Finally

Hey folks,

Finally the time has come that so many people have been waiting for. Our Troops will be supported. It seems that the LWL has FINALLY come to their senses, at least with this, and will be giving the President an Iraq funding bill he will sign. The Mass Media Drones, and the Left Wing Looneys are going NUTS. Got to love that.

From The AP-Congress approving war-funding bill By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress lined up reluctantly Thursday to provide fresh billions for the Iraq war without the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

STOP! {Laughing} Bowing to the President?

"The Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice," said the commander in chief, and he warned that August could prove to be a bloody month for U.S. troops in Baghdad's murderous neighborhoods.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his war policies anew. "Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again until this war has ended," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

"I hate this agreement," added Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee who played a key role in talks with the White House that yielded the measure.

In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank-and-file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could provide the bulk of votes needed to send it to the Senate for final approval.

Presidential politics spiced the proceedings across the Capitol.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, alone among the Senate's Democratic White House hopefuls, pledged in advance to oppose the bill. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he supported it.

That left Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois publicly uncommitted in the hours leading to the vote, two leading White House rivals tugged in one direction by the needs of 165,000 U.S. troops — and in another by party activists demanding rejection of the legislation.

Yes folks, and they are NOT happy. More on that in a second.

The legislation includes nearly $95 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. In addition to jettisoning their plan for a troop withdrawal timeline, Democrats abandoned attempts to require the Pentagon to adhere to troop training, readiness and rest requirements unless Bush waived them.

The bill establishes a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it strives to build a democratic country able to defend its own borders. Continued U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward the so-called benchmarks, although Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.

Which EVERYONE agrees with.

Reflecting unhappiness among conservatives in his own party, Bush said he would have preferred less domestic spending than the bill contained. "But, still, by voting for this bill members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our servicemen and women in harm's way," he said at a Rose Garden news conference.

One of the most vocal war critics in Congress readily agreed. "This is not a game. They run out of money next week," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, whose speech opposing Bush's Iraq policy more than a year ago was a turning point in the debate.

We KNOW this is not a game. You and the Traitor leadership have been the ones treating it as such.

OK according to the NYT, well, need I say more? NYT-On War Funds, Democrats Saw No Option but to Cede Ground to Bush

Not their Fault. {Smile}

WASHINGTON, May 23 — Congressional contortions over the Iraq spending bill could end up with most House Democrats momentarily occupying the position they were so desperate to vacate: the minority.

The decision by the Democratic majority to strip the measure of a timetable for troop withdrawal has raised the prospect that it could be approved mainly by Republicans with scattered Democrat support. The idea that many Democrats would be left on the losing side in a consequential vote has exposed a sharp divide within the party, drawn scorn from antiwar groups, confused the public and frustrated the party rank and file.

But in recounting the leadership’s thinking, senior Democrats and other officials said that by early this week they had concluded there was no alternative but to give ground to President Bush despite their view that he had mishandled the war and needed to be put under tighter Congressional rein.

Get this folks. This is too funny.

But the outcome has angered segments of the antiwar coalition that helped put Democrats in charge of Congress last November on the presumption that the party would hold Mr. Bush’s feet to the fire when it came to the war.

Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, said Democrats were retreating when the public was squarely on their side. Members of his group were distributing fliers with an illustration of a spinal column to lawmakers, urging them to "show some backbone" and oppose the war spending bill.

"The Democrats were elected in November to lead the country out of the war, and this bill doesn’t do that," Mr. Pariser said. "And the perplexing thing about this moment is that the Democrats have the political wind strongly at their backs, and the country wants them to fight."

Who cares what MORON.Org thinks. You are losing your grip Soros.

Many Democrats share that view, saying they would have preferred a harder line from the leadership. "They were weaker than I would have preferred," said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York.

But some of Mr. Nadler’s colleagues said Democrats had to exhibit the responsibility that came with power and should reserve their criticism for Mr. Bush.

"The speaker and our leadership have been indefatigable in their efforts to bring the president to a place to do what we want to do — fund the troops and begin to change direction in Iraq," said Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, Democrat of California.

The leadership has engaged in a bit of legislative legerdemain to ease the pain for Democrats when it comes to the votes on the war money. Their plan calls for two votes. One would be on the war spending and related benchmarks calling for progress in Iraq — benchmarks that were previously resisted by the White House. That is the proposal many Democrats and Ms. Pelosi intend to vote against. Republican officials said Wednesday they believed their members would back it so the money could reach the Pentagon.

A second proposal would contain the first minimum-wage increase in more than a decade and $17 billion in new money for agriculture subsidies, child health care, veterans and military health care, and Gulf Coast rebuilding. Democrats intend to line up behind that measure. If passed, the two proposals would automatically be merged and sent to the Senate without a final vote, sparing Democrats a roll call on the war money and Republicans a vote on the spending.

Aides said they expected the combined proposals to draw considerable support from Senate Democrats who would be more inclined to want to go on record backing the financing for the military as well as the domestic spending. The idea was to get the measure to Mr. Bush by the weekend, though it was still being assembled Wednesday.

Some senators were weighing their options. The Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois were not tipping their hand.

And Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and Ms. Pelosi’s partner in negotiating with the White House, had also not revealed how he intended to vote.

They will most likely not vote. Leaving it open for the Republicans to have the Majority, because they are cowards. But it should be interesting to see how this all plays out in the Press. Finally our Troops will be supported.
Peter

Sources;

AP-Congress approving war-funding bill

NYT-On War Funds, Democrats Saw No Option but to Cede Ground to Bush