Text 28785, 145 rader
Skriven 2007-05-16 22:12:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Dems
============
These clowns stand for nothing.....  They don't have the guts to stop 
funding the war....  That would end any chance they have in 2008.

===================================

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070517/D8P5Q1E04.html

By DAVID ESPO
 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Anti-war Democrats in the Senate failed in an attempt 
to cut off funds for the Iraq war on Wednesday, a lopsided bipartisan 
vote that masked growing impatience within both political parties over 
President Bush's handling of the four-year conflict.

The 67-29 vote against the measure left it far short of the 60 needed to 
advance. More than half the Senate's Democrats supported the move, 
exposing divisions within the party but also marking a growth in anti-
war sentiment from last summer, when only a dozen members of the rank 
and file backed a troop withdrawal deadline.

"It was considered absolute heresy four months ago" to stop the war, 
said Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, author of the measure to cut 
off funds for most military operations after March 31, 2008.

Ironically, the vote also cleared the way for the Democratic-controlled 
Congress to bow to Bush's wishes and approve a war funding bill next 
week stripped of the type of restrictions that drew his veto earlier 
this spring.

 
Democrats vowed in January to force an end to the war, and nowhere is 
the shift in sentiment more evident than among the party's presidential 
contenders in the Senate.

For the first time, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack 
Obama of Illinois and Joe Biden of Delaware joined Sen. Chris Dodd in 
lending support to the notion of setting a date to end U.S. 
participation in the war.

Clinton, the Democrats' presidential front-runner in most early polls, 
has adamantly opposed setting a date for a troop withdrawal, and she 
gave conflicting answers during the day when asked whether her vote 
signified support for a cutoff in funds.

"I'm not going to speculate on what I'll be voting on in the future," 
she said at midday. But a few hours later she said: "I support the ... 
bill. That's what this vote ... was all about."

Other Democrats were unmistakably clear.

"How many more soldiers do we have to bury? How many more do we have to 
bring into our military and veterans hospitals? How many more thousands 
of innocent Iraqis have to die before we finally accept our 
responsibility to bring this war to an end?" asked Sen. Dick Durbin of 
Illinois.

Republicans voted unanimously against the measure, and several judged it 
harshly. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader, said it fixed 
a "surrender date" for the United States.

There were 28 Democrats in favor of advancing the bill, and 19 opposed.

"An arbitrary cutoff date would take away an important negotiating 
tool," said Sen. Jim Webb, of Virginia, a Democratic critic of the war 
elected to his first term last November. He noted that the 
administration had recently taken steps to engage Iran in diplomacy in 
hopes of easing the sectarian violence in neighboring Iraq.

The vote occurred as Congress pursued multiple objectives in connection 
with a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,400 U.S. troops.

Congressional leaders hope to send Bush legislation by the end of next 
week providing more than $90 billion to pay for the war through Sept. 
30, the end of the fiscal year, and at least part of the reason for the 
day's events was to give lawmakers an outlet for their unhappiness.

Several Republicans, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, proposed 
legislation that threatened a reduction in reconstruction funds if the 
Iraqi government fails to make progress toward a series of military and 
political goals, and provides for outside experts to report to lawmakers 
on the subject.

"The Iraqi government, it strikes me, needs to understand that they're 
running out of time to get their part of the job done," said McConnell.

But the same proposal would have given Bush authority to waive the 
requirement for Iraqi progress, and it drew objections from Democrats as 
a result.

"It's is really very tepid, very weak," said Senate Majority Leader 
Harry Reid.

In the end, the vote was 52-44, more than a majority but less than the 
60 needed to advance under the rules in effect.

While Feingold's attempt to cut off funds is likely to recede into the 
background, at least for the time being, the suggestion that the Iraqis 
be held to account for their promises to foster democracy and strengthen 
their own military has wide currency within Congress.

Bush, too, has said he is willing to accept so-called benchmarks within 
legislation that provides the funds the Pentagon needs, although so far, 
he has not agreed to enforcement measures that might reduce 
reconstruction funds ticketed for Iraq.

That is one of the issues that is likely to surface - if it hasn't 
already - in secretive talks that Reid and McConnell have held in recent 
days with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in hopes of forging a 
compromise war funding bill.

Warner's measure also said the United States should begin a withdrawal 
if the Iraqi government requests one, another idea that is quietly 
gaining support in Congress.

At the White House, deputy press secretary Dana Perino said: "The U.N. 
Security Council resolution, which provides the present basis for 
coalition forces in Iraq, has always been subject to termination by the 
Iraqi government. So this is nothing new."

There is relatively little controversy over the amount of money to be 
provided for the Pentagon, but Bush and congressional Republicans object 
to billions of dollars in domestic spending that Democrats favor.

Of less concern to the White House is a Democratic attempt to add a 
minimum wage increase to the measure. It calls for three increases of 70 
cents an hour over the next two years, and would provide the first raise 
in more than a decade in the federal wage floor.

The debate over Iraq has dominated the work of the Democratic-controlled 
Congress this year, and in recent weeks, Republicans, too, have begun to 
show their impatience with the war.

A group of 11 moderate House Republicans met with Bush and several top 
advisers at the White House recently, bluntly telling him that the 
party's political prospects in 2008 were in jeopardy as a result of the 
war.

Several GOP lawmakers in both houses have said they are looking for a 
significant change in the war by September, signaling they could part 
company with the president as the 2008 election year draws close.


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)