Funny, I just finished publishing a post showing that the Democrats were acting like they weren't going to fund the war, AFTER already having made sure through back channels that the war was funded.
Not an hour after hitting publish, I see Baghdad Reid still trying to con his supporters.
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.
ummmmmmmmmm, as we showed you earlier, via Weekly Standard and Roll Call:
Having quietly ensured last week that troops in Iraq will continue to be funded for at least the next few months, House and Senate Democrats feel free to use their final week before Thanksgiving to try yet again to attach a withdrawal timetable to any specific war funding.
By giving President Bush a $460 billion Defense spending bill that allows him to divert funding from regular Pentagon accounts to fund the war, Democrats believe they’ve insulated themselves from accusations that they are withholding money from soldiers “in harm’s way,” without having to explicitly vote for a “blank check...”
Indeed, the latest Democratic war funding strategy appears to be one in which they provide funding for the war through back channels like the Defense bill, but withhold explicit funding until the White House caves to their demands...
It’s a risky strategy that may only last until the Defense Department comes begging for more money after reallocating the $460 billion they’ve been given. Unless a critical mass of Republicans develops a sudden willingness to defy the president, funding bills attached to withdrawal timetables won’t become law.
The games the Democratic politicians play... silly, really.
Even the AP understands:
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.
The ramifications of the Democrats little games:
In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.
England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.
So, they will pass a bill that cannot make it though the Senate, even if it did, it would be vetoed and they once again already admit they do not have the votes to override the veto.
Didn't we just recently show the definition of insanity?
So, while our soldiers wait, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will play political games with their funds, trying to force withdrawal while things are looking so promising in Iraq, that they couldn't even force when things were going badly in Iraq.
Pelosi understands that progress in Iraq is bad news for the party of defeat that have bet everything on America's failure and she is doing nothing more trying to rip the rug from under our troops feet for no other reason that they are doing the unthinkable in her eyes... they are winning.
The Definition of insanity is when you do the same thing, over and over and over and over again and expect a different result.
I guess they really are insane.
They aren't happy with 40-0, so now they will go for their 41st loss.
OH, before I forget, Joseph Lieberman has some harsh words for Harry Boy:
Lieberman Responds to Majority Leader Reid's and Speaker Pelosi's Effort to Force Troop Withdrawal
"Congress should support our troops in Iraq, not undermine their heroic achievements by imposing a formula for failure."
Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) issued the following statement today in response to the latest congressional effort to legislate a U.S. retreat from Iraq:
"Over the past nine months, American forces have begun to achieve the kind of progress in Iraq that, until recently, few in Washington would have dared to imagine might be possible.
"Working together with our increasingly capable Iraqi allies, U.S. troops under the command of General David Petraeus have routed al Qaeda in Iraq from its safe havens in Anbar province and Baghdad -- delivering what could well prove to be the most significant defeat for Osama bin Laden's terrorist network since it was driven from Afghanistan in late 2001.
"As al Qaeda has been beaten into retreat in Iraq, security conditions across the country have begun to improve. Iraqi civilian casualties are dramatically down. IED attacks have plummeted, while mortar and rocket attacks are at an unprecedented twenty-one month low. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level in nearly two years. And as a result, U.S. commanders on the ground have begun a drawdown in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.
"According to the BBC just this weekend: 'All across Baghdad... streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business. People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes. Everybody agrees that things are much better.'
"Unfortunately, congressional opponents of the war have responded to the growing evidence of progress in Iraq not with gratitude or relief, but with unrelenting opposition to a policy that is now clearly working.
"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, anti-war advocates in Congress have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat in Iraq -- reluctant to acknowledge the reality of progress there.
"Rather than supporting General Petraeus and our troops in the field, anti-war advocates in Congress are instead struggling to deny or disparage their achievements -- and are now acting, once again, to hold hostage the funding our troops desperately need and to order a retreat by a date certain and regardless of what is happening on the ground.
"It bears emphasizing that none of the progress we see today in Iraq would have happened, had these same anti-war activists prevailed in their earlier attempts this year to derail General Petraeus' strategy.
"In fact, throughout the past nine months, anti-war advocates in Congress have confidently and repeatedly predicted that General Petraeus' strategy would fail, and that the war in Iraq was 'lost.'
"It is now clear they were wrong.
"Rather than another ill-advised, misguided attempt to cut off the funding for our troops in the field, it is time for anti-war forces to admit that the surge is working and stop their futile legislative harassments.
"It is deeply irresponsible for anti-war forces in Congress to hold hostage the funds that our men and women in uniform need to continue their successful efforts. Congress should support our troops in Iraq, not undermine their heroic achievements by imposing a formula for failure."
You tell em Joe!!!!!
They just keep hoping that our troops will stop succeeding. Isn't a sad state of affairs when our own politicians are actively betting and hoping for our troops to lose?
Pathetic.
[Update] Our Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans are asking us for a little help, phone numbers are provided with their message, at this link]
Our military doesn't ask us to do much, please considering helping them with a few minutes of your time.
.
