Reid Spokesman: Short-Term War-Funding Option Won't Fly In Senate

[babylonsister]

Now what?

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/07/reid_spokesman_short_term_war_funding_option_wont_fly_in_senate

Reid Spokesman: Short-Term War-Funding Option Won't Fly In Senate
By Greg Sargent | bio

The other day we told you that a senior Congressional leadership source had confided to us that the short-term war-funding measure favored by Dem Rep. David Obey was going to face some serious reluctance in the Senate.

The Obey measure -- which would fund the war through July but make further funding contingent on progress in Iraq -- had stirred optimism among some Dem House staffers because it would allow Dems to keep standing up to the White House on Iraq while ducking Bush's charges that Dems weren't funding the troops.

Well, now Senate leader Harry Reid's spokesman has confirmed it: The plan is a non-starter in the Senate. From CQ Congress Daily (sub. only):

A House-backed plan to send President Bush a supplemental spending bill to fund the war only through July is not likely to get through the Senate, an aide to Senate Majority Leader Reid said today. "It's not anything that will fly in the Senate," spokesman Jim Manley said. Manley's comments and earlier opposition from Senate Armed Services Chairman Levin are likely to complicate efforts by the White House and congressional leaders to wrap up a new spending bill before the Memorial Day recess later this month.

No word yet on why. Now what?

[gratuitous]

1. Now what, indeed

Because there isn't a consensus on what to do next, the status quo continues, and that is that there is no supplemental funding to keep prosecuting the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. The Department of Defense is going to have to spend other money, if any can be found that isn't earmarked for other expenses, to keep things going over there.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Maybe the DOD could hold a series of bake sales and car washes if they can't find some

funds in that $500 billion annual budget.

[Rydz777]

3. It's Bush with his newly discovered veto pen who

is failing to fund the troops. The bill sent to him by the Democratic Congress provided full funding - and also supported the troops by bringing them home alive. Perhaps deadlock is the best outcome we can expect. It may give Bush a few talking points, but I wonder if anyone is listening to him anymore.

[AndyA]

4. Now what? It would seem to me the war is about to end.

Congress funded the troops. Gave Bush everything he asked for, plus some for things he didn't think about (like health care and rehabilitation for troops injured while on duty).

But that wasn't good enough for Bush because—GASP!—that mandated a date to start bringing the troops home. You'd think that was a bad thing! Bush vetoed it, and by doing so defunded the troops in Iraq.

The war is over when the money runs out. The troops come home.

They should mostly be home about the time the Iraqi government returns from their two month long vacation! Welcome back, your country is a mess. Send your thanks to George W. Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

[babylonsister]

5. I hope you're right; it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Dems had better not cave. :mad:

[damntexdem]

6. Now, nothing.

Wait a couple of months and see what senators think then.