Democrats Pull Troop Deadline From Iraq Bill
The Democrats have backed down in their battle with Bush over the funding of the Iraq war and have agreed, in what is a devastating U-turn, to allow a bill to go forward for a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal being attached.
However, certain high profile Democrats have said that when the bill comes before the House that they will not vote for it.
The Democrats appear to be bowing to the inevitable here as they simply do not have enough votes to overcome Bush's veto. However, the Democrats were elected to bring this war to a close and this strikes me as right up there with the most useless of gestures.But even so, many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, indicated that they would not support the war money, meaning that a significant number of Republicans 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 of Nevada, the majority leader, to put the final touches on the $120 billion proposal.
Pelosi won't vote for it but the chances are that, whatever version of the bill is finally passed, the war will slide on.
There are many anti-war groups who will be, rightly, very disappointed with this stance.
It was summed up best by Feingold:
“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, 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.”I'm with Feingold on this one. Talk is cheap, and it really is time that the Democrats grew some balls. They have, however, prepared a fall back position aimed at easing the pain:
And if Bush vetoes that, demanding that a clean bill be sent to him without any additions, will they cave in at that point?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.
This is far from a total victory for Bush though, as the new legislation will insist that the Iraqi government show progress on improving security and forging political unity.
Bush has always maintained that there was no room for Congressional intervention in the day to day running of Iraq and has always resisted benchmarks. The new bill not only has such benchmarks, but it has strong support from a number of Republicans.
“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 increase in the minimum wage is a significant victory for the Democrats, but it's a victory that comes at the cost of continuing a war that they were elected to end.
In these circumstances it's hard to get very excited about it at all.
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment