Posted on 03/14/2007 10:22:29 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
Tempers flared on Iraq among Democrats on Tuesday as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fielded criticism from an anti-war congresswoman over liberals' concern that the party is not doing enough to end the war.
Pelosi's behind-closed-doors exchange with Rep. Maxine Waters of California — described as heated by lawmakers and aides who asked not to be identified because of the session's private nature — came as House leaders made progress in their quest for votes on a war spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq by 2008.
Several Democrats said they had been persuaded to support the measure — the party's first binding action to challenge President Bush's war policies — after last-minute changes and a weekend at home with constituents.
The bill is slated for a test vote Thursday in the Appropriations Committee. It is proving a formidable test of Democratic leaders, who are steering a tricky path between liberals who oppose any funding for the military effort and conservatives who do not want to restrict unduly the commander in chief.
Leaders said they were hopeful they could sway enough Democrats to support the $124 billion plan, but a handful of left-of-center lawmakers, including Waters, have declared they won't back it.
"I am philosophically opposed to the war," Waters told reporters after the private meeting. "We're voting to give the president of the United States almost $100 billion to continue the war. I can't support it."
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he was hopeful that Democrats could get the votes to prevail, and Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the party's chief vote-counter, said there was significant support for it.
"Have we got 218 votes for this? I don't know. We're trying to find out. But we're much closer today than we were yesterday," Clyburn said.
Still, lingering tensions on Iraq were aired at a meeting of House Democrats, according to those who attended. Waters told Pelosi that the proposed funding measure did not reflect the sentiments of a group of liberals who call themselves the "Out of Iraq" caucus and favor denying funding for the war and using the money instead for a withdrawal.
Pelosi argued that the measure would accomplish their goals, and she went on to criticize Waters and other members of the group who abruptly left a meeting about the plan last week to hold a news conference saying they opposed it.
In remarks to reporters, Waters denied having an angry exchange with Pelosi. "They've done the best job that they can do," Waters said of House leaders.
Lawmakers and aides who were present at the session said it was a heated moment that reflected the difficulties leaders have experienced getting agreement on the funding measure.
"There is still some frustration — it's just human," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., a liberal who is supporting the funding measure.
Pelosi also fielded criticism from lawmakers for removing language from the bill barring military action against Iran without congressional approval. She said the issue would be addressed in future legislation.
"We're having folks expressing every doubt, every reservation, every aspiration they have for this bill," said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., another supporter.
In a bid to broaden its appeal, leaders stripped the Iran requirement and omitted language favored by several liberal members that would have specifically prohibited funding of military operations after fall 2008.
While the liberals said this threat would help enforce the deadline, Democratic leaders viewed the politically charged language as unnecessary.
The measure provides nearly $100 billion for two wars, including more money than Bush had requested for operations in Afghanistan, and to address what Democrats called training and equipment shortages. House Republicans say they will work to sink the measure, and the White House threatens a veto.
"Congress should approve the funds our troops are counting on without strings and without delay," Rob Portman, Bush's budget chief, said in a statement Tuesday.
Portman criticized Democrats for adding billions in unrelated domestic spending to the measure.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, who was initially skeptical of Pelosi's approach, said he is now on board with the measure and is trying to persuade other members to stop fussing over when troops should leave Iraq.
"The date question has become moot" because the military is running on fumes, said Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.
Rep. Alan Boyd of Florida, a conservative Democrat who had voiced concerns about the Iran language, said he would now support the measure.
"I think it's the right thing to do," Boyd said, adding that Democrats had an obligation to make sure that troops on the ground don't run out of money.
Public opinion has swung the way of Democrats on the issue of the war. More than six in 10 Americans think the conflict was a mistake — the largest number yet found in AP-Ipsos polling.
Some skeptics of the plan sounded resigned to its passage.
"The majority of members are content that it is a compromise, and they'll probably go along with it to get a bill done," said Rep. James Moran, D-Va., adding that he's still on the fence.
"It's a far cry from the bill that I originally supported," Moran said, referring to one drafted by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., that would have tied funding to troop training and readiness standards. The new proposal would allow Bush to waive such standards.
The Senate is to hold a test-vote Wednesday on a Democratic-written measure that also contains a 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of combat troops, except those needed to train Iraqi forces, protect U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and carry out counterterrorism operations.
Pass the popcorn, this gets better each day.
The Pelosi crowd couldn't keep this out of the paper....She's losing control.
Hilarious! Ya gotta love it. Get the popcorn. ;o)
I hope this stuff kills the Dems come next election.
Looks like Pelosi is really showing leadership when a mental giant like Waters gets into a shouting match with her. Couldn't happen to more deserving people.
'Thinking' is not one of Maxine Waters everyday occurances.
Let them continues to battle and fight, so as long as they are busy from not screwing up the USA and hatch out plans in how the USA will retreat from Iraq.
Democrats Enter The Briar Patch ( The Senate )
******************************8EXCERPT**********************************
The Senate just voted 89-9 to go ahead and debate the Democrats’ Iraq Surrender Plan now that the surge is not only showing amazing results, but is actually saving US and Iraqi lives. Want to be the 9 nay votes were Democrats trying to avoid the coming disaster? The Dems are now in the political trap they most feared.
The Buffoon Caucus ( Rep. Maxine Waters - Remove U.S. Troops in Iraq by August of 1980)
I was going to mention that, also the Mars Flag! :-)
Cut And Run 3.0 On Display At The Victory Caucus
*****************************EXCERPT***********************************
The Democratic plan to lose the war in Iraq has been transcribed by NZ Bear at The Victory Caucus. NZ also has a link to a PDF scan of the document, but the gist of the bill is captured in his transcription. The heart of its unconstitionality can be found in Sections 1902 and 1903:
Sec. 1902 (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.
Congress may also find that the executive branch sets that policy and its parameters for implementation. The Constitution gives Congress no authority to either deploy troops or to undeploy them, only to give the executive the authority to conduct war and the power of the purse to end it. This looks very much like an intrusion on the President's authority as Commander in Chief to determine troop movements during conflict, and puts the United States in a position where we have 535 Commanders in Chief -- definitely not what the founders had in mind.
After this, Section 1904 lists the series of benchmarks and timetables for achieving them. Among these are the fanciful notion that "Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces" by July 1, 2007. That means anyone in any leadership position in the Iraqi government who makes a questionable criticism of the Iraqi security forces will force a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq -- an impossible standard, and one which shows how silly this exercise has become.
If we hear the word "doodyhead" from the chair of the natural resources committee in the National Assembly, applied to a police officer, the Democrats will force a retreat.
That's not the only ridiculous threshold, either. By October 1 of this year, the Iraqis have to amend their constitution to some unspecified purpose, or we have to start withdrawing immediately. I'd like the Democrats to point to a single amendment passed by the US that took six months from start to finish to implement, outside of Reconstruction and the original Bill of Rights.
This bill is a joke, and the authors are the worst comedians on the circuit.
This is better than "300". Two spartan minds locked in a battle to squeeze an ounce of common sense out of the void.
Unfortunately, Democrats are famous for oozing out of such traps especially with the aid of their fellow travelers in MSM.
It is also likely the Bush administration will be very cautious in claiming success for the surge. I hope they are not too cautious. I would very much like to see the Dems lose big time over this.
Why is it that I have a STRONG suspicion there is lots of Muslim money going to Democrats ----- especially black ones, as was documented with Cynthia McKinney?
If the MSM found that Cynthia was not a rarity among Democrats -- that would be interesting to say the least..
There can be no doubt that Muslim money is reaching our politicians to influence their position on the war against Islamic lunatics.... It would be foolish to believe otherwise...
I think Americans have a right to know who is being bought and by whom...
Semper Fi
The House Emergency Supplemental: Micro-managing The War
******************************888EXCERPTS*************************************
Written by N.Z.
| Wednesday, 14 March 2007 | |
|
The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives has decided to micro-manage the war effort by loading the funding bill required to authorize continued operations in Iraq with conditions and provisions designed to force the President to retreat and withdraw from the fight.
The Victory Caucus is pleased to be the very first online --- or print --- media outlet to present in full the text of the conditions imposed in the bill. Click through to see for yourself how the Democratic leadership wants to hamstring the war effort.
The full 170+ pages of the bill can be found in scanned PDF form here. Warning: this is a 6MB file!
The text below begins on Page 69 per the PDF file's page numbering. ***********************************************See the Link***********************************
*******************************another Excerpt ******************************************* Smash, blogging at Michelle Malkin's place, points out an important reason why the Democratic restrictions on 'troop readiness' are an impossible impediment to military operations :
|
An original thought and a cold drink of water would kill that alleged woman.
But let me add two words... Saudi Arabia!
And Semper Fi !
LOL!
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.