Dems to give bush $70B more for war

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
By ANDREW TAYLOR

(AP) Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for U.S. troops in Iraq, appears at a graduation ceremony...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic-controlled House is expected to give President Bush an end-of-session victory in his yearlong battle with anti-war lawmakers over Iraq by approving $70 billion for U.S. military operations there and in Afghanistan.

The vote Wednesday also would represent the final step in sealing a deal between Democrats and Bush over how much money to provide domestic agencies whose budgets are set each year by Congress. The Iraq funds have been bundled with an omnibus appropriations measure to create a massive $555 billion package that Bush has signaled he will sign.

Providing the war funds was a bitter pill for most Democrats, who on Monday sent the Senate a bill limited to $31 billion for U.S. operations in Afghanistan, which have much broader support than the unpopular mission in Iraq.

That effort was doomed in the face of a Bush veto promise and a filibuster by Senate Republicans. The Senate rewrote the measure Tuesday night by a bipartisan tally and dropped the combined Iraq and Afghanistan funding in the House's lap as one of the last votes before most senators left Washington for the year.

"Even those of us who have disagreed on this war have always agreed on one thing: Troops in the field will not be left without the resources they need," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

Twenty-one Democrats and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who stood with Republicans at a post-vote news conference, voted with every Republican present except Gordon Smith of Oregon to approve the Iraq funding.

The vote represented reluctance in both parties to take money away from troops in the field. At the same time, anti-war Democrats' positions had been weakened by the decline in violence in Iraq following the increased tempo of U.S.-led military operations there.

War spending aside, Bush's GOP allies were divided over whether the omnibus appropriations bill represented a win for the party in a monthslong battle with Democrats over domestic agency budgets.

In rapid succession, the Senate cast two votes to approve the hybrid spending bill. By a 70-25 vote, the Senate approved the Iraq and Afghanistan war funds - without restrictions that Democrats had insisted on for weeks. Senators followed with a 76-17 vote to agree to a bundle of 11 annual appropriations bills funding domestic agencies and the foreign aid budget for the 2008 budget year that began Oct. 1.

The House vote Wednesday was to ready the entire package for Bush, though the vote was only on the Iraq portion of the measure. That vote would cap a parliamentary dance choreographed to ease the overall package through a chamber split between Democratic opponents of the Iraq war and GOP foes of the domestic spending portion of the bill.

The result on domestic spending created a divide between Republicans who thought it was a good deal, such as McConnell, and those who said it was too expensive and larded with pork-barrel spending.

"We've held the line, achieved what everyone thought was the unachievable," McConnell said. "We are very proud of this bill."

House Republicans and a few Senate GOP conservatives felt otherwise and were disappointed that Bush hadn't taken a harder line in end-stage negotiations. The omnibus measure held to Bush's "top line" for the one-third of the federal budget passed by Congress each year, but only through a combination of budget maneuvers that allowed Democrats to restore funding to budget accounts targeted by Bush and finance billions of dollars worth of lawmakers' homestate projects.

"Congress refuses to rein in its wasteful spending or curb its corruption," Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., said.

Conservatives estimated the measure contained at least $28 billion in domestic spending above Bush's budget, funded by a combination of "emergency" spending, transfers from the defense budget, budget gimmicks and phantom savings.

While disappointed by ceding Iraq funding to Bush, Democrats hailed the pending appropriations bill for smoothing the rough edges of the president's February budget plan, which sought below-inflation increases for most domestic programs and contained numerous cutbacks and program eliminations.

"The omnibus bill largely yields to the president's top-line budget numbers, but it also addresses some of the bottom-line priorities of the American people," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "The Grinch tried to steal Christmas, but we didn't let him get all of it."

The White House, which maintained a hard line for months, has been far more forgiving in recent days, accepting $11 billion in "emergency" spending for veterans, drought relief, border security and firefighting accounts, among others. Other budget moves added billions more.
 
Yes, its absolutely pathetic.

But, Chap, you wanted war hawk Joe Lieberman to win over anti-war Ned Lamont.

So, spare me the crocodile tears, and let someone else post real (as opposed to faux) outrage over this.
 
I've had it with everyone. My optimism for the future of America is at its lowest point ever.

I just read about Hillary getting a surge in the polls in the past few days, and it's completely ruining my holiday season. What are Democrats thinking? What happened to "sending a message"? What happened to common sense?

The whole thing is a real drag...
 
I've had it with everyone. My optimism for the future of America is at its lowest point ever.

I just read about Hillary getting a surge in the polls in the past few days, and it's completely ruining my holiday season. What are Democrats thinking? What happened to "sending a message"? What happened to common sense?

The whole thing is a real drag...

If Bloomberg runs, would that change your outlook? Curious as to where you stand with a candidate like him. Economically I think he would be the strongest of any candidate. He would need to have a strong VP and Sec State as his weakness would be foreign relations. Socially he is pretty moderate.
 
I am a bit more optimistic than Lorax and uscitizen, but then that is my personality. My wife is the pessimist (she says "realist) and I am the optimist in our little family. Time will tell but as I have resigned myself to the fact that we'll have a presidential race where I can support no candidate I have been more optimistic about our future as a country. I don't know why but at least I have a peaceful attitude this holiday season.
 
I've had it with everyone. My optimism for the future of America is at its lowest point ever.

I just read about Hillary getting a surge in the polls in the past few days, and it's completely ruining my holiday season. What are Democrats thinking? What happened to "sending a message"? What happened to common sense?

The whole thing is a real drag...


Damn Lorax, you're like that one of the seven dwarves - Gloomy, was that his name? lol. You're such a worry wart.

Edwards is going to win Iowa. And if he doesn't get the nomination, Obama will. At least, that's what I think.
 
I am a bit more optimistic than Lorax and uscitizen, but then that is my personality. My wife is the pessimist (she says "realist) and I am the optimist in our little family. Time will tell but as I have resigned myself to the fact that we'll have a presidential race where I can support no candidate I have been more optimistic about our future as a country. I don't know why but at least I have a peaceful attitude this holiday season.

good for you Leaning, I am a bit envious.
 
Edwards is a snake. he made his fortune and built his massive mansion by suing doctors.

I don't like the way Edwards got his money. Suing people isn't cool, IMO. I also don't like the way he talks about "two Americas" while living in the WAY UPPER LEVEL of America. But I do like John Edwards message as a presidential candidate in a lot of areas........the war, health care, etc. So I can't call him a snake.

Oh, and by the way he is the only democratic candidate that beats every Republican in a nationwide race right now. As I have said before, if the democrats want a close general race then all they need to do is nominate Hillary.
 
You heard it here first .. Clinton/Obama is what we're going to get.

Not what I want, but that's what we're going to get and the Democratic Party will make sure of that.

It won't be perfect but politics aren't ever meant to be perfect.

The world will breathe much easier.

America will regain some measure of credibility.

The selection of judges will be saner.

The economy will improve for everyone in the boat.

Children and women's healthcare assistance will be protected and get better.

The Iraq war will end.

The Iranian war will never start.

Education and college assistance will improve.

The problems of American infrastructure will be addressed.

Social safety nets will be protected.

We'll have a president who speaks english.

There are things to be optimistic about, particularly looking up from the disaster we are currently in.
 
well then i hope clinton steps down for some reason and obama become president. A nice Watergate type scandle would be perfect as i prefer that to a health issue.
 
If Bloomberg runs, would that change your outlook? Curious as to where you stand with a candidate like him. Economically I think he would be the strongest of any candidate. He would need to have a strong VP and Sec State as his weakness would be foreign relations. Socially he is pretty moderate.

I'm gonna get flamed for this, but if it's Rudy/Hillary, I vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat if he's running 3rd party.

Truth is, pulling the lever for any of those 3 would be brutal. I sincerely hope the primary voters can give us better options in the next few months.

And you're right, Cypress - I am gloomy! The American electorate has given me very little reason for optimism with their choices in recent history...
 
I don't like the way Edwards got his money. Suing people isn't cool, IMO. I also don't like the way he talks about "two Americas" while living in the WAY UPPER LEVEL of America. But I do like John Edwards message as a presidential candidate in a lot of areas........the war, health care, etc. So I can't call him a snake.

Oh, and by the way he is the only democratic candidate that beats every Republican in a nationwide race right now. As I have said before, if the democrats want a close general race then all they need to do is nominate Hillary.
I don't have a problem with him anyone making money on talent, including corporate lawyers, divorce lawyers and basically any lawyer except trial lawyers.
Their success depends on launching a lawsuit where a jury has the biggest hate-on for companies and sues them for way higher amounts than most normal Americans would deem approriate, making a trial lawyer a millionaire often off a single case (ie: Jarod on here is a perfect example).
 
Back
Top