Unpopular Iraq compromise looms over congressional Democrats

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Unpopular Iraq compromise looms over congressional Democrats

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior Democratic sources tell CNN that Democratic congressional leaders realize they must drop a timeline for troop withdrawal from an Iraq war spending bill, and that doing so will cost the votes of several anti-war lawmakers.

Congress passed the $124 billion spending bill last week which would have removed most U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008 at the latest, but President Bush vetoed the measure Tuesday.

Democratic leaders find themselves in a bind because they have repeatedly promised not to cut funding for troops already in harm's way, but they realize that doing so requires sending the president a bill that he will sign by the end of the month. Sources say the leaders know full well that that means they cannot send the president another war funding bill with troop withdrawal language.

The sources also say that Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are aware that they will anger their base in the short-term and that a significant number of Democratic legislators will refuse to support a compromise war funding bill that does not include a troop withdrawal plan.

In an effort to calm the outrage among many in their caucus, Democratic leaders are already promising to take up the fight again soon as part of the defense authorization and appropriation bills.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/unpopular-iraq-compromise-looms-over.html

[AndyA]

1. This is bullshit. The Dems are just as bad as the GOP.

The Dems DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. PERIOD.

They gave * what he wanted, plus, and he vetoed it. The Dems aren't cutting the funding, they provided it. BUSH CUT THE FUNDING WITH HIS VETO.

This is why the Democratic Party spends so much time on the losing end of things. They have no spine. The GOP will lie, cheat, steal, and accuse the Dems of doing wrong, when the GOP is in fact in the wrong.

And the Dems let them get away with it time after time.

I'm sick of it. We need some Dems with a spine like Russ Feingold who will tell the GOP and * where to stick it.

The Dems know what we want. It's very clear. Now they are also going to ignore the American people. :wtf:

Plus, they are forgetting the fact that the war was all based on lies in the first place. Yet another reason for bringing the troops home NOW. They had no business being over there in the first place.

[antiimperialist]

3. You exaggerate

Just because some Democrats are about to make a bonehead move doesn't mean they are all in all as bad as the GOP.
I disagree with the imminent drop of a timeline, but let's be fair. And remember that not all Democrats will go ahead with this move.

[AndyA]

9. But enough of them will that Bush will, ONCE AGAIN

get what he wants.

And the American people get ZIP. SCREWED.

What good is an opposing party when there is no opposition?

Impeachment is off the table. The most corrupt administration in our history, and nothing is going to be done to stop them. Why?

We are involved in an illegal war, based on lies. And our troops are dying every single day. Yet no one will stop the war.

The opposing party needs to start OPPOSING instead of POSTURING.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. We need a compromise. Put HR333 on the judiciary agenda and promise

a floor vote if it's passed by the committee. (Hr333 is the articles of impeachment against Cheney)

Then go fund the occupation.

As a member of the Dem base, I'd take that deal.

[tblue]

8. Why is everyone so afraid to stand up to the 32%-approval Idiot? I don't get it.

[AndyA]

11. He isn't even at 32% any longer.

Last I heard, he'd dropped to 28%, which means if the real story were told, he's probably in the upper teens.

[pocoloco]

2. What would make the dumb fucks think it would work the next time??

[Bobbieo]

4. Bush is still here, Cheney is still here, Gonzo is still here!

We couldn't override the veto today! Guess we are not really the majority party, are we!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. This will cost them voters

this may mean a third party PERIOD, a viable third party

[John Q. Citizen]

12. When has that ever occured in our history? Just wondering.

Because I'd like a system where 3rd 4th and 5th parties have some power.

But under the rules as written, it's impossible.

3rd parties are always relegated to being spoilers. I wish it were different, but I've never seen an example where it isn't.

[Solon]

13. Well, the Whigs were replaced by the Republicans due to...

abolition. I think that was about the only time it ever happened.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Yes, a new party arose and an old party disappeared. But we didn't have 3 parties

for much time at all.

[PFunk]

17. Damn right it's going to cost them votes-and more.

More and more dems are leaving the party and becoming indies because of this. Unless something changes (like the dems showing a spine) this is how the repugs are going to win both the house and senate next year. As many of the dems base may instead vote for 3rd party canadates or not go out to vote at all (as many blacks are now talking about doing).

It's risky to ignore you base dems. Say what you want about the repugs (and I can say plenty). But they never ignore their base-no mater how 'sick' it is.

[msongs]

7. got a $$ solicitation from the DNC today - it is going back with a nasty note in it

let the dems in congress who cave in get their campaign money from halliburton (if they don't already).

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Clarkie1]

10. Our good Democrats are doing all they can. I hate what Edwards is doing.

He's such a hypocrite.

[sampsonblk]

14. Outrageous

They shold stare him down, same as he does us. Wait till close to the end of the month and send him the ssame friggin bill he got before. If its so important for him to have the money, then he can sign what he's offered.

[Forkboy]

15. I would like think that the Dems would have thought far enough ahead

that they actually had a plan ready for this veto that even micro-organisms living in the jungles of New Guinea saw coming.

I would like to think that but all evidence shows otherwise.

[Rydz777]

16. "they will anger their base"

Well, they'll anger at least one tiny part of it - me. I heard Chuck Schumer tonight (on Charlie Rose) say that the Democratic Leadership has no confidence in Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. If true, why this talk about "benchmarks?" The whole concept of "benchmarks" is fraudulent, just a bit of smoke and mirrors to satisfy the "commander guy."