575025 --- 05/10/07 11:23 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Sausage]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Updated:2007-05-10 06:29:47
Moderates Seek to Break Iraq Impasse
By ANNE FLAHERTY
AP
WASHINGTON (May 10) - As Democratic leaders feud with the White House on Iraq war spending, lawmakers from both parties are working quietly to break the impasse.

So far, no luck.

Of the dozen or so members in Congress attempting to strike a bipartisan compromise on the war, few have come forward with concrete plans - perhaps out of reluctance to champion a proposal until they know it can succeed. None of the proposals put in plain view have picked up steam.

"We'll see what happens," said Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala. "A lot of us are coming together across the aisle. We're under the radar now, but we're meeting."

In the meantime, House members will vote Thursday on a new Iraq bill hotly contested by the White House, opposed by nearly all Republicans and unlikely to survive in the Senate .

The bill would provide the military with $42.8 billion to keep operations going through July, buy equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces. Congress would decide shortly before its August recess whether to release an additional $52.8 billion for war spending through September.

"The president refuses to listen to the American people who want this war to end," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif.

House Democratic leaders say the legislation once again has united Democrats in challenging Bush on the war. While this may be true, it has not attracted enough Republicans to override a second veto and has raised doubts among Senate Democrats.

"Enough is enough," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "It is time to get a clean bill to the president's desk and really support our troops."

Three Republicans - Reps. Frank Wolf of Virginia, Michael McCaul of Texas and Mark Udall of Colorado - circulated a letter Wednesday urging their colleagues to co-sponsor legislation that would put in place recommendations from the independent Iraq Study Group.

One of the 79 suggestions from the bipartisan group in December was reducing U.S. "political, military or economic support" for Iraq if the Baghdad government could not make substantial progress toward providing for the country's security. The report suggested an urgent diplomatic attempt to stabilize Iraq and allow the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.

"When the country is together, we are strong and can respond to our problems effectively," the three House Republicans wrote. "The more we are divided, the harder this becomes."

At the White House, 11 moderate House Republicans met with the president and top aides Tuesday. Several participants at the meeting, disclosed Wednesday, described a remarkably blunt discussion in which lawmakers told the president that the war was unsustainable without public support and that it was having a corrosive effect on GOP political fortunes.

"We asked them what's Plan B," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. "We let them know that the status quo is not acceptable." Davis said the president responded that if he began discussing a new strategy, his current one never would have a chance to succeed.

Several GOP senators sought to find their own solution.

Last week, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., raised hopes when he said he had an idea that had enough support to override a veto. Warner said his proposal would pressure the Iraqi government to take more initiative on political and security reforms. He declined to offer more specifics.

On Wednesday, Warner said he was reassessing in light of the new House proposal.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and John Sununu, R-N.H., said they are open to considering conditions on foreign aid to Iraq if the Baghdad government fails to meet certain benchmarks.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said he agrees that withholding reconstruction money is a good idea. But he thinks the president should be the one to do it based on a White House review of progress reports.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-05-09 16:56:10

Top
#575494 --- 05/11/07 01:26 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
Bush hints at Iraq funding deal
US President George W Bush has hinted at compromise on an Iraq funding bill, saying the idea of setting benchmarks on progress in Iraq "made sense".

Top
#578161 --- 05/17/07 11:07 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
Senate votes show support for war eroding
But attempt to force pullout is soundly defeated
By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times | May 17, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Forty-four Republican senators backed a plan yesterday to tie continued economic aid to Iraq to the performance of its government, the strongest demonstration yet of GOP willingness to set limits on the president's management of the war.

And in an indication of growing Democratic resolve to force an end to the war, a majority of Democratic senators supported a second measure that would have cut off funding for most combat operations in Iraq by the end of March.

Both proposals failed to win the support needed to proceed to a debate and a vote on the actual measures.

The plan to link aid to benchmarks that the Iraqi government would have to meet -- sponsored by Republican Senators John Warner of Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine -- drew the votes of 52 senators, short of the 60 needed to begin debate.

Only 29 lawmakers voted to move forward with debate of the funding cut off plan sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada.

Despite the failure of both measures -- amendments to an unrelated bill to fund water projects -- the Iraq-related votes in the Senate underlined how dramatically Congress is moving to respond to public dismay with the war.

"It is clear that change is in the air," assistant Senate majority leader Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said after the vote. "Our resolutions have not passed, but they will pass. I don't know how many more bodies will come home, how many more injured soldiers there will be. But a growing tension in this country over this war will lead us to the right conclusion."

Top
#578164 --- 05/17/07 11:11 AM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Talks to resume on bill to fund Iraq war By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 17, 3:47 AM ET



WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats and President Bush's top aides will enter another round of high-stakes negotiations on funding for the Iraq war in what has become an exhaustive test of wills.

ADVERTISEMENT

The talks are expected to continue for days, as the each side struggles for the upper hand.

"To be successful, we must end the finger-pointing and instead roll up our sleeves and work together. I believe that we can — and we will," said Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va.

At stake is the nearly $90 billion Bush says is needed to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. Earlier this month, Congress sent — and Bush vetoed — a $124.2 billion bill that would have funded the war but ordered troop withdrawals to begin by Oct. 1.

Without enough votes to override Bush's veto, Democrats are laboring to send Bush new legislation by Memorial Day that challenges Bush's Iraq policy but ensures troops have the resources they need.

The House wants to fund the war in two-month installments, giving members a chance to cut off money for combat if conditions in Iraq do not improve.

That approach is not expected to survive the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and several of them oppose limiting war funding. Bush also has threatened to veto the approach.


In a bid to expedite negotiations and avoid thorny procedural hurdles, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) set up a vote Thursday on a nonbinding resolution expressing support for the troops. The measure is expected to pass with broad bipartisan support and provide Democrats a legislative vehicle to begin negotiations with the House.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., said he discussed in recent meetings the "substance of a final deal" with Majority Leader Harry Reid and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. He declined to offer any specifics.

Reid, D-Nev., told reporters that the final outcome will not give the president what he wants.

"He's not going to have the blank check," Reid said. "There's a Congress and he has to deal with us."

Top
#581366 --- 05/24/07 09:05 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Strawberry Jam]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
(Reuters) - For the first time, the U.S. Congress is attaching conditions to some money it is approving related to the Iraq war.

Congressional Democrats had been hoping to tie funding to timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops but they did not have enough votes to overcome President George W. Bush's opposition. Instead, a deal has been worked out to link reconstruction aid to progress in Iraq.

Here are some conditions in the version Congress is expected to approve:

* Bush will report to Congress by July 15 and September 15 on Iraq's progress toward meeting 18 "benchmarks" for progress. Those include Baghdad's implementation of legislation to fairly distribute oil revenues, taking steps to disarm militias and improving Iraqi security forces' ability to effectively operate without U.S. backup;

* U.S. funds for Iraqi reconstruction projects could be denied if Bush reports inadequate progress. Currently, about $1.6 billion would be at stake. But Bush could waive the restriction and provide the money even without adequate progress;

* The U.S. Comptroller General, by September 1, would submit to Congress an independent report on Iraq's progress in meeting benchmarks;

* The Defense Department would commission an independent assessment of Iraq's security forces' readiness to take responsibility for protecting the country and report to Congress within four months.

Top
#581392 --- 05/24/07 10:00 PM Re: Democrats are backing down in Senate [Re: Retired Soldier]
Al Kida Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/14/06
Posts: 3102
Originally Posted By: Retired Soldier
(Reuters) - For the first time, the U.S. Congress is attaching conditions to some money it is approving related to the Iraq war.

Congressional Democrats had been hoping to tie funding to timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops but they did not have enough votes to overcome President George W. Bush's opposition. Instead, a deal has been worked out to link reconstruction aid to progress in Iraq.

Here are some conditions in the version Congress is expected to approve:

* Bush will report to Congress by July 15 and September 15 on Iraq's progress toward meeting 18 "benchmarks" for progress. Those include Baghdad's implementation of legislation to fairly distribute oil revenues, taking steps to disarm militias and improving Iraqi security forces' ability to effectively operate without U.S. backup;

* U.S. funds for Iraqi reconstruction projects could be denied if Bush reports inadequate progress. Currently, about $1.6 billion would be at stake. But Bush could waive the restriction and provide the money even without adequate progress;

* The U.S. Comptroller General, by September 1, would submit to Congress an independent report on Iraq's progress in meeting benchmarks;

* The Defense Department would commission an independent assessment of Iraq's security forces' readiness to take responsibility for protecting the country and report to Congress within four months.




Retired Soldier and I are very sad about being cheated by the Democrats!!!

First they are unable to pull the troops from Iraq like they promised during the election.

Then they are unable to withhold funding for the troops!!!

Now they are forced to fund the troops and must settle for attaching conditions, anyone of which the President can ignore!!!



"The measure will include benchmarks that the Baghdad government must meet to continue to receive U.S. reconstruction aid, although the president will be allowed to waive those requirements. . . . It also would threaten to withhold reconstruction aid if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms. The White House initially was cool to the idea of imposing consequences against the Iraqi government for failing to meet benchmarks, even though the president would be allowed to ignore the restriction if he wants. - http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n21/idn2007.05.23.13.42.00.html


Why have we been abandoned by our party!!!!
_________________________


Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >