Democrats Weigh Post-Veto Iraq Options

Guardian ^ | April 22, 2007 | ANNE FLAHERTY

[Sleeping Beauty]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats are considering their next step after President Bush's inevitable veto of their war spending proposal, including a possible short-term funding bill that would force Congress to revisit the issue this summer.

Another alternative is providing the Pentagon the money it needs for the war but insisting that the Iraqi government live up to certain political promises. Or, the congressional Democrats could send Bush what he wants for now and set their sights on 2008 spending legislation.

Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Iraq war, is expected to brief lawmakers behind closed doors as they cast their final vote.

The legislation is expected to fund the Iraq war but call for combat troops to leave, probably by March 31, 2008. Bush has promised to reject it and Republicans say they will back him, leaving Democrats short of the two-thirds majority support needed to override the veto.

Democratic leaders have been reluctant to discuss their next step, focusing instead on their ability to send Bush legislation rebuking his Iraq policy....

Rep. Lynn Woolsey said she likes the idea of a limited funding bill because it keeps open the possibility that Congress will cut off money for the war this summer....

Levin, D-Mich., said that should Bush veto the war spending bill, Democrats could pass legislation that would drop the timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal but require the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks. He declined to provide further specifics....

``We don't want to throw in the towel,'' said Moran, D-Va. ``The problem is (Bush) is willing to play chicken with funding the troops and we aren't. We just aren't going to take a chance (the Pentagon) will run out of funding for the troops.''

[Sleeping Beauty]

So, what do you think?

Will the Dems buckle and remove the timetable?

Will Bush sign and throwaway the timetable?

Will Dems redraft bill with short-term funding?

Can you make an accurate prediction? (I'm taking notes to find the sharpest Freeper ;-)

[Dog]

They remove the timetable.

[jveritas]

With these traitors it is hard to predict what they are going to do. They will only think about power and whether this treasonous bill will give them better chance at power or reduce this chance, that is all what they care about.

[mware]

If the do what Murtha wants they will cut the military with a thousand cuts. Allotting monies every 2 months.

[Old Sarge]

Bush won’t veto.

[Nathan Zachary]

Democrats are just going to have to make it an election issue.
That means they don't have, and won't anything else to campaign on, except perhaps "global warming" and how they plan to destroy the economy at the same time they dismantle the military.

They have done nothing but consume all their time and energy focused on loosing the WOT. The haven't a clue how they are going to run a nation.

Perhaps they'll throw the usual "free healthcare" bait out as well.

Republicans can win the next election, but they'd better smarten up and start marching to the same drummer.

[Raycpa]

Can you make an accurate prediction? (I'm taking notes to find the sharpest Freeper ;-)

Prediction: The usual freepers will through a fit that Bush caved no matter what is later agreed to.

[mware]

If the timetable is in it, it is a sure veto.

[Jeff Chandler]

Remove the timetable and include non-binding “benchmarks” for the Iraq government.

[Sleeping Beauty]

jveritas — it sounds like you’re saying that the Dems will try for a new bill with limited funding, cause if they buckle under, they will lose power.

[jveritas]

If there is a “binding” time table for withdrawal he will veto the treasonous bill. The democrats may probably come up with a something to save the face and put a “non binding” time table for withdrawal in this case it will be a meaningless measure by them and the President will sign the bill since it will fulfill what he and the troops wanted.

[Sleeping Beauty]

Bush won’t veto.

Sarge, that's what I'm thinking.

Those timetables don't kick in for a long time. And I imagine Bush will ignore them, anyway.

[Raycpa]

and include non-binding “benchmarks” for the Iraq government.

And non-binding homemade apple pie recipes.

[jveritas]

This may be a possibility but may be my post 11 can be closer to what they will do.

[Sleeping Beauty]

Remove the timetable and include non-binding “benchmarks” for the Iraq government.

Good point, Jeff. That way everybody saves face. And that's what politics is all about.

[Dog]

Sarge I think this once Bush will veto.

[skr]

Can Bush sign and throw away the timetable? Would an executive order be appropriate or is there some other method he can use?

[Sleeping Beauty]

This may be a possibility but may be my post 11 can be closer to what they will do.

Okay, jveritas. It sounds like you're looking at non-binding language attached to the bill. I've got you down for that.

[ASA Vet]

Bush will veto the bill. Congress being mostly anti-American Commies will not do another funding bill thereby forcing a withdrawal. I picked that option because of the options it’s the most damaging to the nation.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats have made it clear they think America has already lost. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would vote to bring home the troops immediately. Why keep them in harm's way for a year? That position makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus