So in their continuing thread of accomplishing nothing since winning 2/3 control of the Government last November the Democrats are approving an Iraq spending bill that does not call for any time table of troop withdrawal, which means more soldiers, and more Iraqis will continue to die for no real reason...
The real reason the caved of course is that they fear not approving funding would give them more "You didn't support our troops you cowards" image in the elections next year since they are more worried about re-election than actually doing anything with the power they have.
This is of course really the fault of President Shit for brains who vetoed a previous bill that did call for a specific withdrawal date.
Both of these situations prove what a worthless theocratic monarchy our government has become, and how it is time for serious, radical, and permanent change to our system of government; the fact that that last sentence technically makes me a criminal only furthers my point. Seriously in every measurable way the French government is doing a better job of running their country than the people that represent us right now. FRANCE! Think about that the next time you brag about how great America is.
From: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22436992.htm
WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush won a battle over funding the Iraq war as congressional Democrats on Tuesday abandoned troop withdrawal efforts for now but pledged to fight with new legislation in July.
Senior congressional aides said a $100 billion war funding bill the U.S. Congress is trying to finish this week will not contain timetables for withdrawing most of the 147,000 U.S. troops from Iraq, as anti-war Democrats had hoped.
On May 1, Bush vetoed Congress' first version of this year's emergency war funds bill because it set an Oct. 1 deadline for starting to pull out soldiers.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said that finishing touches on a new bill were still being worked on with the White House.
But acknowledging the political realities of the Democrats' narrow control of Congress and a White House occupied by a Republican, Hoyer told reporters, "The president has made it very clear he's not going to sign timelines (for withdrawing troops). We can't pass timelines over his veto."
That will be a disappointment for many Democrats who think they won control of Congress in last November's elections largely because voters wanted to see an end to the four-year-old war in Iraq.
Hoyer said Democrats will continue pushing for a "change in direction" in Iraq, where at least 3,420 U.S. soldiers have been killed and more than 34,000 wounded.
"Certainly we'll do it in July when Mr. Murtha's bill is on the floor," Hoyer said.
He was referring to Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has led efforts in the House of Representatives to end U.S. combat involvement in the Iraq war. In July, Murtha will shepherd a military funding bill through the House for the next fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1.
'SURRENDER DATES'
Bush and most Republicans have argued that setting goal dates for withdrawing U.S. troops would rob military commanders of the flexibility they need to conduct the war. Such timetables, according to many Republicans, amount to nothing more than "surrender dates."
Despite those charges, even some congressional Republicans are beginning to talk about September or October as the timeframe for reassessing U.S. progress in the war and possibly coming up with a "Plan B."
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has said the current U.S. troop escalation to help secure Iraq could be Baghdad's "last chance to get it right." But he has refused to elaborate.
Barring significant changes to the Democrats' latest strategy, the war funding bill will pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. Aides said they plan to include "benchmarks" for measuring Iraq's progress in creating political stability and establishing a competent army.
There would also be consequences for Iraq not meeting the benchmarks, the aides said -- these were likely to be limits on reconstruction aid, as in a proposal by Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner that was endorsed by the Senate last week.
At the time, leading Senate Democrats portrayed that plan as being far too weak.
Democrats are hoping their liberal members will stick with the bill and that some Republicans will join in now that timetables for withdrawal appear to be gone.
"I would support it on the understanding that they will have the withdrawal language in the (fiscal) '08 bill" for defense spending, said Rep. James Moran, a Virginia Democrat who played a role in the four-month wrangle over the war money.
The Entropy Effect
http://www.theentropyeffect.com/article.php/20070602180632312