| | List |
| Subject: | Re: Democrats Set Iraq Deadline in Poison Pill Bills |
| Poster: | maribmarib@dhotmail.com |
| Date: | Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:06:51 -0500 |
| Related Postings: | 1 2 |
George Z. Bush wrote:
> "Joe Avelon" wrote in message
> news:4601fc88$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>>
>> Senate Democrats on Wednesday revived legislation urging President Bush to
>> bring combat troops home from Iraq in a year.
>>
>> The move puts Democrats on track for another confrontation with Bush over the
>> war and with Republicans, who are expected to block the measure.
>>
>> House Democratic leaders are pushing a similar measure that would require that
>> troops leave by the fall of 2008.
>>
>> The measure would provide nearly $97 Billion for the wars in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan and Billions more in unrelated domestic programs.
>>
>> It would require that Bush begin bringing home troops within four months of
>> the bill's passage, setting a nonbinding goal of having all U.S. combat troops
>> out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.
>>
>> The provision is similar to a resolution the Senate rejected last week. The
>> vote then was 50-48, 12 shy of the 60 needed to pass, after Bush pledged to
>> veto the legislation.
>>
>> Republican leaders say they will reject the bill.
>>
>> "We must not risk providing our troops the equipment and supplies they need to
>> carry out their mission by including this risky Democratic leadership retreat
>> plan, this poison pill," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of
>> Kentucky. "We owe our troops better than that."
>>
>> Sean Kevelighan, spokesman for the White House budget office, said it is
>> "unfortunate that the Senate is wanting to delay vital funds for our troops by
>> producing a bill that mirrors House legislation that will never become law,
>> attempts to tie the hands of our military commanders and is a Christmas wish
>> list of non-war related spending add-ons."
>>
>> The House was expected to begin debate Thursday on a similar spending bill.
>> The bill, which Bush also threatened to veto, would require that combat troops
>> be out of Iraq before September 2008. The bill calls for a full redeployment
>> of combat forces by as early as December if certain benchmarks aren't met.
>>
>> The Senate measure requires the U.S. commander in Iraq to submit regular
>> reports on progress made by the Iraqi government toward meeting those goals;
>> the president also would have to report on progress made in redeploying
>> troops.
>
> Attaching riders (amendments) to bills is a time-honored way to get things
> enacted that otherwise would die in committee. It's not something nefarious
> invented by either side, because both sides do it when they think that that's
> the only way to get something passed that couldn't make it if it was on its own.
>
> In this case, if the President wants the money to continue operations in Iraq,
> he's going to have to accept whatever the Democrats succeed in attaching to the
> money bill. He can threaten to veto it, (and indeed could do so if he wished)
> but then he'd be accused of not getting the money for the stuff the troops need.
> The Republican leaders can huff and puff all they want about it, but they don't
> control either house and have no say on what gets voted on.
This is exactly what we have always known about the DemocRATS.
They don't support the troops and intend to cut off funds for
the troops.
|
|