Bush's GOP War Support Fading?

House Minority Leader Says Policy Should Show Improvement By Fall, Or Else

(AP)  The House Republican leader said Sunday that GOP support could waver if President Bush's Iraq war policy does not succeed by the fall.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Bush's troop increase deserves a chance and should be funded even if benchmarks for success are not met. Last week, Bush vetoed a $124 billion bill to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan operations in part because it required troops to begin returning home by Oct. 1.

A senior House Democrat said it would be "ridiculous" not to condition war money on progress in Iraq. Bush and his supporters say a fixed date is unworkable.

"We don't even have all of the 30,000 additional troops in Iraq yet, so we're supporting the president. We want this plan to have a chance of succeeding," Boehner said.

"Over the course of the next three to four months, we'll have some idea how well the plan's working. Early signs are indicating there is clearly some success on a number of fronts," he said.

But, he added, "By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Thus far, Republicans have stood behind the president's increasingly unpopular war policies, including the troop increase and an open-ended war commitment.

Yet Boehner's comments were an acknowledgment of the concern expressed by some lawmakers in private that their support could further damage the party, which lost control of Congress in the November elections.

The senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, said Boehner is correct.

"General Petraeus will be back. He'll make a report," Lugar said of Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. "Some things will go well. Some things will not go so well, but we'll still have an obligation."

The new Democratic leadership is pushing to begin pulling troops out of Iraq.

"It would be ridiculous to think that we're going to just drop this fight," said Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "This is not our fight. This is the American people's fight. They asked us to send a message to the president."

"We've got to shake that White House until the people of the United States are heard," Rangel said. "Sure, we've got to have some restrictions on the money."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democratic presidential candidate, said congressional Republicans increasingly seem uneasy about Bush's policies.

"So we may disagree politically here, but remember where the American public is on this issue: They want a change. They think we're getting less secure, far more vulnerable today, than ever before, and they want a change in this policy," he said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., predicted, "the taste for continuing with the present course among Republicans in the Senate and the House is going to fade very quickly, and we will get the change in mission."

In a statement, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois said Boehner's concern "has less to do with the troops coming home, and has everything to do with his fear that House Republicans will be sent home."

Top White House aides are negotiating with Democratic leaders on a new war spending bill.

Another Democratic presidential candidate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, argued against negotiating and said lawmakers should keep sending Bush the same Iraq spending bill.

"I think that America has asked the Democratic leadership in the Congress to stand firm, and that's exactly what I'm saying they should do," he said.

Edwards started airing a television commercial last week urging Congress to stand up to Bush and keep sending back the vetoed bill, which sparked a quarrel with Dodd.

"With all due respect, we could have used John's vote here in the Senate on these issues here," Dodd said.

Dodd and Boehner appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Edwards was on "This Week" on ABC. Rangel spoke on CBS' Face the Nation while Lugar and Schumer were on "Late Edition" on CNN.

[logicanada]

All this bickering and infighting. Sadly, watching the decline of your great, benevolent nation reminds me of my own father when he drank excessively. We still loved and respected him but while under the influence he often made harsh, thoughtless decisions that affected our whole family. Sometimes he seemed bullyish and picked unwarranted fights. There was screaming. Our neighbors noticed and thought less of us. A good nights sleep often put him back on the beam but our standing in the neighborhood took much longer to reconcile. Best of luck in your nieghborhood.

[cfin5]

ozilot.....Thats Correct my friend! All those guys do over there on the news is jump up and down with their danm AK47's. So lets get the helk out of there......I would rather see us spend 128 billion on oil drilling rigs and fire those mothers up "YESTERDAY"! And the first enviromentalist to open their mouth, incarcerate the blank!.....Maybe Congress needs to give a hefty tax deduction "prize" to "our" big three car makers to compete for. The best across the board "proven" MPG average car manufacturer pays "no" tax for that year. Congress does'nt seem to be able to regulate a thing but their perpetual political thumb sucking interests. We are in deep trouble in the energy UN-INDEPENDENCE department so congress better start earning ALL of their pay for crying out loud!

[ktwebb2]

For you all who steadfastly support President Bush and the war policy, and who also steadfastly deny Democrats have a plan, maybe you all should read this:
http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0009

I do admit the top 3 don't have any sort of plan that's in any way detailed, but Joe Biden does.

[toldyouso21]

Gates has ordered that 35,000 more troops be deployed this fall. (and of course, they will need auxillary units to assist them) funny isn't it? Exactly the number Guiliani said we needed--and with Republicans saying if the surge doesn't work by the fall--we will need a plan B (Really plan N or M by now). Looks like "Plan B" is MORE of the same. Funny how the "surge" required Congressional comment--but this new and improved increase of 35 thousand is just based on a whim of the military and Bush. That would be 10 more brigades folks with the requisite increase in funding demanded to support them. This will never stop while Bush is in office--unless the people in Congress pull the plug. Bush just keeps upping the ante.

BTW, if CBS is so late breaking, why are they always 12 hours to 24 hours behind Roadrunner news page and others?
Posted by toldyouso21 at 12:29 PM : May 08, 2007

[rafterman1]

===You tell me exactly what the Democrat agenda is. Tell me precisely what their plan for changing course is? Do not quote me the Iraqi Study Group. I want to hear what the Democratic party's plan is for changing course.===

The Dems keep telling you what the plan is, yet you refuse to listen. The Iraq spending bill says it all. Put a timeline on the Iraqis, give them a kick in the a$$ to start taking over their own security. Give them a year and a half. If they don't do it, then they never will and we are out. Show some progress and we will reconsider our leaving.

See, simple. If there is to be victory in Iraq, the Iraqis themselves will have started the process, thanks to our kick in the pants. If there is to be defeat in Iraq, then we have the exit strategy. The Dem plan covers both possibilities. Much better than the Repub plan of doing notihng different.

[misha131]

In January the 21,500 were going to show measurable progress in three months. The "new plan A" was so flawed that the troops are still not in Iraq. Therefore there was no assessment of the "new plan A" in three months. It will still be months before the troops are completely sent to Iraq. As in the past we are now told it will take 9 months instead of 3 to evaluate what is now "new plan B" with a staged surge or trickle. Now the Republicans in Congress say if "new plan B" does not work by September we need a "newer new plan B". Will the "newer new plan B" be yet another version of the same? When will we expect elected representatives to use their ability to think before the absolute obvious forces them to seek change?

[ajmarine1]

realpatriot1,

"the terrorists pose a threat to all civilized societies."

Amen.

People from 90 countries were killed on 9-11, the way people talk, you would think it was all Americans; Al-Qaeda doesn't care who they kill, as long as they kill somebody.

[realpatriot1]

AJMarine1,

I'm with you 100%. It doesn't matter where people have stood in the past on the war because we were all lied to.

What matters now is that the war on terror is real and won't end when our involvement in Iraq. Like you said, the important thing is to be prepared to defend ourselves if attacked again.

In order to do that we first need to do everything in our power to defend the Homeland. Much has been done. Much more is still needed and we need to redeploy a significant amount of our resources to that.

We need to rebuild a sense of national unity and purpose in this real war on terror. Most of our successes have been accomplished without a committment of troops to holding territory. We've worked effectively with other governments who also are threatened by the terrorists.

We will need to play a significant amount of catch up in the intelligence arena because of the outing of our WMD unit. The suitcase bomber on a NYC subway is a far more compelling threat than a guerilla army in Sadr City.

we can get back a sense of national unity in this fight once we are out of this fiasco. We can also rebuild our alliances in this war simply because the terrorists pose a threat to all civilized societies.

[ajmarine1]

I have supported the war. If the surge doesn't work by October, along with political change in the Iraqi goverment, I will be joining the other people calling for our troops to come home.

We will just have to be ready to protect ourselves when we are attacked.

If the Middle East does not like or want us, we need to start a crash program like the moon project to become energy independent and tell them they can live in the 4th century if they want, do what they will with their oil, we our outta here.

[MonsterSound]

Jan 23, 2007, John Boehner: "I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan is going to work."
That was 90+ days ago and 21,000 is now $30,000.
Wonder why the article had no mention of this?

[mudrose-2009]

mudrow,,,,, News is on... Try watching it
Posted by j-whitman

You watch it for me and eat it all up. Like all the rest of the b.s. you eat.

[j-whitman]

mudrow,,,,, News is on... Try watching it

[j-whitman]

mudrow,,,
, Start paying attention to something other than *******, ignorant, & dishonorable GOP rhetoric once in awhile ---- You just might hear it.

[mudrose-2009]

mudrose,,,
, You Bushies should say no more,,, It's also refering to the equality of citezens to particapate in our government --- Ameicans Voted For A Change In Direction
Posted by j-whitman

And your point being? That the dumnos have bullied the Executive Branch as a change of course? You tell me exactly what the Democrat agenda is. Tell me precisely what their plan for changing course is? Do not quote me the Iraqi Study Group. I want to hear what the Democratic party's plan is for changing course.

[j-whitman]

mudrose,,,
, You Bushies should say no more,,, It's also refering to the equality of citezens to particapate in our government --- Ameicans Voted For A Change In Direction

[mudrose-2009]

-- IT WAS REFERING TO EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS --

Whitty,

Need one say more?

[j-whitman]

mudrose,,,
, Found it ???? --- I never lost it,, you did.

[mudrose-2009]

mudrose,,,,
' That was in our "Declaration of Independence" - Not the Constitution -- & it was referring to equality of all citizens.
Posted by j-whitman

Well excuse me. You found it.

[j-whitman]

mudrow,, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . ."
-- IT WAS REFERING TO EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS --

[j-whitman]

mudrose,,,,
' That was in our "Declaration of Independence" - Not the Constitution -- & it was referring to equality of all citizens.