House Democrats strike compromise on war funding measure

[maddezmom]

~SNIP~
Instead, Democrats met behind closed doors and came up with a compromise plan that attempts to strike a balance between rank-and-file members who want to cut funding as a way to end the war and others squeamish about appearing to be turning their backs on the troops.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. and a close confidante of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, had been pushing to withhold some of the president's $93 billion war request unless U.S. troops had the proper training, equipment and required time back on U.S. soil between deployments.

But House Democratic leaders announced after a caucus meeting Tuesday night that they would instead couple the war funding with a requirement that the administration either meet standards for U.S. troop readiness or sign a waiver and explain to Congress -- and the American public -- why those standards were not being met.

more:http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/27/tuesday/index.html

Democrats back away from war fund plan

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders are backing away from a plan to scale back U.S. involvement in the Iraq war by using Congress' most powerful tool — withholding money in the budget.

Instead, party officials said Tuesday, leaders are weighing a proposal that would attempt to embarrass Bush into abandoning his war strategy. Under a plan discussed behind closed doors, Democrats probably would fund President Bush's entire $93.4 billion request for war spending this year but require that any troops sent into battle that don't meet certain standards receive a presidential waiver and that Congress be notified of the shortcoming.

The compromise is an attempt to please members who want to end the war immediately by cutting funding and others who do not want to appear as though Democrats are turning their back on troops.

I think it's a responsible approach," said Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas.

Democratic leaders also were considering adding money to help wounded troops, improve health care for veterans and speed funding assistance for hurricane-damaged communities.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq;_ylt=Aizil3lqDSHn1zYt8Eur64Y8KbIF

[Fresh_Start]

1. Good, then we spin it as Troop Protection Plan

instead of troop defunding plan.

No troops should go without full equipment, full training, full rest between deployments, and full complement of support staff whether it be medics or clergy or whatever.

[rodeodance]

2. hey, thats a good sounding title for the bill. I like the waiver idea but as

commander in chief--------He is the decider and will decide what is 'appropriate"!!!!!!!!!

[OneBlueSky]

3. thorough wimp-out . . . disgusting . . . n/t

.

[HuffleClaw]

4. spineless fools

[Nickster]

5. A WAIVER?

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. I can't believe we need an act of Congress to make sure the troops are trained and armed.

What is wrong with us? And why is this even controversial?

Cutting funding: it is a losing proposition. It will get filibustered again in the Senate and then the democrats will no longer have the high road, instead looking weak and not supporting the troops. The dems won the election by a hair, not enough to do pass anything, but enough to show the world the idiocy of the current administration.

[Zhade]

10. And a vast majority of the public wants us OUT OF IRAQ.

A clear majority even demands a deadline, now, even if it means leaving chaos behind in Iraq.

There's no way you can spin it that would make NOT addressing that fact somehow a better political move than doing what their constituents want.

[Javaman]

7. here we go again...

I maybe out of line here, but I see this bullshit coming back to bite them in the ass in a big way. Much like how Hillary goes on and on as to why she voted for the IWR. whatever.

Down the road, when moron* bombs the living hell out of Iran, people will look to the Dems and say, "What the fuck? You had a chance to stop this bullshit and once again you didn't!"

Yeah, yeah, this issue is about funding the Iraqi war, but in morons* mind it's all the same thing and will use this money to fund his next little Boner war.

The worst of it will be the when the Dems act all surprised when it happens. And once again more soldiers and civilians will die needless deaths all in a quest for morons* ego.

Sigh. I get so tired of living in an alternative reality.

[TroglodyteScholar]

8. Didn't think I'd ever be saying this (especially not this soon after the elections)...

...but I'm about ready to give up on Dems. How do you embarrass Bush into changing policy when he clearly has NO shame, and seems rather PROUD of the complete disaster he's fueling with human lives?

[Zhade]

9. Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be, a good friend just died)...

...this reads to me as encouraging even MORE money for this illegal war, as long as the troops are able to fight it.

How is this a fucking compromise?

[Solly Mack]

11. Waivers stop bullets? IEDs?

So Bush signs a waiver and the troops go anyway (with lack of training, equipment needed) and somehow this will all fall back on Bush?

Somehow this is better because then people can point at finger at Bush and say, "he signed the waiver"?

Bush? The same Bush that has never - ever - been held accountable for anything at all?

So he signs a waiver, people point a finger at him and say "he signed the waiver, it's all on him" , and feel good about themselves in the doing, and Bush still walks away a free man

People are dying.....lives are being ruined...all for nothing.

and somebody is stupid enough....yes, I said stupid and I mean stupid...to think Bush can be embarrassed? The man implemented a torture policy, he runs secret prisons...he's a war criminal for fucks sake... ...who besides a total idiot...or a cowardly liar... would entertain the notion that he can be embarrassed into stopping his crimes?