Posted by Mark Silva at 9:30 am, updated 11:35 am CDT
"Today, this Congress faces an historic vote,'' said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) addressing the House today on a war spending bill that requires U.S. combat troops to withdraw by the fall of 2008.
"It is time, after four years... that we ask the Iraqis to do for Iraq what they have asked us to do for four years, and that is to be accountable for their own future,'' said Emanuel, rejecting the argument that Congress is attempting to "micromanage'' the war. "I would say to you, 'You rubber-stamped four years of mismanagement,''' he said, calling the GOP's policy "More troops, more money, more time, more of the same.''
Yet the Whte House insists that Democratic leaders in Congress are only jeoparding funding for U.S. troops overseas in adopting a bill that the president is certain to veto. The Senate Appropriations Committee also has approved a spending bill, with an earlier troop withdrawal, which Bush vows to veto.
“The president is going to veto this bill,'' said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, as the House neared a vote. "What Democrats are doing now is wasting time, at a time when the clock is ticking.’’
The White House, insisting that any legislation containing a withdrawal date for U.S. troops will be vetoed, warned today that war funding will run out in mid-April if Congress does not pass a bill that the president can accept.
""Congress knows very well,'' Snow said earlier today, that "the bill is going to be voted... You've got to ask yourself, hy go through this long, drawn-out exercise of trying wheedle and cajole votes within your own party when you know it's not going go go anywhere.?''
If the supplemental war spending bill is not enacted by April 15, he said, the Pentagon has said that funding will have to be drawn from other areas of the Defense Department to support the troops in Iraq. Congress will be hard-pressed to argue that it supports the troops, he said, if they allow funding to lapse.
“Having wasted a lot of time on a bill they know is going to pass, they are going to point the finger at the president for not signing a bill at a time when the money is running out,'' Snow complained. "This is kind of fish or cut bait time.’’’
"They need to do their job,'' he said. That job: Authorizing funding "for the folks who are there.''
The president plans to press the case in his weekly radio address Saturday.







Comments
While American soldiers are getting killed and blown up in Iraq,College Republicans,who fiercely support the war,are doing their part.
Washington, DC - While Democrats in Congress continue to work toward comprehensive immigration reform, exemplified today by the introduction of the bipartisan Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 (STRIVE Act of 2007), Republicans across the country appear committed to campaigning on fear and division.
This week, Boise State University College Republicans have joined the list of College Republicans who have held anti-immigrant "games" by creating a despicable ad to promote a conservative speaker on campus. The ad advertises a food stamp drawing and a free meal at a "Mexican restaurant" for students who "climb through the hole in the fence" and submit illegal identification. This recent derogatory stunt comes on the heels of national news reports that confirm the rise in hate groups who are feeding off of anti-immigrant sentiments. Sadly, while these activities continue on America's campuses and while Republican presidential candidates use harsh words on immigration for political gain, the national Republican Party has remained quietly on the sidelines.
It has been three weeks since Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and DNC Hispanic Caucus Chair Ramona Martinez sent a letter to RNC General Chairman Mel Martinez regarding the despicable conduct of College Republicans. The Republican Chairman has yet to respond.
Posted by: Raving Loon | March 23, 2007 9:40 AM
Fall 2008 doesn't exactly sound like a tough deadline.
If Bush finds that impossible, you know he's just planning to dump his war off on his successor.
Just like his deficit.
Posted by: Bill | March 23, 2007 9:48 AM
Loon,
So many able-bodied College Republicans staying at home to incite hate and fear when they could be taking their anger to Iraq or Afghanistan...what Chickenhawk scum.
Posted by: jethro | March 23, 2007 10:35 AM
Whte house? jeoparding?
Where's the editor? What happened to proof reading articles?
Posted by: bob johnson | March 23, 2007 10:50 AM
Bush does not have faith in our military to be able to complete the job in a year? This shows me that Bush thinks our military is incompitent. That is how I would phrase it if I were Rahm.
Posted by: Raymond Suelzer | March 23, 2007 10:52 AM
MY DEAR OLD GRANDMOTHER WAS SO RIGHT REPUBLICANS START THE WAR AND DEMOS HAVE TO FINISH THE WAR GOD REST HER SOUL SHE WAS SO CORRECT
Posted by: H.BARTLETT | March 23, 2007 10:57 AM
i think that we need to have all of our soldiers come home. they have been over their long enough. My cousin is going to be going over their next year but hopefully they will get to come home either by next spring or sooner.
Posted by: amy | March 23, 2007 10:58 AM
I love my nation. I recently returned from Iraq, take a poll ask our troops that are there why they are there! You will be amazed at the response, I have walked thousand of miles through Iraq for 8 months straight nothing has changed nothing will change. "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make hime drink"
Posted by: c.j. | March 23, 2007 11:01 AM
First of all, freedom of speech allows university campuses to say whatever they want. Complaining about it is unconstitutional. Considering the fact that there are proportianatly more liberal rallies that do proportionally more ridiculous things, lets pull the plank out of our own eye before we pick on the specks.
Second, lets stop spewing rhetoric about the deficit and bad mouthing the war and start speaking in ideas and solutions. I have had all I can take with complainers who think that if we do nothing, things magically take care of themselves. This is the Clinton process that led to 9/11 and countless other terrorist activities. Debate the fact that not a single terrorist plot after the launch of the War on Terror has succeeded on american soil. Or debate the fact that Iran just kidnapped 15 people and still democrats will do/say nothing about it. Debate the fact that democrats want a clear and pressent sign of danger (like a nuclear explosion) before they are willing to act.
Debate the fact that when that happens, will it be too late to act?
At least those debates have some kind of purpose.
Posted by: Derock | March 23, 2007 11:08 AM
George Bush needs to explain to the world why he started this war in Iraq.
Iraq is worse under Bush than under Saddam Hussein.
Seemingly, there in no Iraq anymore.
There is more blood than oil in Iraq now.
The situation in Iraq is very bad today.
Posted by: Sawak Sarju | March 23, 2007 11:14 AM
So...college Republicans are playing silly little games while their peers get killed for a war that they unflinchingly supported in Iraq?
Cowards all. I'll say it to their faces (and have).
dan
Posted by: Dan | March 23, 2007 11:14 AM
Support for the troops is a red herring. Giving the administration more money so they can keep our troops in Iraq, acting as targets in a civil war is NOT supporting the troops. Funding a mismanaged war predicated on lies is NOT supporting our troops. Allowing Bush's war of hubris to continue so he can try to salvage his legacy and make his pathetic point at the cost of our troops' lives is NOT supporting our troops.
Supporting the troops means not asking them to continue to fight in an unwinnable civil war. Supporting our troops means not abusing their sacrifice to our country.
Bush used lies to get them there. We'll use the truth to get them out.
Posted by: Mark F. | March 23, 2007 11:15 AM
I emplore people to get off their butt and turn off CNN. Go out and meet one of our military officers that have come back from the war and discuss with them the successes and failures of the war in Iraq. Very different perspective and I put my money on them having the real scoop..Don't cha think?
The key word is "illegal immigration". And, it is a real problem...college kids are only try to bring awareness to the issue and while doing so they are doing what they always do..having a good time. If people are offended then join the fight. This country is great but we have laws and you can't selectively choose to follow some but not others. I don't hate anyone. But, breaking the law will land ME in jail or with a nice fine...what is the punishment for "illegal trespassing" in our country? just for us to tolerate it? If so, then change the law. This whole issue makes the US look like a bunch of idiots.
Posted by: Justin | March 23, 2007 11:15 AM
Isn't it simple. Pull out our troops immediately if you do not have the money to support it. Besides, no matter now much more money we throw into the sensless war we still have to withdraw someday. The only difference bewteen early and late withdraws is the amount of wasted money and number of lives saccrificed in vain. Don't you think that the greatest support to our troops is geeting them back home alive and intact while we can. The best way to deal with an enemy is that "You never finght a desperate anemy". You should talk to you enemy and try to talk your enemies into your friends or lesser enemies. Never make your enemies sturner!!!!
Wayne Cao
Posted by: Wenhong | March 23, 2007 11:41 AM
Tony Snow - "What Democrats are doing now is wasteing time"
"Surgeing" American troops into an ongoing civil war is wasteing time Mr.Snowjob.
It proves absolutly nothing other than we can "occupy" certain area's of Baghdad for a period of time.
There is no way that we can maintain a troop level of 160,000+ in order to maintain any "peace" we might be bringing them anyway.
The Iraqi's have been fighting for over 1300 years about who succeeded Mohammed,do you really beleive that we're going to drop in on them and bring them democracy?
We can stay there for 100 more years and it won't change a thing and in 100 more years the moron Republicans would still be defending their homemade money and death pit.
Posted by: John E. | March 23, 2007 12:07 PM
Just to clarify (Derock)-
First, complaining about what the college campuses do is not unconstitutional. Making laws restricting their freedom of speech would be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact (I cant believe this has to be said) their complaints are an excercise in freedom of speech as well. You must have missed that class...
Second, this is an "idea and solution." Set a deadline to pull out the troops. What is not an idea or solution is debating the "facts" you listed. Remember what the issue is? The war in Iraq - while tenuated connections might bring these issues in line with the iraq war, is does not change the fact that the issue is what the course of the war should be, not whether all dems are like clinton, or whether the war has prevented attacks on american soil. You, my friend, are retarded.
Posted by: Jack Duluoz | March 23, 2007 12:19 PM
Just to clarify (Derock)-
First, complaining about what the college campuses do is not unconstitutional. Making laws restricting their freedom of speech would be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact (I cant believe this has to be said) their complaints are an excercise in freedom of speech as well. You must have missed that class...
Second, this is an "idea and solution." Set a deadline to pull out the troops. What is not an idea or solution is debating the "facts" you listed. Remember what the issue is? The war in Iraq - while tenuated connections might bring these issues in line with the iraq war, is does not change the fact that the issue is what the course of the war should be, not whether all dems are like clinton, or whether the war has prevented attacks on american soil. Pratcie what you preach and all of a sudden it is a lot harder to make general attacks on the democrats - at least they are looking the problem in the face and thinking about it, something that the republicans have failed to do from the start.
Posted by: Jack Duluoz | March 23, 2007 12:21 PM
If Congress passes a funding bill, and the President vetoes it, who is it who would be refusing to fund the troops? Looks like it would the executive branch.
Posted by: Steve Sundbeck | March 23, 2007 12:26 PM
The reality Mr. Snowjob is that by putting this military budget in front of the president, it will be his decision to support the war or pull out now. We’re talking about funding for another year and a half, and I recall this temporary surge would only take 6 months to prove or disprove the willingness and/or ability of the Iraqis to hold their own country together. This congress is doing what they were elected to do, and that was to end this open-ended commitment of American lives and money to this un-winnable situation. The balls in his court.
Posted by: Rory M | March 23, 2007 12:32 PM
I paid $100.00 and provided all required papers for financial condition as requested by the US Consulate to apply for a tourist visa for my Aunt in Viet Nam to visit my elderly mom in the U.S.A.
I did every thing legally, paid the fee and the application has been denied for no reason.I lost $100.00 because the American Consulate in Saigon did not return the fee.
Should we let ILLEGAL ALIENS do whatever they want in this country? Do we apply a double standard here in America?
Posted by: Phan | March 23, 2007 12:38 PM
"I have had all I can take with complainers who think that if we do nothing, things magically take care of themselves."
And yet all you offer are complaints. Partisanship aside, the reason for invading Iraq was to over through Sadam. forget about everything leading up to that point, when the first tank rolled across the border the goal was regime change. Can we all agree with that?
Have we accomplished the goal? Yes. Can well all agree with that?
It's time for the new regime to take control of its own country. We've done enough hand-holding.
Allow the American people speak its mind through its elected officials. If the president decides to overrule the desires of the people he is the one not supporting the troops, who - let's not forget - are represented by congress as well.
Posted by: Imola Avant | March 23, 2007 12:47 PM
Yes if the President vetoes the bill, he will be the one who is not supporting the troops.
Regarding illegal immigration and these appalling "games" that are being conducted, (we had a "catch an illegal immigrant" contest here at Michigan State) our immigration laws are broken. That is the real problem. The only way to stop illegal immigration is to stop making immigration illegal.
We are denying millions of people the opportunity to come to this country legally. All they want is to come here for an opportunity to support their family, and improve their life. When we deny them legal entrance, we leave them a choice: continue to suffer, or cross into America illegally. WE are creating the illegal immigrant problem, not them.
The only reason that this problem has gotten to this point is bigotry, plain and simple. The "send 'em back" movement's enthusiastic support comes from one source: They don't like dirty brown people who don't speak English. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the illegal immigrants were Canadian.
Posted by: adam | March 23, 2007 2:27 PM