This week congress will vote on war funding.

Questions for debate:
Will congress fund the war without time-lines for withdraw?

Will the funding be filled with non-related legislation?

Will president Bush demand a "clean" funding bill?

Will the funding be "clean"?

How will presidential candidates vote if the funding is a "clean" bill with no time-lines for withdraw?

Will congress fund the war without time-lines for withdraw?
Given the real possibility of Obama winning the White House, I see it going one of two ways. First, Congress will submit a pretty clean (I assume by clean you mean without pork) bill with time tables knowing that Bush will veto it, and Congress not having the votes to override. They will then have the "other bill" submitted without the time tables, but with a couple billion in pork which will get signed. Come January, the withdraw bills will start flowing to the executive offices for Obama to sign, if he indeed is the next President.

The second possibility is that since Congress feels pretty confident in Obama's chances of winning, they will simply submit the bill that they know will get signed to get through the rest of the Bush administration, but will have the withdraw bills already drawn up and ready for first order of business in 2009.

Will the funding be filled with non-related legislation?
Business as usual. I would expect nothing less from our elected officials at this point. I wonder if any of the pork will be coming my way?

Will president Bush demand a "clean" funding bill?
Yes, of course he will, then he will sign a pork-laden bill, if we use history as any indicator.

Will the funding be "clean"?
I don't think so. What would be different with this appropriations bill than any other? Congress doesn't know how to pass "clean" bills.

How will presidential candidates vote if the funding is a "clean" bill with no time-lines for withdraw?
This all depends on them being present to vote, of course :

McCain: Aye
Obama: Nay
Clinton: Nay

McCain will always support funding for the war, even if peanuts get more money for storage I would suppose, but not if there was a time table for withdraw.

Clinton and Obama need to continue to paint the anti-Bush policy and vote against anything that does not include a withdraw schedule. I would be surprised if either voted in support of a bill without one.

I should have stated my position in the original post but here goes.

I think president Bush should demand a clean funding bill. This is the only way the congress can clearly state they support the mission, if congress doesn't support the mission then they should create funding with stipulations that the funding can only be used for immediate withdraw. America is at war and either congress supports those wars or they don't and if they don't then they should say so when they open the checkbook. The only other option on funding for the war should be whether or not it should be paid for or financed.

In the Senate there is a bipartisan plan to add an immigration issue and probably a new GI Bill. In the House last week there was legislation, formerly passed by the house introduced and three amendments that included war funding, unemployment extensions and a new GI Bill. The war funding was not approved when 79 Republicans voted present forcing Democrats to vote supporting the Democratic legislation. The unemployment/GI bill amendments were not debated in committee and no amendments were allowed from Democrats or Republicans, they were simply written by House Democratic leadership and presented to the House to either agree with or not agree with, this caused the Republicans to protest the vote on the war funding since they were closed out of other debate.

I do not see anything but a clean war funding bill, paid for or financed as a just action. Either fund the war or end the war. The other immigration, GI bill and unemployment actions should be legislated alone on their merits (funded or unfunded financed).

President Bush should warn the congress that if they fund the war other than a clean funding bill he will take that action as non-confidence and immediately end the war and remove all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan leaving all non operational equipment on the battlefield or blow it in place. Troops will be moving out on everything that has smoke coming out and what remains behind is the responsibility of congress.

Senator Obama and McCain should vote yes on the clean bill and Clinton No.

This week congress will vote on war funding.

Questions for debate:

yes, eventually.

Of course. The usual pork the Dems claim they don’t load into bills.

Yes


Not without a fight and perhaps a veto. After the pork loaded farm bill that is so bloated with crap it’s a disgrace can we expect any big spending bill to be “clean”.

The congress is planning another vacation in just days! Today the Senate will appoint a couple judges, take party lunches and then talk a little about the GI Bill this afternoon. Tomorrow there is a ceremony that will eat up much of the Senate's day. That leaves Thursday and Friday for the Senate to do "something" since the House can't move legislation. Knowing congress they'll want to leave by close of business next Thursday to stretch their vacation. Whatever the Senate agrees to must then be approved by the House since it started in the Senate so Huston there is a problem.

Speaker Pelosi went to Iraq over last weekend and told the Iraqi government the party is over and America must leave Iraq. (She is up for re-election and likely to lose her seat) Pelosi is holding the Farm Bill until the congress returns from their extended vacation? One must ask why?

This pimple is ready to pop and my money is on president Bush. The Senate and House Democratic leadership demonstrates daily that they are dysfunctional and Bush will be more than happy to point this out in the upcoming days as the Democratic Party glows in their worship for Obama's overwhelming support and coronation. If you think president Bush is in low standing this week, wait until the end of next week and see his popularity increase as the Democratic congress hits rock bottom. A total absence of leadership, a ship without a rudder.

Another Zack prediction.

Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan and Rep. Tom Davis ® Virginia do not agree with you.


http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

The president you are betting on now has a Real Clear Politics Average of 30%, Even Rasmussin and Gallop, who have usually given him higher marks, now have him at 32% and 29% respectively.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

I don’t think your doom and gloom for Democrats is any more accurate than it was several months ago.

BTW: I need a source from you on Pelosi’s supposedly “failing” reelection on effort.

Yes, I agree the Republican Party has some problems but not as many as the Democratic Party if the State of the Union is properly framed. It is a matter of explaining the current state of the union in clear points that Democrats would have a hard time explaining. The Republicans do have a plan and they better make it public soon or there will be a Republican president and a congress full of Democrats.

Here is the point on the war, the Democrats have had the request for funding for about a year and there is no excuse to be three days away from a week long recess while the Pentagon is laying off personnel and the payroll in question for Jun. 08 mid month payroll. That is a leadership failure! Even the most liberal Democrat can admit that! Pandering costs the American tax payers millions of dollars as funds are moved around in the DOD to meet the failure of leadership in the Democratic controlled congress.

The war will be funded and we all know it will be funded, the time between it is funded and now is wasting millions of dollars. The president will not sign legislation with all that the Democrats and some Republicans are sending to him, he will veto it. The veto will be sustained! A clean funding will be sent to him and he will sign it in the end.

Look at your own link on the president's rating and then look just below for the rating of congress. Make a note of it now and after the war is funded and see who ends up lower or higher.

For Nancy Pelosi, she is betting on the war going good and betting on Republicans voting to fund it so she doesn't have to. Take a look at this article
http://mhutch.blogspot.com/2007/08/nancy-p...eaker-wins.html

The house Republicans have no reason to vote yes for anything other than a clean funding bill that leaves Democrats to fund otherwise.

The senate will try to tie GI Bill to the funding to assure passage with the other pork riders but that bill will be vetoed and sustained. The president would be smart to use the tactic I stated in my second post on this thread and bring up the shortfalls in the Democratic leadership I pointed out on this post. The Democrats are in a void of leadership corner and can't have it both ways and the clock is ticking.

I agree the Dem Congress “here to lead” as Nancy said 2 years ago has done little but enrich their constituents to ensure reelection. The war funding bill will be no different – loaded up with pork for all to see.

And imo this is just fine because “no earmarks” McCain is going to use this against them in the coming months. I think there is a good reason the approval rating for the Congress is a record low.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Approval of Congress has dipped below 20% for only the fourth time in the 34 years Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing. Today's 18% score, based on a May 8-11 Gallup Poll, matches the record lows Gallup recorded in August 2007 and March 1992.

Congressional approval started off the year at a depressed 23%, then dipped to 21% in March and 20% in April, before reaching the current record-tying low. The 76% currently disapproving of Congress is just shy of the record-high 78% in March 1992.
Democrats Not Backing Congress

One reason Congress is doing so poorly in the court of public opinion is that rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution. In fact, Democrats are about as likely to approve of Congress as are Republicans: 20% of Republicans approve, versus 16% of Democrats.

Not only is that true today, but it has been the pattern in Gallup's monthly approval ratings of Congress since December 2007. Prior to that -- for the first 10 months of the new Democratic majority in Congress -- Democrats tended to express slightly higher approval than Republicans, averaging seven points higher. However, by contrast, during most of the Republican-led Congress from 2000 to 2006, Republicans' approval of Congress was substantially higher than Democrats'.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress...up-Records.aspx

So let em cerebrate and load up the bill – while they can – but there is little doubt the American people are not happy with Congress.

In a true vacuum this would be true, however the President was highly popular during the 2000-2003ish period directly after the event of 9/11 (plus a 2000 honeymoon period) and by association, so was Congress. More of a coat-tails thing during that time. I believe the Democrats will make this election into an impeachment trial of sorts on the Presidency of George Bush and hope that McCain will capsize in the midst of it all.

War funding is a low priority for the Democratic Party. They have other priorities and report time is too short to pass the measure before the recess, it seems they have a sick member and two members involved in a campaign and, another member has a family wedding this weekend.

Leadership! It may be put off until June 15th! Perhaps they need to go to the hog farm for another truck load?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/050...morial_Day.html

Dream on Zack
The major reason for the publics disappointment with congress is because people
don’t think they have done enough to stop president miserable failures illegal war.

The people still trust the Democrats in congress more than they do
president craven coward. ----Har-de har har.

--------- bluecoller -- the grumpy old kraut---

The Democratic majority has not delivered since they took the majority, the president doesn't have a checkbook to fund the war, either Democratic supporters of the Democratic majority are either slow or stupid. Where is the leadership, they keep sending war funding money and the war continues to show promise of ending in a positive way.

Here is the test, here and now, will the Democratic majority show leadership and end the funding for the war as you state the majority that supports them demand? It seems if they can add a little KY Jelly around the war check they can hid the fact they are violating the will of the majority and retain support from the slow or stupid supporters? Why don't they simply only introduce funding legislation without KY Jelly clearly stating the war funding is over, all combat and combat support will immediately return to a secure base and function in a force protection mode until they can be returned to the US or safe base outside of Iraq? Do you suppose the Democratic majority is scared of what may happen if they do this? There is no argument other than they want to protect their jobs! The Senate cannot fund the war, the president cannot fund the war, only the House can fund the war and only the house can approve a bill funding the war. That means if the House sends a bill to the senate indicating: Why don't they simply only introduce funding legislation without KY Jelly clearly stating the war funding is over, all combat and combat support will immediately return to a secure base and function in a force protection mode until they can be returned to the US or safe base outside of Iraq? the senate cannot change it to indicate the war will continue without the agreement of the House Democratic leadership. Where is the leadership? All I see, and all anyone who isn't slow or stupid can see is that the Democratic leadership wants to fund the war or they wouldn't make it possible.

With that said, why do you think the majority will continue to support the Democratic majority when they fail at every opportunity to fulfill their purpose they were elected in 06?

Bush will not leave the troops in Iraq with a time table. Bush will demand funds for the military to fight the war. The Democrats will give him the funds to continue the war. Do you know why this is so, this is so because even stupid and slow liberals know that the ME will go into a region wide conflict, oil prices will triple and the Democrats will be blamed for causing it when clearly Iraq would otherwise stabilize.

So your stats are a temporary view of the American majority that can change on a dime if the Democrats decide wrong.

With supporters that are either slow or stupid in their choice for their new presidential nominee how do you expect the majority to follow? The "chosen one" doesn't have the majority support and will lose and guess what? If a clean war funding bill were presented to the Senate Obama would have to vote yes and Hillary No, he wants to end the war over years in direct contradiction of your stats. With really slow and stupid folks like this, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30...uthern_Strategy to out the majority in your stats Democrats will just be losers.

Senate funds war with no timelines, Clinton NO Obama ?

http://senatus.wordpress.com/

I suspect the Democrats haven't offered a bill that expresses their hard Left's desire to end the war outright because they know full well they 1) don't have the votes 2) don't have the will to expose their true colors no matter the polling numbers and 3) know full well the president will veto any such bill that cuts off troops in the field in such a way. They are bidding their collective time.

We (Republicans) cannot allow ourselves to be cowed in such a fashion. Even if you thought the war was a mistake, leaving now will result in arguably the worst of all worlds: Iraq's sectarian divide once again becomes inflamed, Iran really does assert themselves overtly into the country, our credibility to clean up our own alleged mess evaporates in the Iraqis' eyes, al-Quaida uses Iraq as a now unfettered haven to plan attacks on the United States homeland and our allies, worst of all: We'll be blamed for other people's collective weak wills and their respective outcomes.

Withdrawl is not the answer, no matter how desperate or dellussional the rationale.

I'm curious as how AQ would be able to have an unfettered sanctuary when the Shia Army and police forces, and the Sunni tribes are all generally opposing AQI. AQI has enough trouble maintaining a base in which to stage attacks within Iraq, how will they be able to conduct pan-continental operations uninterrupted if we withdraw?

What an insightful political observation! The next State of the Union will be delivered by Obama. Bush delievered his last one in January and it left his polling nmbers hovering in the low 30s.

(See Brookings, CNN/Time, or 4 1/2 million other sources).