Reid Threatens Funds for Iraq War

Source: LAT/AP

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
November 13, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home. By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008. If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

The tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would probably wait until next year to revisit the issue. But their remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war: Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.

If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.

The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war....

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top11nov13,0,2017012.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines

Deprive Bush of something he really, really wants, and dadgum if it doesn't get his attention. And if the Pentagon wants to keep prosecuting this war, have them cut the budget for all the new overpriced war gadgets they like so much.

Was this really so tough to do?

Soon were gonna here from everywhere on high we just need a little bit longer... The surge worked... The people are secure... The troops are only there just in case... BLAH>>> BLAH>>> BLAH...

so 2006ish...

...you and Nancy will give Monkey-Boy EXACTLY what he wants this time, just like every other time...

We're not buying your horseshit anymore...

I'm not putting money on this.

SHOW ME HARRY, or go by way of Pelosi(Now recoginized as having ZERO INTEGRITY from some of her previously vocal supporters like myself.)

Democrats CAVE!

Sounds good Harry but we've heard it all before.
Faith in you is gone.

now where we can walk away without much troop loss and chaos--going out on a high note, as it were--everyone feels good, no sense of defeat. I doubt the decrease in violence will hold up, because the security situation there is totally dependent on us, it's artificial and propped up with big $$$$, but it would be politically difficult to send troops back in after they've started coming out. If we don't push for this now, there might be an uptick in violence that slows or stops withdrawal. All it takes is one bad bombing, or al-Sadr getting his militia going, and we're stuck there. Hopefully Dems can say, "Let's get out while the getting's good".

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Harry: shut the fuck up. You know you are going to fold like a cheap suit. Go away.

They will fold and continue business as usual in the beltway.

I'd rather he just give Bush all the money he asks for without a fuss, rather than making these threats and then capitulating. That makes the Democrats--deservedly--look like spineless panzies.

Not.

No credible threat here.

... "You're watching Hardball"

:rofl:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=NYONI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


and, here's one from April 2007:

'Reid threatens cutting war funds if plan vetoed'

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-02-reid-bill_N.htm

Give Us Hell, Harry!


the editors can just cut and paste ... makes life easy