This is getting to be a mess. They can't even agree on how to fund the war. And their arrogance is appalling. Why not work with the president to get the troops the funds they need to fight the war? He can veto anything they send him, so why not include him in what they are crafting? Emanuel seems to think that he doesn't have to do that and he's right. They can just run out the clock on funding and the military will have to pack it in. Is that their real strategy? But they have got to know that anything that happens after that in Iraq is on their head. They own the defeat and the devastation that follows. They own the empowerment of Iran, Syria and bin Laden in the Arab world who will be looked on as the strong horse and the victor against the might Americans. We would never be trusted again.
House Democratic leaders briefed party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money if conditions do not improve.(via)
If members agree to back the plan as expected, a vote on the new war spending bill could come as early Thursday. The proposal, pitched last week by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., was first disclosed last week by The Associated Press.
Democrats told reporters the plan is likely to provide more than $40 billion for the war and other high-priority projects, then vote "mid summer" on whether to release more money for military operations.
The plan had dim prospects of surviving in the Senate, where most Democrats want to guarantee funding for troops through September and were trying to negotiate a deal with the White House.
House Democrats said they weren't too concerned with getting the White House's blessing.
"They know what we're doing obviously," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "I don't think their subscriptions to the newspapers ended at any time recently."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had promised to find common ground with the Bush administration, but made it clear last week that "if we didn't find out common ground, we would stand our ground."
White House spokesman Tony Snow on Tuesday called the approach "just bad management."
"We think it is appropriate to be able to give commanders what they are going to need, and also forces in the field, so that you can make long-term decisions in trying to build the mission," Snow said.
[...]
Congressional Republicans immediately dismissed the Democratic proposal as unfairly rationing funds needed in combat and said their members would not support it.
Democrats "should not treat our men and women in uniform like they are children who are getting a monthly allowance," said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party's leader.
[...]
The new version is likely to meet resistance in the Senate. Several Senate Democrats said they would oppose a short-term funding bill because it leaves open the question of whether troops will get the resources they need after July.
"There's the question of why it wasn't fully funded," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
If the House version of the bill fails in conference with the Senate, Democratic leaders say their members will have other chances to affect Iraq policy. Party leaders have pointed to the 2008 defense authorization bill, which helps to set Pentagon policy, as well as the 2008 appropriations bills.
We all know what's going on here, the base has cracked the whip and the Democrats are falling all over themselves to comply. They've already proved that they don't care about the safety of our troops. Their thirst for power is what's driving them, they want to keep the majority and they believe that placating the base is how they can do it (now, I know that there are some in Congress who have never supported this war, I'm excluding them from this criticism). Reid has already admitted it.
