| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Dems will send bill without timeline to the Pres.
Are we there yet? Via AP:
WASHINGTON – In grudging concessions to President Bush , Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.
While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.
Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party‘s rank and file later in the day.
Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.
Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush‘s desk by week‘s end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.
If their intentions were to avoid a veto, then why all the months-long carping about the timeline stipulation?
Ah, this is the reason …
Captain Ed urges caution:
I’d hold off celebrating for a couple of days, actually. This may well last only as long as the next news cycle. Expect to see a lot of “not me” in the headlines, as Democratic politicians insist that they will not support such a spending bill. It could develop enough momentum to stall the agreement.
Curt at Flopping Aces quotes a Washington insider as saying the Dems might be throwing this information out there to “get reactions from the base” – it’s possible, but I doubt it. They know full well what their base thinks of anything other than full and complete withdrawal from Iraq.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
6 Responses to “Dems will send bill without timeline to the Pres.”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
But – Doc told me the last bill had no limitations…
The word no means no.
The word limitations means limitations.
Words mean things…
Liars lie.
That damned Doc! Let’s go see what that rat’s rectum really wrote:
But the fact of the matter is that she and the Democratic leadership delivered a spending bill that placed no actual limitations on the President or his future prosecution of the war.
(You know, I’ll bet that the crooked Doc Washboard would try to draw your attention to the “no actual limitations” way he phrased that–as if what he actually wrote should have any bearing on Baklava’s ginned-up outrage. Phhht!)
And then he went on to quote the actual legislation:
(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.
… and darned if that Doc wasn’t right all along! They weren’t actual limitations. How could he tell? Because he read the bill, and it said, “Shall not be construed to require.”
Wow. It’s a good thing the old Doc has an advanced degree in washboardology–otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to read that stuff.
Yay for reading!!
Yes Baklava, so true, liars do LIE.
We shall see how long it takes for them to blame what is going on in Lebonan on the President, the remblings are already starting.
Dear Drewsmom:
From dictionary.com:
No results found for “remblings.”
Did you mean rumblings (in dictionary) or Rambling (in encyclopedia)?
Dictionary suggestions:
rumblings
brambling’s
bramblings
bramblings’
crumblings
rambling
rumbling
tumbling’s
tumblings
tumblings’
Encyclopedia suggestions:
Rambling
Rhumb lines
Rebel ins
Bremblens
Ramblin’
Rambling Syd
Remoulins
Lem Billings
Rambling Ed
Moblins
Would you like to search the encyclopedias, or search the Web for remblings?
Ever helpful,
Doc
Don’t worry Drewsmom. You know you have them beat when all they can do is criticize your spelling.
Don’t worry Drewsmom. You know you have them beat when all they can do is criticize your spelling.
Yeah, pretty hypocritical considering his “shor-circuit” comment in another thread, but then, what do you expect from liberals.