House Dems Rally Support For Iraq Deadline

Bill Would Set Sept. 1, 2008, As Deadline For U.S. Combat Troop Withdrawal

(AP)  On the eve of a critical vote, Democrats in the House of Representatives labored to lock down a majority behind a Sept. 1, 2008, date for U.S. combat troops to be pulled out of Iraq. It will be the sternest test yet for a determined new majority party eager to challenge President Bush.

"If it comes off, it's a superb accomplishment," Democratic Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday as the party's leaders cajoled liberals who want an even faster timetable and moderates fearful of tying the hands of the commander in chief and generals in the field.

Democratic aides expressed growing confidence of success when the vote is called. Four of the bill's most consistent critics said they had told the Democratic speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, they would help pass it, even though they intend personally to vote against it.

"While I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war," said one of the four, Rep. Barbara Lee.

An aide to Pelosi confirmed the speaker had met with Lee and Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson. All four of the members and Pelosi are Democrats from California. With party leaders lobbying intensively on its own, however, it was not clear which lawmakers, if any, had swung behind the bill as a result of the offer the four had made.

Throughout the day, a string of liberal opponents of the war swung behind a bill they deemed insufficient.

"I want this war ended today. If I thought it would help this war ending sooner by voting against the bill, I would vote against it in a heartbeat," said Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, who sponsored legislation for a troop withdrawal in 2005.

"But I don't believe that to be the case," he added, speaking of the bill that combines money for the war, the troop withdrawal deadline and billions of dollars for politically popular programs at home ranging from farm aid to relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The legislation marks Congress' most direct challenge to date of Bush's policy in a war that has claimed the lives of nearly 3,200 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

As debate began in the House, Republicans criticized it vociferously. "The bill is a sham," one of them, Rep. Harold Rogers, said. He said it would "provide fodder for our enemies abroad."

Bush has threatened to veto the bill, opposing both the troop withdrawal provision and billions of dollars in spending the Democrats added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any delay in approving the funds could "have a genuinely adverse affect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families."

White House press secretary Tony Snow sharpened the message. "There's a very real chance that money for the troops will run out while members of Congress are on vacation," he said. "Is that the message you want to send to men and women who are putting their lives on the line?"

Across the Capitol, a Senate committee launched legislation taking a slightly different approach: to set a date to begin a withdrawal but only a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the final exit of combat forces.

The measure cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee on a voice vote, but Republicans said they would attempt to strip out the withdrawal provisions when the issue comes before the full Senate next week.

Senate Democrats fell short of a majority, 50-48, last week on a similar attempt to set a timeline for the war. Since then, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and others have made changes in hopes of persuading Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas to swing behind the withdrawal proposal. The changes include a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly.

More than two months after Democrats took power, the main focus in the war debate was on the House, where Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders chipped away at holdouts.

Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott, a 10th-term lawmaker and longtime opponent of the war, said he would support the measure. He called the legislation a "bare minimum but dramatically better than what we have today, which is a war without end, from a president capable only of escalation, not negotiation."

Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson, new to Congress, said he was leaning toward supporting the legislation as well. Like McDermott, he said he wanted a faster end to the war but also that he had listened to the arguments of party leaders that the current measure was the most that could be passed given the current composition of the House.

"What we are here to do is to govern," Johnson said of the new Democratic majority, which came to power last January after midterm elections framed by voter discontent with the war.

Democrats hold 233 seats in the 435-seat House, meaning they can lose 15 votes from their rank and file and still be assured of passing the measure.

Whatever the vote count, some war foes disagreed with the strategy.

"I think the Democrats are doing it all wrong," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate.

"We don't agree with them," said Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey. She said she and others believe the party must "honor what the voters of November said, which is to be bold, end the war and bring the troops home."

In another sign of gathering support for the legislation, however, the Congressional Black Caucus issued a statement pointing favorably to numerous provisions apart from the withdrawal deadline. The list included increased funding for traumatic brain injury care and research, money for post-traumatic stress disorder, money for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and $1.3 billion in hurricane protection for the New Orleans area.

[montraville]

There's a good reason for setting a date certain. It assures that the Iraqis will get down to business within a specific time period. All you have to do is make an analysis, asking, how long should it take for the Iraqis to set up everything so they can do it themselves? And that's your date of pullout.

[book54552134]

Senate Republicans & gutless Democrats are showing their utter hypocrisy. (But then, what's new there?)
On the one hand, they decry the war & 'request' that Dubya pull US troops out of Iraq.
On the other hand, they give Dubya all the money he wants in order that he can continue his Iraq agenda without disruption.
If voters want change in regard to this kind of manipulation of public perception, (while continuing the status quo,) they will have to wait until next year for the chance.

montraville wrote:

"There's a good reason for setting a date certain. It assures that the Iraqis will get down to business within a specific time period. All you have to do is make an analysis, asking, how long should it take for the Iraqis to set up everything so they can do it themselves? And that's your date of pullout."

Absolutely.

Of course, GW Bush isn't interested in pulling out - we're there forever.

[tejasdemo]

So much for doing what the people want.

[coffeehead-2009]

More lip talk....

Would someone please dis-engage them from bush's posterior...

Independent is looking better every day.

My gosh - - like enabling parents.
Not once has ANY scandle monger, fraud abuser, lier, cheat, k-street scum been penalized. If it was any AMERICAN we would all be hung till dead, we just keep giving and giving. MOney, lives, retirement savings.... they have it all.

[acauble1]

I hope that 'notblue' or 'lars008' or 'US_infedel' or any pro-Bush Iraq policy supporter can someday answer two very important questions: (without using the standard regergitated GOP talking points):

1. If we shouldn't pull out of Iraq now, how long should we stay there for?

2. What will need to happen in Iraq in order for us to leave?

(And don't give me that "victory" line of Bull Schize! We the people, with above room-temperature IQ, have grown tired of that explanation).

[roblin2005]

Members of the Security Council and countless other countries were against the war. Most of Europe was against the war. And now, it seems, a majority of Americans are against the war as well. What were the objectives? Remove Saddam and destroy WMD's. Mission accomplished. We cannot force feed them democracy.

President Bush should read the Constitution where Congress has the POWER to control the purse for war spending. When he speaks against the Congress, he speaks against the people. Too bad we don't have an actual 'Vote of No Confidence' in the United States.

[radiob-2009]

It will end up in the Supreme Court. Lawyers cannot decide if congress has the authority to place conditions on how a war is fought or the length of a war.

[judster43]

does anyone miss all our money being attached to these bills? I can't believe that we let them use blackmail to pass a bill funding our troops

[judster43]

how about we win the war and quit playing games. I don't like we're there but we can't just leave. how does that make the troops feel? I don't want to stay the course and I don't want to cut and run I think we should win!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[montraville]

Congress allowed the Iraq war because America wanted to improve the lives of the Iraqi people and stabilize the region. The US military won a victory over Saddam, but you can't win victories over suicidal peasants with donkeys, nor should you try.

The US is not a military culture. We're not like Prussia. We have military operations to improve the world, NOT so we can have a big parade at the end. Americans have never cared about that kind of stuff. "Victory" is not our objective, "success" is our objective, and the American people have decided that success involves letting the Iraqis handle their own business from now on. They're sitting on oceans of oil for heaven's sake. How hard will it be for them?

Our troops have done all that troops can do. It's a political and police job now. Our troops deserve to come home and go back to their jobs, building the economy and taking care of their kids. George Bush Jr. is keeping them from that.

[musty2u]

As long as we play patty-cake we will never win. The funding bill is about 20% too small to really do any good, but it is a start from which over-runs can be started with. As to a date.....that is absolutely laughable....as if congress can do anything on schedule. Half the time they must run on continuing resolutions just to pay themselves.

[coffeehead-2009]

Win?

How Can We Win When Children Die like this?
Znet

The Americans came back with an officer two days later," Selim al-Sammerai continues. "They offered us compensation. I refused. I lost my son, I told the officer. %u2019I don%u2019t want the money - I don%u2019t think the money will bring back my son.%u2019 That%u2019s what I told the American." There is a long silence in the room. But Selim, who is still crying, insists on speaking again.

"I told the American officer: %u2019You have killed the innocent and such things will lead the people to destroy you and the people will make a revolution against you. You said you had come to liberate us from the previous regime. But you are destroying our walls and doors.%u2019"

I suddenly realise that Selim al-Sammerai has straightened up on his seat and his voice is rising in strength. "Do you know what the American said to me? He said, %u2019This is fate.%u2019 I looked at him and I said, %u2019I am very faithful in the fate of God - but not in the fate of which you speak.%u2019"

"They asked me why I had taken the picture and I said it was so people here could see what the Americans had done to my brother. And suddenly it is in my hands, an obscene and terrible snapshot of Yassin%u2019s head crushed flat as if an elephant had stood upon it, blood pouring from what had been the back of his brains. "So now, you see," the brother explains, "the people can still see what the Americans have done."

[bluestardad]

SUPPORT THE TROOPS LOOKS GOOD ON SOUND BITES!

IT DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO STAY THE COURSE!

A S S H O L E

[CBSTV]

Congress can call for the military to be withdrawn by next spring or by the next millennium. It doesn't matter much. Unless they put some sharp teeth into their legislative measures, the White House will continue to do whatever it pleases.

[j-whitman]

Benjamin B. Ferencz, Nuremburg prosecutor, On the subject of terrorism (Note the similarities on our reaons for going into Iraq)


One cannot try an idea, nor can it be killed by a gun. An idea must be replaced by a better idea. We must stop glorifying killing "the enemy" and replace the existing war-ethic with a new "peace-ethic."All must learn that law is better than war. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held that aggressive war is the "supreme international crime." That was affirmed by the United Nations and upheld in many legal decisions. Nazi leaders argued that they acted only in self-defense against a presumed attack by the Soviet Union. Their justification for mass murder was rejected and responsible leaders were hanged after a fair trial. Who is to try those who continue to use such invalid and deceptive justifications for sending young persons and countless civilians to their death? --

[musty2u]

Deep down every candidate wants this to drag out through at least November 2008 for their own great showing to look good.

[j-whitman]

BENJAMIN FERENCZ
Ferencz was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials for Nazi war crimes after World War II and is available for a limited number of interviews. He said today: "It's a sad commentary when the president of the United States has apparently no knowledge or concern for international law. We said at Nuremberg that we would be bound by laws -- that they would apply equally to all. But it's a violation of international law to go to war without the approval of the [U.N.] Security Council when you are not under armed attack. The U.S. has violated that in its attack on Iraq, as well as other times. The Bush administration has repudiated the International Criminal Court, when over 90 nations want to carry on the legacy of the Nuremberg tribunals, but the administration is trying to cripple it in its cradle."

Bush contrived & spun all intell he gave to the UN Security Council.

[gunnerv1]

acauble1 One answer for both questions- When they stop killing us and each other. Simple, quick and to the point.

[j-whitman]

One cannot try an idea, nor can it be killed by a gun. An idea must be replaced by a better idea. We must stop glorifying killing - Jesus applied that same concept - That's the same concept Jesus tryed to use.

[sshard]

joule3

In the bill are the requirements, our troops receive 'proper traning, equipment and rest.'

[j-whitman]

Republicans freshly back from Iraq are comparing it to Detroit & Chicago -- As in 3 years ago they where saying "Iraq is so safe, I'll take my family there" -- THE FULL SPIN IS ON

[acauble1]

acauble1 One answer for both questions- When they stop killing us and each other. Simple, quick and to the point.
Posted by gunnerv1 at 07:22 PM : Mar 22, 2007

Sadly 'gunnerv1', for hundreds of years the Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other in various spats/conflicts/wars. They will not stop killing each other, nor will they stop killing us until there is no one left standing.

Iraq was a poorly conceived idea back in the early 1900's by the British. Only until Saddam Hussein took over in the late 1970's did Iraq actually have some stability in the region. No, not within its own borders, (because Saddam was a Sunni, out for revenge over the Shiites), but it provided a buffer for a bigger problem called Iran. Strangely enough, Iran is still the (long term) bigger problem!

So I would rather see our troops come home alive than in body bags. But for decades, our troops have been used as political cannon fodder. And sadly, their lives will never be the highest priority of our politicians, ever again.

[j-whitman]

One cannot try an idea, nor can it be killed by a gun. An idea must be replaced by a better idea. We must stop glorifying killing

[acauble1]

gunnerv1:

Here's the shorter and quicker answer, (and yes, to the point as well):

SUNNIS AND SHIITES WILL NEVER STOP KILLING US, OR EACH OTHER.

So how much longer do you think we should stay there again? (this is a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one).

[fascistusa]

I have a solution on how you can find out how things are going on the Battlefield - get a plane ticket, Fascist.

STOP AMERICAN FASCISM!!!

FREE AMERICA!!!!

BRING BACK THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

[acauble1]

mocaleo:

That's a great line!

"We cannot wait until 2008"

We should be shouting that in unison at every rally/march/protest!

[epiker-2009]

Democrats plan for peace in Iraq:
Pull out the US troops out so the sunnis/shias can engage in a massive bloodbath and many millions die. Iran and Al Qaeda will probably battle it out over who gets to rule and control the Iraq oil-which they'll use to fund an explosion of terrorism against the West.

GOP Plan:
Waste money/soldiers to democratize Iraq (and eventually the mideast). Sadly for the Dems, its actually working.

The Dems plan would be preferable if the savages annihilated each other and didn't bother us, but more than likely a super-terrorist group will win and they'll come after the West. So the GOP plan makes more sense.

[fascistusa]

Terrorists are gonna get ya!!!

The Boogy Man is out there!!

If we don't get them there, they'll get us here!!!

LIVE IN FEAR!!! The US Military can't protect you!!

WAR IS PEACE.

[montraville]

IF the Sunnis and Shias are all spoiling for an epochal battle, WHAT makes you think US troops can stop it? It's their country, there are MILLIONS of them, we don't speak the language, our military is already stretched too thin, and the only time they stop fighting each other is to fight us.

Remember the Iran/Iraq war? It was ten years of vicious intermural carnage. And we have to pick a side? Ronald Reagan didn't, and we shouldn't.

If we really cared about the people of Iraq, we'd mandate that no car can be sold in the US with a mileage under 35 mpg. We'd tax SUVs, allowing excemptions for commerical truck licenses only, and we'd subsidize mass transit and stop building highways. That would bring the world price of oil down, and the various arab power blocks would have a lot less to fight over.

[mcvet]

The Dems plan would be preferable if the savages annihilated each other and didn't bother us, but more than likely a super-terrorist group will win and they'll come after the West. So the GOP plan makes more sense.
Posted by epiker at 08:39 PM : Mar 22, 2007

What "Super-Terrorist" Group. Those guys are in another Country. When will you people FINALLY accept the FACT that BUSH LIED TO YOU... BIN LADEN and the TALIBAN are the BAD guys and THEY ain't in IRAQ people. LOL No wonder Sir Lies-A-Lot keeps 30% of you on the hook, you're to damned stupid to do otherwise!! ROFLMAO

[cbs_oliver]

This special appropriation feeds the beast just like every other speacual war funding bill. All the rest is empty fluff.

Those of us who oppose the occupation of Iraq are not fooled.

Looks like Democrats can't be trusted any more than Republicans.

So why isn't this war/occupation funded as part of the regular budget anyway?

As an aside, the media is not reporting US soldiers actually killing anybody anymore!

Think about it! Try to remember.

I guess we are all supposed to spend our time in la la land not bothered by real life and leave real facts and the important decisions to our betters.

[mcvet]

acauble1 One answer for both questions- When they stop killing us and each other. Simple, quick and to the point.
Posted by gunnerv1 at 07:22 PM : Mar 22, 2007

PLEASE tell me what makes you Nazi's think you have the right to TELL these people how to govern themselves? There are no WEAPONS, there is NO THREAT and there is NO Bin Laden, you freaks DO remember him don't you? well he's not in IRAQ people. This is without a doubt the biggest LIE to ever be served on the American People, EVER!!

[mcvet]

Sir LIES-A-LOT sure has things closing in on him right now. He not only is looking at Criminal Investigations into abuse of Power with ongoing investigations at the Justice Department, the wheels are coming off the LIE that is Iraq with the REAL Republican's. Nothing makes people more happy than seeing a bully get his and folks Sir Lies-A-Lot has some REAL pain coming his way. LMAO Man this is so good...

[mcvet]

Deep down every candidate wants this to drag out through at least November 2008 for their own great showing to look good.
Posted by Musty2U at 07:14 PM : Mar 22, 2007

LOL I don't think Sir Lies-A-Lot is going to last that long myself. I think Senator Leahy has the goods on him and that pathetic Goat, Rove. I think people at the Justice Department have come forward with HARD evidence of abuse of power and I believe Bush is Guilty. LOL Guess we shall see huh? Wow! I haven't had this much fun since watching that slime Nixon twist in the brease. LOL

[mcvet]

Our troups need the funding now to sustain their very existence on the ground. Guess Nancy doesn't care if they have the bullets needed to defend themselves.
Posted by joule3 at 07:10 PM : Mar 22, 2007

Oh PLEASE! IF you cared for those troops you'd be insisting they be brought home NOW and the Fascist Dictator who refuses to follow the wishes of the American People be thrown out on the Street. Stop acting like you care about those kids... people who support a KNOW Liar and someone who completely IGNORES those who attacked us, can't care about either those kids or America. Sieg Heil!!

[mcvet]

Our troups need the funding now to sustain their very existence on the ground. Guess Nancy doesn't care if they have the bullets needed to defend themselves.
Posted by joule3 at 07:10 PM : Mar 22, 2007

Oh PLEASE! IF you cared for those troops you'd be insisting they be brought home NOW and the Fascist Dictator who refuses to follow the wishes of the American People be thrown out on the Street. Stop acting like you care about those kids... people who support a KNOW Liar and someone who completely IGNORES those who attacked us, can't care about either those kids or America. Sieg Heil!!

[j-whitman]

We went to war on a presumed attack from Iraq. ..

Nazi leaders argued that they acted only in self-defense against a presumed attack by the Soviet Union. Their justification for mass murder was rejected and responsible leaders were hanged after a fair trial. NURMBURG TRIALS

[mcvet]

how about we win the war and quit playing games. I don't like we're there but we can't just leave. how does that make the troops feel? I don't want to stay the course and I don't want to cut and run I think we should win!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by judster43 at 06:44 PM : Mar 22, 2007

Win WHAT? You nazi's are really hung up on this "Win" *** yet you can NEVER tell us who you want to win. The Sunni? The Shiite? For there to be a win one side of the Civil War has to be victorious or we are only stalling the WAR. Anyone who is simple minded enough to think these Religious Extremist are just going to be pals belongs with Bush... that's about how stupid he is. Sieg Heil.

[mcvet]

Looks like Democrats can't be trusted any more than Republicans.

So why isn't this war/occupation funded as part of the regular budget anyway?

As an aside, the media is not reporting US soldiers actually killing anybody anymore!

Think about it! Try to remember.

I guess we are all supposed to spend our time in la la land not bothered by real life and leave real facts and the important decisions to our betters.
Posted by CBS_Oliver at 09:00 PM : Mar 22, 2007

Oh PLEASE! For the FIRST time in how long do we see HONEST and AGGRESSIVE OVERSIGHT of Sir Lies-A-Lot and YOU accuse the Dem's of being like the Fascist. GIVE ME A BREAK!! ROFLMAO Go soak your head, you need it BADLY!!

[j-whitman]

Benjamin B. Ferencz, Nuremburg Prosecutor.
"One cannot try an idea, nor can it be killed by a gun. An idea must be replaced by a better idea. We must stop glorifying killing "the enemy" and replace the existing war-ethic with a new "peace-ethic."All must learn that law is better than war. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held that aggressive war is the "supreme international crime." That was affirmed by the United Nations and upheld in many legal decisions"

[webdepot]

"Our troups need the funding now to sustain their very existence on the ground. Guess Nancy doesn't care if they have the bullets needed to defend themselves."
Posted by joule3 at 07:10 PM : Mar 22, 2007

What the hell good are bullets when the pieces of sh*t rifles they have keep jamming in combat situations.. The M4 and M16 are pieces of sh*t in desert warfare and the special forces have already abandoned them as the weapon of choice..
That doesn't stop this a$$hole president and Pentagon though... they have 100,000 more coming in the next defense budget even though they are ***...
I guess Bush/Cheney have stock in the company making M4s.. so their take is: f*ck the troops.. cope...

The only money that should be approved, is the transportation costs home..

[homespunlady]

If I didn't know better I'd say this has all the earmarks of young adolescents playing chicken with cars. Neither driver wants to give up because of some inane sense of "pride and glory". Unfortunately when its over and the cars have crashed what's left? Grieving families and questions about why they had to be so self destructive.
The ones playing chicken this time are our leaders and unfortunatly our sisters, brothers, lovers, etc have become shanghaied passengers who will die in place of those crazed drivers if some kind of sanity doesn't occur.
I know too many who are now dead and pray daily that there will be no more.
Stop the madness.
George Bush - for shame that you have to feed your ego in such a vile and ugly way!

[zootallures2]

"If anyone pulls out, they be going for a drive down Elm Street in a convertible." - Anonymous

[cbs_oliver]

Good for nothing Double Cross Democrats.

Those who support the occupation should go to Iraq and buy a ranch or something and stay there.

Then the rest could leave in peace.

[bluestardad]

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have been bought by the AIPAC political Action Group. They are not going to let the Democrats stray too far from the Bush party line in practice. The example of that is by Nancy Pelosi not including wording in the bill for Bush to not attack Iran.

Israel wants America to Attack Iran before Bush leaves office.

We can still support our allies such as Israel without putting their interest over that of our own country. This is something American Politicians have not understood! It is not in Americas interest to attack Iran or to stay in Iraq!

If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC.

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm



Now here is the real kicker! President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! This is Impeachment and Treason! Here is the proof Read it!
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh


If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail] Here is the Republican Party email address too!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[karlimhof]

The problem with foreign military interventions, undertaken to change the political institutions to our liking, meaning which serve our interests, is that they don't work.

[rharrin1]

We went to war on a presumed attack from Iraq.
Posted by j-whitman

But we know that was all lies by bush and cheney, they went against the UN.

We need to bring the troops home in the next month
and put bush and cheney on trial for murder.

[perception5]

Well ......here we go again. What our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack ISN'T telling the American people is the fact that this bill WAS for $100 billion....... Nancy Pelosi, in order to get her votes has added $21 billion in "favors" to BUY the votes of Dems who were against this bill.
Remember how our corrupt liberal press came down hard on the GOP for their EARMARKS...... and how the Dems, if we elected them, would put an end to this?? Like their other promises, the Dems, have decided it's going to be business as usual.
Please refernce excerpt from realclearpolitics below:

"So how does Pelosi plan on getting the House to pass the Iraq spending bill? As The Washington Post reported, the Democratic leadership has larded the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act with pork. After all the (deserved) rhetoric decrying Republican big spending, the Democratic leadership inserted $25 million for spinach growers, $75 million for peanut storage, and $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen into the supplemental spending bill.

The idea is to sweeten the pot so that war opponents will agree to fund a war they oppose, while war supporters will vote for the bill, despite provisions the seem to be designed solely to undermine the Bush surge."

This 110th "DO-NOTHING" Congress WILL be replaced in 2008...... or it's business as usual. Oh yeah the extra $21 billion will be paid by American taxpayers.

[mbcsmith]

Another day in Iraq and the violence is down sharply. However, the LIB party, the party of DEFEAT, still can't acknowledge improvements. Their political agenda will ENDANGER the security of this country!