By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
November 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - Rank-and-file Democrats expressed dismay on Friday
over their party's latest anti-war strategy, with some members
reluctant to vote around Veterans Day to bring troops home.
The House was on track to consider legislation next week
that would give President Bush $50 billion for operations
for Iraq and Afghanistan, but insist that he begin withdrawing
troops.
The measure identifies a goal of ending combat by December
2008, leaving only enough soldiers and Marines behind to fight
terrorists, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. assets.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed off plans for a Friday vote
after caucus members told her late Thursday they weren't sure
they would support it. Liberal Democrats said the proposal
was too soft, while conservative members told Pelosi they thought
it went too far.
"I think the message in the next week ought to be that
a heck of a lot of people have been harmed (in combat) and
we ought to take care of them," said Rep. Gene Taylor,
a conservative Mississippi Democrat who says his constituents
mostly support the war.
Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, said the vote was delayed because leadership
was not satisfied it would pass. The proposal — which
also includes a provision that would effectively ban waterboarding
and other aggressive interrogation techniques and restrict
troop deployments — might be tweaked to address member
concerns, he said.
Pelosi told reporters on Friday that she was confident the
measure would pass.
But one guarantee, Murtha said, is that Bush will have to
accept some timetable on troop withdrawals if he wants the
money.
"I don't think you'll see the House pass anything without
restrictions," said Murtha, D-Pa.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Thursday that Bush
would again veto any legislation that sets an "artificial
timeline" for troop withdrawals.
"We should be supporting our troops as they are succeeding,
not finding ways to undercut their mission," he said.
Pelosi, D-Calif., told members in a private caucus meeting
on Thursday that if Bush rejected the measure, she did not
intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest
of the year.
"It's a war without end," Pelosi later told reporters. "There
is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it."
The bill is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to
muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto,
Democrats stripped the timetable from the bill and approved
a $95 billion emergency spending bill, mostly for the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The measure established political goals for the Iraqi government
and put conditions on reconstruction aid, but Bush ultimately
retained authority over the money, which ran out this fall.
Several anti-war liberals said Thursday they were willing
to swing behind the measure, as long as it came with strings
attached.
"The American people want out," said Rep. Elijah
Cummings, D-Md. "And we have to make sure we take giant
steps in that direction."
If approved by the House, the Senate also might take up the
measure next week.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he did not want to
approve a spending measure for Iraq unless it forced a change
in Bush's policies. When asked whether that was possible, considering
the thin majority Democrats hold in the Senate, Reid said it "is
up to the White House and up to the Republicans."
Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats face "unfortunate
timing" because of the military progress being made in
Iraq.
"While our troops are quelling violence and defeating
terrorists in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, Democrats in Washington
are trying to choke off funds for our troops in the field," he
said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
