White House rejects war bill concession

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

White House rejects war bill concession

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic congressional leaders on Friday offered
their first major concessions in a fight with President Bush over a
spending bill for Iraq, but the White House turned them down.

In a closed-door meeting with Bush's top aides on Capitol Hill,
Democrats said they'd strip billions of dollars in domestic spending
out of a war spending that Bush opposed if the president would
accept a timetable to pull combat troops out of Iraq. As part of
the deal, Democrats said they would allow the president to waive
compliance with a deadline for troop withdrawals.

But no agreement was struck.

"To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement,"
said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I really did
expect that the president would accept some accountability for
what we're trying to accomplish here."

White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, who rejected the deal,
said any timetable on the war would undermine the nation's
efforts in Iraq.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_116

[gratuitous]

1. Message received yet?

Bush and his corrupt cabal aren't interested in any namby-pamby negotiations or compromises. It's all his way or he don't play. It's time to re-introduce the supplemental bill he vetoed, and keep sending it down to the White House. Let Bush keep vetoing funding for the troops, again and again. Sooner or later, even some of the stone-brain base will figure it out.

[underpants]

4. I have to disagree

they consented to negotiations not as fast as they could but as fast as they could after a reasonable wait. They have to come to the Dems because they have nowhere else to go. They will probably give in to something in order to save Gonzo-because there is no WAY they can have another confirmation at this point.

[rsmith6621]

8. MMMMM

Let Bush keep vetoing funding for the troops, again and again. Sooner or later, even some of the stone-brain base will figure it out.

Its not September yet....that is when the REPUKE will finally be sick of this...they have said so 20 times over the past two week.


Better yet lets see the DEM congress start Watergate like hearings on the corruption and get rid of the bastards...sadly they don't have the balls to...

[gratuitous]

9. As for "See you in September"

There's been a lot of chatter, which is already morphing, about September being a real make-or-break time for Iraq. And of course, there will be no more positive news in September than there is now in May, so some of the smarter Republicans are already hedging and using slippery language about September, maybe October, surely by the first of the year.

What I'd like to see the Democrats do is every time one of these weasels talks about how glorious it's all gonna be in Iraq come September, is challenge them: What will constitute this "turnaround"? What objective, measurable features will be progress? Answer now, not four months from now, because you just know that if there's 17 more seconds of electrical power a day supplied to four homes in Baghdad, that will be trumpeted as irrefutable proof that the surge worked, and screw all you nay-sayers.

Put them on record -- now -- for what they expect to see happen come September. What will they call "success" and define it now.

[TwilightGardener]

10. BushCo is stalling UNTIL September--that's when a sudden announcement

of "progress" will be made. What they will do is force a completely toothless and meaningless bill of "benchmarks" out of Congress now, get their emergency money, and then forestall any future attempts to end the war with a triumph of "Surge Success" in Sept., as portrayed by the ever-reputable and unassailable Petraeus.

[underpants]

2. Not too surprising-the Dems just offered up the extra part

some of the spending, as lampooned as it was, is normal course of business (spinach subsidy) and the other is stuff the Republicans didn't get finished because they were so slack. I always figured they threw that it only to offer to take it out. The WH rejected it-fine send up the bill without it anyway.

SPEND THE SAME DAMNED BILL BACK UP!

[mike_c]

3. "...any timetable on the war would undermine the nation's effort in Iraq."

That's because the war against Iraq is about imperialism and resource control, not about any achievable political or social ends. When will Congress stop this charade? The administration will not accept ANY requirement that ends or limits American presence or influence in Iraq because the whole scheme hangs on a permanent American force in Iraq.

There is no way to end this madness with political concessions. The ONLY way out of Iraq is through a constitutional crisis or through impeachment.

[frogcycle]

6. these bastards talk about "the nation's efforts"

or "the nation's goals" as if they actually represented the nation. They know they do not. They should just say "our evil cabal's efforts"

[peacebird]

5. Suprise, suprise - * doesn't compromise...... Color me shocked!

NOT.


Send him the first bill all over again only with all NON IRAQ issues removed.

[frogcycle]

7. and a tax to pay for it added

[ninkasi]

11. The cretin doesn't compromise

It's his way or nothing. Just keep sending the bill back, and let him keep vetoing it. He'll be the one undermining the troops. His refusal to give the troops a 3.5 pay increase is just more proof of what little regard he holds for our fighting men and women.

[Cobalt-60]

12. yes send it back every day, twice a day if possible.

Force him to keep denying the troops a modest raise every day.

[pinto]

13. Has there been any mention from the Administration about the Iraqi timetable?

Last I heard, it had 144 supporters in the Iraq Parliament (a majority) in discussions there.

[David__77]

14. Stupid capitulationism.

There's nothing to be gained from such weakness, not tactially or strategically speaking. Press the legitimate demands of the people.

[Triana]

15. I wish they'd STOP playing that game!

SEND HIM THE ORIGINAL BILL AGAIN.

Let him VETO it.

Let him GRIPE.

LATHER.

RINSE.

REPEAT.

DEMOCRATS then need to HARP ENDLESSLY on the FACT that bu$h REFUSES to sign the bill for additional funding for the war in Iraq. He wants to complain about it, but then refuses to sign the bill. He wants to complain but REFUSES TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

It's about ACCOUNTABILITY.

Gawd, I wish they'd STOP PLAYING HIS GAME and force HIM to play THEIRS. Endlessly - until his term ends.