Posted on 05/25/2007 9:55:13 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Republican and Democratic congressional leaders both forecast a change in President Bush's Iraq war policy as the president prepared to sign legislation Friday providing funds for military operations through Sept. 30.
"I think the president's policy is going to begin to unravel now," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), who described the just-passed measure as a disappointment because it did not force an end to U.S. participation in the conflict.
At a separate news conference, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) predicted a change, and said Bush would show the way.
"I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall and I think the president is going to lead it," he said.
McConnell said he expects Bush announce his intentions on his own timetable.
The legislation that cleared Congress late Thursday night marked the end of a struggle in which Bush rejected an earlier bill because it contained a troop withdrawal timetable.
The White House said it expected to receive the replacement measure Friday afternoon and that Bush would sign it — privately, with no fanfare other than a written announcement — as soon as it arrived from Capitol Hill.
Democrats say the fight is far from over.
"We're going to keep coming back and coming back," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
The war spending bill provides some $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and billions in domestic projects, including more than $6 billion for hurricane relief. The House voted 280-142 to pass the bill, followed by a 80-14 vote in the Senate.
Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) both voted against the bill.
"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."
Their votes continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.
Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a GOP presidential contender, said the two Democrats were embracing a "policy of surrender."
"This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to al-Qaida," said McCain, R-Ariz. MoveOn.org is a grass-roots anti-war group that rose to prominence in last year's elections.
Thursday's legislative action capped weeks of negotiations with the White House, which agreed to accept some $17 billion more than Bush had requested as long as there were no restrictions on the military campaign.
"If all funding bills are going to be this partisan and contentious, it will be a very long year," said McConnell.
In the months ahead, lawmakers will vote repeatedly on whether U.S. troops should stay and whether Bush has the authority to continue the war. The Democratic strategy is intended to ratchet up pressure on the president, as well as on moderate Republicans who have grown tired of defending Bush administration policy in a deeply unpopular war.
The Senate will go first when it considers a defense policy bill authorizing $649 billion in military spending in 2008. The proposed bill, approved this week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, cut $12 billion from the administration's $142 billion war-related request to fund other programs, including an increase in the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, plans to offer an amendment that would order troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days.
Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., said he would press to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing combat in Iraq.
Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., said Thursday that if the security situation in Iraq does not improve by mid-July, the president should consider adopting a new strategy there.
"It seems to me it's time for them (Iraqi troops) to ... step up," said Warner, R-Va.
The most critical votes on the war are likely to be cast in September when the House and Senate debate war funding for 2008. The House plans to consider one measure that would end combat by July 2008 and another intended to repeal Bush's authority to wage war in Iraq.
The September votes likely will come after Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus tells Congress whether Bush's troop buildup plan is working. Also due by September is an independent assessment of progress made by the Iraqi government.
The U.S. has spent more than $300 billion on Iraq military operations so far, according to the congressional Government Accountability Office.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, May 25, 2007, to discuss House Democrats' accomplishments prior to the Memorial Day. From left are,House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Pelosi. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
in the pic caption..
..discuss House Democrats’ accomplishments prior to the Memorial Day..
—
Oh, that should take a while to review. ;-)
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt :)
“I think the president’s policy is going to begin to unravel now,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, hopefully.
There, fixed it.
‘War on Terror’ is #1
transposed with
What ‘War on Terror’?
Make your choice..
but know ya have to sleep with it.
We all knew the other shoe had to drop.....
Although, it may have been the Amnesty bill that was the trade-off concession by the Pubbies, too.
The Iraqis have until September to get their act in gear, Republicans and Democrats are ready to come home. As Reagan wrote in his diary, "We have rabbits when we need tigers"
Yep ... time for a call to double the combat brigades for both the Army and the Marines. And that would include Active duty, Reserve, and National Guard.
Fully fund their equipment, training, enlistment and retention programs. And while we are at it... fully fund the required equipment replacement needed for the existing units.
..
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, May 25, 2007, to discuss House Democrats' accomplishments prior to the Memorial Day. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
Sounds like 'Show me the way to go home'.
US House Minority Leader John Boehner (L), R-OH, speaks with Senator Trent Lott (R), R-MS, and Sentor Mitch McConnell, R-KT, as they exit the White House after a meeting with US President George W. Bush in Washington, DC. Democrats in Congress are plotting a new round of political attrition over Iraq, apparently confident their hand will strengthen the longer their clash drags on with President George W. Bush.(AFP/Jim Watson) May 3, 2007
A new strategy for Iraq that would be thoroughly Republican would be an “Economic Development Alliance.”
We would withdraw from the Sunni Triangle, concentrate all our forces on Kurdish and Seaport Regions and provide major assistance for economic development, to include transport and marketing of oil. In short, we’d isolate warring elements from economic regions (ports, oil fields, etc.) and support those states as if they were truly confederate states.
This would allow the warring regions to have it out. With bases in the north, the south, the Gulf, Kuwait, and the Emirates, we could contain any conflict and keep it from spilling outside those regions.
Offers for warring regions to join the economic confederacy would be left standing and the requirement would be a state government that had totally subdued any hostile elements in their state.
OBL is laughing his arse off, after killing 3000 of us, we are now worshipping Nancy Pelosi the commie vampire of SanFrancisco.
If we’re going to pull the troops out, why do we need more of them?
2) We need more troops to reduce the duration of a rotation. This allows greater time to reconstitute the units back that are not on rotation.
3) Looking forward, it looks like we will need to put more troops in Afghanistan, possibly Iraq as the surge strategy appears to be working.
4) It also looks like we are on a confrontation path with Iran.
Lets not get caught flat footed like we did after Clinton’s so called “peace dividend”
This is all BS and bluster by the dems and rino republicans since they failed to force Bush to accept their crappy funding bill. Although I hate Bush’s policy on illegals I do like the way he handled this. Now all he has to do is find the guts to tell people that the military kills people and sometimes civilians get hurt and stop trying our guys for murder, except in cases where it really is murder(I.E.:Killing Iraqi civilians without any combat related activity involved). Also, he has to realize this isn’t a colony of Mexico but the United States of America and give up on this insane amensty bill.
So, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the minimum wage increase, voted against billions in hurricane relief, voted against more body armor for our troops, and god know how much more we can say they voted against.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.