Friday, March 23, 2007

House to pass "cut n run" legislation.......

Run now.........or run later........that is the question for the democrats who have surrendered to the enemy:

Liberals Relent on Iraq War FundingHouse Likely to Pass Bill With Pullout Date

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 23, 2007

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.

Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.

after, Out of Iraq Caucus leaders decided to break the pact that members had made to stick together against the bill. "We have released people who have been pained by all this," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "We told them we don't want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy's speakership."

"You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we're going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of, a group that opposes the war. "It doesn't make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?" he asked, referring to the liberals.

Wow! Just Wow........They sure throw that "victory" word around a lot. The democratic party would hate to give Bush a victory over them pesky jihadi's that are intent on killing us.

The administration's stand has only increased the anguish in the antiwar movement. The liberal activists of opted this week to back the funding bill, but the decision split the group's members and prompted accusations that the MoveOn leadership had stacked the endorsement vote. Win Without War, an umbrella group against the Iraq war, met Tuesday to decide whether to endorse the bill, but the divisions were too deep to bridge.

David Sirota, a former House Appropriations Committee aide who is now an uncompromising blogger, dashed off a memo to progressive lawmakers Wednesday night, imploring them to "accept the congressional world as it is right now," not to insist on the world as they wish it to be, and vote for the bill.

Now thats profane! This is a party that is truly in another world.

Also, in the Senate:

Panel OKs War Bill With Iraq Deadline
Mar 22, 4:13 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also calling on President Bush to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring.

The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday. The White House has threatened to veto the House measure and issued a veto threat against an earlier, similar version of the Senate withdrawal language.

One has to wonder why the AP didn't include the committee vote totals. Too much work, I suppose. If any legislation has a withdrawl date on it.......VETO!

No comments: