Liberal Dems back party's war bill [Perino: "height of irresponsibility," }

[rodeodance]

Source: ap



Liberal Dems back party's war bill

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday.


The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.

The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008.

The White House said Bush would veto the bill if it comes to him. Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino called the legislation the "height of irresponsibility," charging Democrats with merely trying to "appease radical groups" such as MoveOn.org and Code Pink.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[mike_c]

1. good lord, dems keep pushing the date back, year after year....

That is almost as bad as giving Bush a blank check. A year ago it was "troops home by the end of 2007" and the year before that it was plans and proposals for troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006 (dates are made up, but you get the point). This is silly and ridiculous-- if the troops should have been home by 2006 in 2005 then they should all be home RIGHT NOW. Dems are making a mockery of their own arguments during the last several years.

STOP THE FUNDING. BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

[Javaman]

4. Everything is timed to the Titanic's chair rotations, excuse me, elections. nt

[Prophet 451]

9. "now" is impossible

The sheer logistics involved means that even if a pullout were to pass today, you're looking at two to three months minimum.

[mike_c]

12. of course, and that is precisely what I'm talking about....

The most rapid withdrawal possible. Every day U.S. troops remain in Iraq compounds the criminality of the war. Hell, I want them out yesterday, or two years ago, but I'd settle for three months.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. And who, Dana, is Bush constantly trying to appease? Bin Laden? If Bush can just keep

his 'wars' going, he'll continue to swell the ranks of those 'terrorists'!

[immoderate]

3. So Bush will veto it, and I hope he does. But then...

the Democrats have to stick to their guns. It doesn't matter how soft the bill is, the idea is to get the veto, withhold the funds.

Are people fed up enough yet so the Dems don't run scared -- let's hope so. We're talking about trillions of dollars here and no end in sight to this useless exercise. We must have reached a critical mass that will stop the madness.

--IMM

[Xipe Totec]

5. trying to appease radical groups

like the registered voters of the United States.

[rodeodance]

6. bush has had to work hard at memorizing those two groups you know!

[Oak2004]

8. Yeah, us fringe 76% n/t

[Xipe Totec]

17. The Spirit of 76%

[rodeodance]

7. disappointed that the 2008 date was a nonbinding goal that Bush could ignore.

A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."

The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war.

"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."

Woolsey, Lee and Waters said they remained disappointed that the 2008 date was a nonbinding goal that Bush could ignore. But, they said they realized the provision made it more likely that the Senate could pass it.

[Prophet 451]

10. Ladies & gents, here is the Bush approach for 2008

Anything the Democrats want will be vetoed and dismissed as "appeasing the far-left".

Sorry guys but the next year is going to be legislative deadlock. Chimpy is going to veto anything even slightly progressive. If his veto is overidden, he'll either work out some way of ordering the DoJ not to enforce it or spout something about fiscal irresponsibility and far-left groups. He's determined that Congress may not pass anything he dislikes but have to give him what he wants (i.e. a war with Iran).

My guess is that, apart from the purely routine stuff, nothing much is going to get done in the next year.

Still, I guess that's an improvement over the last six years...

[kelligesq]

11. I'd like to know Dana's background. Is she one of Rev. Foulmouth's graduates,

another kool aid drinker?

[drm604]

13. It's not just MoveOn.org and Code Pink that these traitors are appeasing.

They're also appeasing the American people at large. How dare that do that, those seditious finks! :sarcasm:

[Roland99]

14. Perino: "Like, gosh. I mean, come on and, like, support our troops!"

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. "We can't withdraw troops from this war because, well, we're at war."

1. Congress passes a bill giving Pres. his money, but attaches a non-binding proviso to it.
2. Pres. vetoes it, wagging his willy at Congress once again.
3. Democratic leadership puts on a stern face, looks down, kicks the ground, issues a strongly-worded press statement, and
4. Passes the bill again, but this time without the offending proviso.
5. Pres. signs it.
6. Three months later...
7. Go to Step (1)

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Larkspur]

16. Looks like our Dem leaders learned the hard way that censuring Moveon.org...

and ignoring America's discontent with the Iraq war and the billions we're losing over there did not improve their poll numbers.

[and-justice-for-all]

18. Bullocks!!

What a load of shit.

Would someone please elect me to those positions so I can tell those assholes "FUCK NO! We are done here, NEXT!!"