House passed a spending bill that include Iraq deadline.

[Arlos]

Opinions on when the money runs out differ too. The President says mid-April. The Demos are saying BS, it's mid-May at the earliest. They also note that with LAST year's yearly appropriations bill, the president didn't even sign it til mid-June, despite the "rush" to get it done ASAP early in the year.

The Dems (and repubs who voted for the bills in question) have to be aware that Bush is going to veto at least the first version of this, so they've got to have some sort of a plan in mind. What I am beginning to wonder is if part of that plan is using this as a back-door method to completely cut off the funding and bringing the troops home immediately.

Everyone knows Congress could, if it chose to, cut off the funding for the war immediately, forcing all the troops home. The political fallout from that would be massive however, and thus it just isn't going to happen, no matter how much certain politicians call for it. However, without these appropriations bills, the money WILL run out, with the same effect as Congress cutting off the funding. However, if Congress keeps putting forward bills that would fund it, and the president keeps vetoing them, they could make a case that it's the preisdent's fault for not funding the troops, thus getting the best of both worlds: troops out now (or almost now) and redirecting a big chunk of the political fallout onto the Bush administration.

As I said before, the political fireworks as the money gets close to running out should be interesting, to say the least.

-Arlos

[Evermore]

However, if Congress keeps putting forward bills that would fund it, and the president keeps vetoing them, they could make a case that it's the preisdent's fault for not funding the troops, thus getting the best of both worlds: troops out now (or almost now) and redirecting a big chunk of the political fallout onto the Bush administration.

As I said before, the political fireworks as the money gets close to running out should be interesting, to say the least.

-Arlos

as it should be since we are in this mess because of him in the first place.

[Reynaldo]

It seems to me that's exactly why the Dems are pushing hard to get something done while Bush is still in office. The pullout date on the bill is pretty much around the same time the Dems will take the white house, so they could very easily at that point pull everything out completely with little opposition.

But it seems like they don't want to look like the ones 100% responsible for pulling out, and want to get at least a portion of that on Bush's plate before he's ousted.

[Scatillac]

What a stupid bill. Are democrats ever going to think with their hearts rather than their brains?

Fixed.

[Phlegm]

Hillary Clinton weighs in:

(AP) New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday criticized President Bush for his plan to veto a measure setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

"This is vetoing the will of the American people," Clinton said. "It is time for us to get them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war."

Clinton began her day by joining former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie, for breakfast at their Mount Pleasant home. Clinton hopes to build support for her presidential campaign by joining the Vilsacks, who endorsed her last week.

Vilsack dropped out of the presidential race in February.

Clinton focused on opposition to the war in Iraq and renewable fuels.

Later in the morning, she planned to tour a biofuels plant in Crawfordsville, near Mount Pleasant.

Mingling with activists at the Vilsack home, Clinton blamed Republicans for working to divide Americans.

"We really do need to reject that," Clinton said. "They kept that up because it works."

After touring the biofuels plant, Clinton was scheduled to hold town meetings in Iowa City and Waterloo.

[Phlegm]

Bush criticizes Democrats over war funds.

(AP) President Bush on Tuesday called Democrats in Congress irresponsible for approving war bills that order U.S. troops to leave Iraq by certain dates. He said such efforts will backfire, keeping some troops in battle even longer.

"In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference.

"The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush said. "Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to."

Bush's comments underscored his standoff with Congress. Democrats won power in November, fueled in large part by national anti-war sentiment. They are intent on using their power over money to force Iraq to take more responsibility, and prod Bush to wind down the war.

The president renewed veto threats on both a Senate-passed bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, and an even stronger House-passed bill demanding a September 2008 withdrawal. He said both bills "undercut the troops."

Bush bluntly said that Congress could not override such a veto.

The president's remarks come one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline to end combat.

"It's interesting that Harry Reid, leader Reid, spoke out with a different option," Bush said. "Whatever option they choose, we hope they get home, get a bill, and get it to my desk," Bush said. "And if it has artificial timetables for withdrawal, or cuts off funding for our troops, or tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it."

The Senate is in recess this week; the House is on break for two weeks.

The House and Senate are preparing to send Bush a bill by the end of the month that would approve of some $96 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also set an end date to combat in Iraq. The House wants to order troops out by September 2008, whereas the Senate wants troops to begin leaving right away and set a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations on March 31, 2008.

"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said in a statement before Bush's comments.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the bill to cut off funds for the war would likely be introduced as standalone legislation and would not be tied to the supplemental spending bill.

Reid's proposal would be the most extreme and divisive measure to be considered by Democrats to try to force Bush's hand on the war.

Most Republicans and many conservative Democratic senators, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have been reluctant to embrace a timetable in Iraq. Nelson agreed last week to swing behind the Senate spending bill, which calls for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, only because the date was nonbinding and not a firm deadline.

Nelson also agreed to vote for the measure because Reid added language Nelson wanted outlining steps the Iraqi government should take to improve stability in Iraq.

Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon were the only Republicans who supported the measure.

Reid's promise marks a new shift in strategy for Democrats. Reid was previously reluctant to embrace the suggestion of using Congress' power of the purse and deflected questions on the matter by saying Democrats would provide troops with what they need to be safe.

His latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations fter March 31, 2008, and allowing troops to conduct only counterterrorism operations, train Iraqi forces and provide security for U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

This latest challenge indicates Reid is likely both frustrated by Bush's insistence on the war and his own shaky majority in Congress. Unable to override a presidential veto because he lacks the necessary two-thirds majority support, Reid is trying to ratchet up the pressure on Bush in the hopes the president will cave.

[Evermore]

lol Bush is just trying to save some face and avoid the inevitable.