| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"john" |
| Date: |
14 May 2007 06:59:18 PM |
| Object: |
"We will not cut off funding for the troops" |
"We will not cut off funding for the troops, absolutely not,"
-Nancy Pelosi
December 5th, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070514/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Senate to vote on ending war funding
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago
Senate Democrats are staging a dramatic anti-war vote this week, with
moderates collaborating behind closed doors on legislation that could call
on President Bush to rethink his war strategy.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) announced Monday that
members will decide whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, as
well as consider a softer proposal calling for troops to leave this fall.
The two measures would be offered as amendments to a water projects funding
bill to be debated this week.
The votes, expected by Wednesday, will probably fall short of the 60-vote
threshold usually needed to advance controversial legislation. But they will
help Reid, D-Nev., test the Senate's political waters at a time when the
Democratic caucus is divided on how far Congress should go to end the war.
"These are important votes," said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. "This
will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have up-or-down
votes" on whether to end the war.
Earlier this month, Bush vetoed a $124 billion supplemental bill, which
would have funded the war but demanded troops begin coming home on Oct. 1.
Not having enough votes to override the veto but unwilling to back down,
House Democrats last week pushed through a new bill that would fund the war
only through July. That bill is unlikely to survive the Senate, where
several Democrats say they do not want to appear to be turning their backs
on the troops by funding combat in installments.
"On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something very,
very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be
vetoed," Reid said.
Accordingly, Reid and Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) proposed
that the Senate vote on legislation demanding troop withdrawals begin on
Oct. 1 but allowing Bush to waive that requirement.
Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, called the
approach the Senate's "second-best" option. "By providing for the
presidential waiver, we are removing any reason for the president to veto
the supplemental funding bill," he said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush opposes the Levin amendment.
"Such timelines tie the hands of our commanders, weaken our friends,
embolden our enemies and enhance the risk faced by our troops in combat,"
Perino said. "The bottom line is that a date for retreat is a date for
retreat, and the president opposes such provisions."
Under pressure from other more liberal party members, Reid also wants to
give members a chance to cut off money for combat operations after March 31,
2008. Reid co-sponsored the legislation earlier this year alongside Sen.
Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), but he said he would not push it
as a caucus position.
"The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether
or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy our
brave troops," said Feingold, D-Wis.
The votes come as nearly a dozen Republican senators have been discussing
possible legislation on the war, including a proposal by Sen. John Warner
(news, bio, voting record) that would call on the president to re-evaluate
his Iraq strategy if the Baghdad government does not meet certain
benchmarks.
"We're trying to put together a single document" that would address concerns
of GOP senators, Warner, R-Va., said in an interview.
Warner said he personally backs requiring reports before the August recess
and in September on the extent to which Iraqis are making progress on
political and security reforms.
Warner said he wants to get a report by July at least "so members of
Congress have an evaluation of that situation as they presumably go back to
their respective constituencies." If the Baghdad government fails in meeting
the benchmarks, "then the president is to determine whether he is to revise
the strategy that he laid forward," he added.
Warner said he has been discussing the idea with the group and plans to talk
about it Tuesday with Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb. The
goal, he said, is to develop a proposal that attracts broad bipartisan
support.
The list of Republicans working with Warner include Sens. Susan Collins
(news, bio, voting record) of Maine and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting
record) of Minnesota.
Nelson has drafted similar legislation that would go even further. If the
Iraqis failed to make progress on certain political and security reforms,
the U.S. would cut off reconstruction aid. Under the bill, the president
could waive the restriction if he provides public justification.
Nelson's bill also would require the U.S. commander in Iraq to testify by
Sept. 15 on whether Bush's troop buildup around Baghdad is working.
"The Senate needs to move forward," Nelson said. "The president has signaled
he will accept reasonable benchmarks."
The alliance of Nelson and Warner and other moderates on Iraq is reminiscent
of the "Gang of 14," a group of senators who in 2005 drafted a compromise to
end a Senate fight on judicial nominations.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information
contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated
Press.
.
|
|
| User: "XTS" |
|
| Title: Re: "We will not cut off funding for the troops" |
14 May 2007 07:47:27 PM |
|
|
"john" <j@j.com> wrote in message
news:pJ62i.344658$My6.156330@fe08.news.easynews.com...
"We will not cut off funding for the troops, absolutely not,"
-Nancy Pelosi
December 5th, 2006
Things change. When in the face of sheer ignorance and stubborness to a
fault, and when a country is screaming for an unjust war to end, the
democrats must meet their elected mandate with anything they can.
The republicans are meeting logic, reason, and common sense with insane
rhetoric from the bush republicans. The repubicans continued assault on the
democrats patriotism, courage and resolve ends all bets. If the republicans
want to continue their insane nonsense, the Democrats have no choice but to
adjust to the conditons the republicans set.
The republicans have set a combative set of rules.
The democrats have an elected majority. The republicans want to circumvent
that with strongarm tactics through far right wing extremism. For that they
will have to face a new set of circumstances set by the majority elected by
"WE THE PEOPLE."
Republicans don't want to, but they will have to play by the rules of the
Constitution, no matter how unpalatable it is to them.
They threw down a gauntlet of dirty politics to try to transpose a
democratic majority into their hands by name calling and over the top
accusations of the democrats not supporting the troops, when the truth is,
the democrats just don't support the presidents failed policies.
Their tactics are transparant and absurd, and will not work.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070514/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Senate to vote on ending war funding
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago
Senate Democrats are staging a dramatic anti-war vote this week, with
moderates collaborating behind closed doors on legislation that could call
on President Bush to rethink his war strategy.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) announced Monday
that
members will decide whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year,
as
well as consider a softer proposal calling for troops to leave this fall.
The two measures would be offered as amendments to a water projects
funding
bill to be debated this week.
The votes, expected by Wednesday, will probably fall short of the 60-vote
threshold usually needed to advance controversial legislation. But they
will
help Reid, D-Nev., test the Senate's political waters at a time when the
Democratic caucus is divided on how far Congress should go to end the war.
"These are important votes," said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. "This
will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have
up-or-down
votes" on whether to end the war.
Earlier this month, Bush vetoed a $124 billion supplemental bill, which
would have funded the war but demanded troops begin coming home on Oct. 1.
Not having enough votes to override the veto but unwilling to back down,
House Democrats last week pushed through a new bill that would fund the
war
only through July. That bill is unlikely to survive the Senate, where
several Democrats say they do not want to appear to be turning their backs
on the troops by funding combat in installments.
"On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something
very,
very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to
be
vetoed," Reid said.
Accordingly, Reid and Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) proposed
that the Senate vote on legislation demanding troop withdrawals begin on
Oct. 1 but allowing Bush to waive that requirement.
Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, called the
approach the Senate's "second-best" option. "By providing for the
presidential waiver, we are removing any reason for the president to veto
the supplemental funding bill," he said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush opposes the Levin amendment.
"Such timelines tie the hands of our commanders, weaken our friends,
embolden our enemies and enhance the risk faced by our troops in combat,"
Perino said. "The bottom line is that a date for retreat is a date for
retreat, and the president opposes such provisions."
Under pressure from other more liberal party members, Reid also wants to
give members a chance to cut off money for combat operations after March
31,
2008. Reid co-sponsored the legislation earlier this year alongside Sen.
Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), but he said he would not push it
as a caucus position.
"The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether
or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy
our
brave troops," said Feingold, D-Wis.
The votes come as nearly a dozen Republican senators have been discussing
possible legislation on the war, including a proposal by Sen. John Warner
(news, bio, voting record) that would call on the president to re-evaluate
his Iraq strategy if the Baghdad government does not meet certain
benchmarks.
"We're trying to put together a single document" that would address
concerns
of GOP senators, Warner, R-Va., said in an interview.
Warner said he personally backs requiring reports before the August recess
and in September on the extent to which Iraqis are making progress on
political and security reforms.
Warner said he wants to get a report by July at least "so members of
Congress have an evaluation of that situation as they presumably go back
to
their respective constituencies." If the Baghdad government fails in
meeting
the benchmarks, "then the president is to determine whether he is to
revise
the strategy that he laid forward," he added.
Warner said he has been discussing the idea with the group and plans to
talk
about it Tuesday with Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb.
The
goal, he said, is to develop a proposal that attracts broad bipartisan
support.
The list of Republicans working with Warner include Sens. Susan Collins
(news, bio, voting record) of Maine and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting
record) of Minnesota.
Nelson has drafted similar legislation that would go even further. If the
Iraqis failed to make progress on certain political and security reforms,
the U.S. would cut off reconstruction aid. Under the bill, the president
could waive the restriction if he provides public justification.
Nelson's bill also would require the U.S. commander in Iraq to testify by
Sept. 15 on whether Bush's troop buildup around Baghdad is working.
"The Senate needs to move forward," Nelson said. "The president has
signaled
he will accept reasonable benchmarks."
The alliance of Nelson and Warner and other moderates on Iraq is
reminiscent
of the "Gang of 14," a group of senators who in 2005 drafted a compromise
to
end a Senate fight on judicial nominations.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
information
contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated
Press.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bokonon" |
|
| Title: Re: "We will not cut off funding for the troops" |
15 May 2007 09:10:57 AM |
|
|
"john" <j@j.com> wrote in message
news:pJ62i.344658$My6.156330@fe08.news.easynews.com...
"We will not cut off funding for the troops, absolutely not,"
-Nancy Pelosi
December 5th, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070514/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Senate to vote on ending war funding
Yup.
Cutting of troops for the WAR not for the TROOPS you fucking moron.
--
"History! Read it and weep!"
-Bokonon
_______________________________________________
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain America" |
|
| Title: Re: "We will not cut off funding for the troops" |
14 May 2007 07:42:32 PM |
|
|
john wrote:
"We will not cut off funding for the troops, absolutely not,"
-Nancy Pelosi
December 5th, 2006
First republicans asswipes did the yellow ribbon stickers on their SUV's
which said "Support the troops" when what they were really saying
"Support the war". For many gullible Americans that worked. Now it
seems republicans, like the original poster of this thread, are still
confused as to the difference between the troops and war. Doesn't
matter since I think most of America, especially for the former gullible
ones, know the difference now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
