The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
House Democrats work to extend war funding for another
year
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau <mailto:zcoile@sfchronicle.com>
Monday, April 28, 2008
House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war
spending
bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end
of the
Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's
term.
The bill, which could be unveiled as early as this week, signals
that
Democrats are resigned to the fact they can't change course in Iraq
in the
final months of President Bush's term. Instead, the party is pinning
its
hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.
Bay Area lawmakers, who represent perhaps the most anti-war part of
the
country, acknowledge the bill will anger many voters back home.
"It's going to be a tough sell to convince people in my district
that
funding the war for six months into the new president's term is the
way to
end the war," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the
Out of
Iraq Caucus who plans to oppose the funding. "It sounds like we are
paying
for something we don't want."
The bill is expected to provide $108 billion that the White House
has
requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lawmakers who are
drafting
it say it also will include a so-called bridge fund of $70 billion
to give
the new president several months of breathing room before having to
ask
Congress for more money.
The debate is shaping up as a key test for House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi.
The San Francisco Democrat, who opposed the war from the start,
faces fierce
criticism from the anti-war left for refusing to cut off funding for
the
war. She's trying to hold together a caucus split between anti-war
lawmakers, who'd prefer a showdown with the White House, and
conservative
Democrats, who believe cutting off the war funding would make the
party look
weak on national security and put its majority at risk.
Guns-for-butter
Pelosi is plotting a "guns-for-butter" strategy to try to force Bush
to
accept some new domestic spending in exchange for the money he needs
to
fight the war. The speaker is floating a proposal to extend
unemployment
benefits for 13 weeks for those whose benefits have run out. The
package
also could include a new GI Bill benefit to help veterans from Iraq
and
Afghanistan pay for college.
Bush is already vowing to veto any spending that goes over his $108
billion
request. House Republicans, eager for an election-year fight with
Democrats
over spending, are pledging to back up his veto threat.
"We're going to insist that this is about funding the troops and
nothing
else," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
Pelosi has been trying to ease tensions within her caucus over the
bill.
Anti-war lawmakers - including Woolsey, Rep. Maxine Waters of Los
Angeles
and Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland - met with the speaker last week to
urge her
to keep the votes on war spending and domestic spending separate.
"We raised concerns," Lee said. "It just wouldn't make sense to
force
(members of Congress) to choose between providing food stamps for
people who
are hurting and need help during this terrible time and funding an
occupation that people do not support."
House leaders may be able to get around the issue by splitting the
votes.
Last May, Democrats used a similar tactic, staging votes on two
amendments -
one for $22 billion in domestic spending, and another for $98
billion for
the two wars - to allow anti-war lawmakers to vote for the domestic
spending, but against the money for the war.
The strategy would let many Democratic lawmakers register their
opposition
to the war, but it wouldn't change the outcome. The Senate would
eventually
wrap all the spending into one package to send to the White House
for Bush's
signature.
Democrats may use the bill to put Republicans on the defensive by
offering
an amendment to boost tax incentives for renewable energy as well as
language that would block the administration from implementing new
rules
that would cut Medicaid payments and shift those costs to the
states.
House leaders also may introduce an amendment that would require
Bush to use
any new war money only for redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq. Bush
vetoed a
bill with similar language last year and Democrats lacked the votes
to
override it. Still, Democrats say it would remind voters that it's
Bush and
Republicans who are refusing to end the war.
But anti-war activists say Democrats are being disingenuous by
claiming to
oppose the war while also preparing to give the president even more
war
funding than he requested.
"They are the biggest hypocrites in the world," said Medea Benjamin,
the San
Francisco-based founder of the anti-war group CodePink. "They want
to paint
the Republicans as warmongers and they want to keep funding the war,
and
they think we don't see through this?"
Bay Area anti-war activists met at Oakland's Grand Lake Theater last
week to
discuss ways to protest the war spending bill. CodePink plans to
renew its
protests outside Pelosi's home in San Francisco and at lawmakers'
offices,
Benjamin said.
Pelosi on hot seat
Pelosi was pressed on the issue last week during a sit-down with
CNN's Larry
King. "Your party became the majority in the House primarily
pledging to end
the war," King said. "That didn't happen."
"No," Pelosi acknowledged. "It didn't happen because we had hoped
that the
president would listen to the will of the people and at least be
willing to
compromise on ... how the war is conducted and some timetable for
redeployment of our troops."
Congress watchers said Democrats are still stung after losing
repeated
battles with the White House and Republicans over the war last year.
"Last year they tried a lot of confrontation and they went nowhere,"
said
Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress
and an
expert on congressional war powers. He said Democrats still fear
being
portrayed as putting U.S. troops at risk if they try to shut off war
funds.
"That argument seems to win almost every time," Fisher said. "Look
how long
it took to cut off the funding in Vietnam. It wasn't until the
summer of
1973."
Congressional scholar Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said
House
leaders are making a wise choice to give a new president, whether
Democrat
or Republican, some time to chart a new course in Iraq. He noted
that even
the Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama and
Hillary
Rodham Clinton, have said it would take a few months to begin
withdrawing
troops.
Democrats in Congress may risk frustrating their base by funding the
war
into next year, but Mann said it's unlikely to hurt them in the
November
election. The public still generally sees the Iraq conflict as
Bush's war,
he said.
"This only becomes a Democratic war if a Democratic president fails
to
deliver on his or her promise to end the war," Mann said.
E-mail Zachary Coile at
zcoile@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
