Withdrawal
Dems close to terms on surrendering surrenderism. There’s a shakedown:Â Â Â
House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.
In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.
If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject.
“The way you pass appropriations bills is you get agreement among all the relevant players, among which the president with his veto pen is a very relevant player,” Hoyer said. “Everybody knows he has no intention of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints. I think that’s ultimately going to be the result.”
And apparently the way you get agreement among all the other relevant players is to buy them off. Kind of sad, when a significant block of America’s political leadership has to be bribed to continue supporting U.S. troops in the field, thwarting genocide and terrorism, building democracy. Â
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:37 am on Saturday, December 8, 2007
5 Responses to “Withdrawal”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:17 am
So Republicans are trying to re-establish some frugal credentials and Democrats are holding the Executive branch hostage to tying war funding to domestic spending increases, specifically mentioned “drought” in the southeast and subprime bailout spending.
As you say, Kind of sad, when a significant block of America’s political leadership has to be bribed to continue supporting U.S. troops in the field…
December 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Web Reconnaissance for 12/08/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden mentions one of the things that bothers me about this whole thing: And apparently the way you get agreement among all the other relevant players is to buy them off. Kind of sad, when a significant block of America’s political leadership has to be bribed to continue supporting U.S. troops in the field, thwarting genocide and terrorism, building democracy. [...]
December 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I am sick of these people holding our military hostage and generally playing with the lives of their betters.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Ah, Congress.