[Texgreen] FW: Democrats Cave on Iraq

[Alfred Molison]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_326b_3ffe_1082
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed




>From: "Molison, Alfred" To: <alfredm123@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Democrats Cave on Iraq
>Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:15:20 -0500
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cong.html?_r=1&ref=washin
>gton&oref=slogin
>
>
>
>By CARL HULSE
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse
>/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
>
>Published: May 23, 2007
>
>WASHINGTON, May 22 - Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their
>insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing
>American combat troops from Iraq
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritorie
>s/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo> . Instead, they moved toward a deal
>with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi
>government.
>
>Skip to next paragraph
><http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cong.html?_r=1&ref=washi
>ngton&oref=slogin#secondParagraph#secondParagraph>
>
>Readers' Opinions
>
>Share Your Thoughts
><http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/democrats-pull-troop-deadline-
>from-iraq-bill/>
>
>How do you view the Democrats' decision to relent on their demand for a
>withdrawal timetable?
>
>*                                  Post a Comment
><http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/democrats-pull-troop-deadline-
>from-iraq-bill/#comment>
>
>
>Reach of War
>
>
>Go to Complete Coverage >
><http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/worldspecial/index.html>
>
>The decision to back down was a wrenching reversal for leading
>Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force
>an end to the war. It was the first time since taking power in Congress
>that the Democrats had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing
>without a timetable for troop withdrawal.
>
>But even so, many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelo
>si/index.html?inline=nyt-per>  of California, indicated that they would
>not support the war money, meaning that a significant number of
>Republicans
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/rep
>ublican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org>  would have to sign on to
>ensure the plan's approval.
>
>Ms. Pelosi made clear that if money for the war was going to be provided
>without a timeline for withdrawal, it would be without her personal
>support. "I would never vote for such a thing," Ms. Pelosi said as she
>entered the office of Senator Harry Reid
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/harry_reid
>/index.html?inline=nyt-per>  of Nevada, the majority leader, to put the
>final touches on the $120 billion proposal.
>
>The Democrats' decision to give way appeared likely to bring an end to a
>legislative battle that has raged since Feb. 5, when Mr. Bush first
>requested the additional war financing. Mr. Bush had insisted that the
>money not be bound by time constraints, and Democrats proved unable to
>override his veto of their initial, defiant vote in favor of a spending
>bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin on Oct. 1.
>
>In backing down on Tuesday, the Democratic leaders accepted an outcome
>that had appeared increasingly likely for weeks, particularly as
>Democrats became concerned that their defiance could be portrayed as
>indifference to the troops. But the Democrats have pledged to renew
>their fight this summer by seeking to attach timetables to subsequent
>war financing measures.
>
>As late as last week the Democrats were still pursuing timelines in
>their negotiations with the White House, and the decision on Tuesday by
>Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and other leaders to abandon them was not going
>over well with most antiwar lawmakers or with some activist groups that
>had argued that Democrats should seek to cut off money for the war.
>
>"There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about
>wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political
>comfort won out over real action," said Senator Russell D. Feingold
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/russell_d_
>feingold/index.html?inline=nyt-per> , Democrat of Wisconsin, who was
>unsuccessful last week in his push for a withdrawal of combat troops by
>spring. "Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the
>American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of
>course in Iraq."
>
>Other Democrats said they had no choice. "It was a concession to
>reality," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, who
>said he intended to oppose the war spending portion of the bill.
>
>In an effort to appease antiwar Democrats, the party's leaders plan to
>allow two votes in the House. One would provide the war money, and seems
>likely to be opposed by large numbers of Democrats. The other, separated
>out to allow more Democrats to vote in favor, would include popular
>measures that are also part of the package, including a minimum wage
>increase and $17 billion in added domestic and military spending.
>
>The bills would then be combined into one and sent to the Senate, with
>the idea of getting the measure to the president by the weekend.
>
>At the White House, officials said they were waiting for the actual
>language of the proposal. "We're hopeful that discussions on the
>emergency war supplemental for the troops are nearing conclusion," said
>a spokeswoman, Dana Perino.
>
>Four Senate Democrats running for president sided with Mr. Feingold last
>week, but some said Tuesday that they could not say how they would vote
>on the new proposal without reviewing it. Senator Christopher J. Dodd
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/christophe
>r_j_dodd/index.html?inline=nyt-per> , Democrat of Connecticut, indicated
>that he had reservations.
>
>"I am disappointed that there is no firm deadline in this version of the
>bill, because I believe that's the only way to responsibly bring this
>war to an end," Mr. Dodd said.
>
>Senior Democratic officials said the final bill would probably be
>stripped of other features that Mr. Bush had previously resisted,
>including readiness standards that would have prevented troops from
>being returned to Iraq within one year of serving there or without
>adequate training and equipment unless Mr. Bush signed a waiver
>determining it was necessary.
>
>The compromise legislation is far from a total victory for the
>president. It requires that the Iraqi government show progress on
>improving security and forging political unity. Mr. Bush has resisted
>Congressional intervention in the conduct of the war, and the benchmarks
>and new reporting requirements, which had strong Republican support in
>the Senate, represent new accountability in the eyes of many lawmakers.
>"We don't have a veto-proof Congress," Mr. Reid said. "But no one can
>say with any degree of veracity that we haven't made great progress, and
>this bill is further proof of that."
>
>The measure would also force the White House and Congressional
>Republicans to accept significant new spending. Democrats say there is
>about $17 billion beyond the president's initial request, with about $9
>billion devoted to extra spending on military programs and health care,
>veterans' health care and military base realignment. The remaining $8
>billion goes to agriculture programs, additional Gulf Coast recovery
>efforts, children's health care and other Democratic priorities. The
>minimum-wage increase will represent a domestic victory for Democrats.
>
>"I think that it's one thing to take care of the troops in Iraq, but
>it's also something else to take care of their children, their spouses
>and their parents here at home," said Representative James E. Clyburn of
>South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.
>
>Republicans said many of their lawmakers in the House and Senate would
>be less than enthusiastic about the additional spending but were
>unlikely to scuttle the compromise.
>
>"Many of our members are not going to be happy by the amount of spending
>beyond the core purpose of this supplemental, which was to fund the
>troops," said Senator Mitch McConnell
><http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mitch_mcco
>nnell/index.html?inline=nyt-per>  of Kentucky, the Republican leader.
>"It's not a deal I personally would have made. But if we can prevail on
>the core portion of the bill, my guess is that it will pass."
>
>Lawmakers said the final version was still being negotiated with the
>White House and Republicans to make certain it was acceptable to both,
>but it was expected to be voted on in the House on Thursday. "I think
>we're very close to having things tied down," said Representative David
>R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin and chairman of the Appropriations
>Committee.
>
>While Democrats were bruised by the veto fight and their decision to
>back away from the showdown, they believe they are slowly gaining
>ground. "I view this as the beginning of the end of the president's
>policy on Iraq," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman
>of the House Democratic Caucus.
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507

------=_NextPart_000_326b_3ffe_1082
Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif";
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="image001.gif";

R0lGODlhCQALAMQAAAZCdrXH1rPJ1/z//7LI1gdFdwhBdrHG1wRBeJy0yf/9
/tjh6gJEeARCcyVahhhSgrXG1LPG1QVBdf/+/wRDdgRDeQRBdwRDeP7/////
/QNCdQVDdgNCdwVCeARCdf///yH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAAJAAsAAAVFoNdx3uWR
p7d5Uud51kZFAXEE1slRYrV2FUkAIhiaNA0PwwLYaJ6bEdCAsGQwiUvhkxlw
uY5C5kMmYxaPz6S8ViQ+GHIIADs=


------=_NextPart_000_326b_3ffe_1082--