White House: Iraq Funding Compromise Is Possible

Source: US News & World Report

It turns out that the meeting last week between President Bush and congressional leaders to discuss Iraq went better than some media accounts described. True, the Democrats sharply voiced their objections to Bush's Iraq policy and the president defended his "surge" of U.S. troops.

But administration insiders say there were no angry moments or emotional outbursts.

"The meeting itself was very productive--and respectful," a White House official told U.S. News. "Everyone talked clearly and passionately about their views." Afterward, Bush and his advisers agreed it was helpful that everyone understood "where people were coming from and where they were interested in going" on Iraq.

And contrary to some news reports, there may have been more ground for compromise than the skeptics thought. Bush won't accept any legislation that tries to dictate tactics to military commanders, which means he will veto the evolving compromise bill that provides for Iraq war funding but also includes a timetable for withdrawal. The White House official called that "a surrender date."

But what about legislation that sets nonbinding "objectives and goals" for deciding when U.S. troops should leave? The official declined to tip the president's hand but said Bush in the end will accept legislation to fund the Iraq war as long as it doesn't tie the hands of the commanders in the field. That concept, he says, could leave more of an opening for compromise than many people think.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20070424/ts_usnews/whitehouseiraqfundingcompromiseispossible

looks like he wants to play hardball, but we'll know soon enough.

Why should it be? It gives Bush all the money he wants and allows the troops to stay in Iraq as long as there is a need for security, which means forever.

Bush gets the money he wants and the Dems get to call it a withdrawal bill even though it isn't.

American people.

I'm not in the least bit surprised.

handovers or closures, does it?

Do I have that right?

In fact it specifically says we get to stay there after the draw down date in order to protect our assets, train Iraqis and provide security. How is that different than our current mission?

it's fatuously obvious political cover. :(

Sometimes in my darkest moments, I feel that they are partners (R-D) in one big waltz in an effort to distract us "little people" as they continue gut our Treasury into the Third World. :(

i.e., the threat of ungovernability.

Hang in, ShortnFiery. This is going to be an interesting year.

Since this $100 billion would only fund the troops for about another 6 months, Bush will be asking for a new funding bill early next year! Yippee! By then it should be clear to everyone whether the surge is having any positive effect. If it isn't, you can bet there will be even greater pressure to set a withdrawal date. Of course, Bush and Cheney will be telling us that success is right around the corner.

Basically they will have a year of armtwisting and spinning of course so will we but basically this throws into yet another black/white all or nothing frame.

Shorter version: "Compromise is possible, as long as those uppity Democrats cave."

What amazes me is the quote that keeps getting airplay to frame the issue for the American people.

Bush: "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling
generals how to do their job."

Last I checked, Bush *is* a Washington politician. His administration *has* been telling the generals how to do their jobs. And despite the fact that his administration has for five years provided the singular definition of botched politically-defined military strategy, the mainstream media still cheerfully lets this smacktard to define how readers see both sides of the impasse.

The withdrawal timetable is not an order to the generals, nor for any military personnel. It's simply a correction for Bush's catastrophic failure. To compromise so far as to remove any requirement for withdrawal, even with a "non-binding" version included, would constitute an approval of Bush's course.

is that Bush isn't going to have his bullying hissy-fit in front of anyone who will stand up
to him, prefering to wait until they leave and then bad-mouth them.

He is such a diplomat.

(1) Democratic Congress sends bill including benchmarks and timeline.
(2) Bush vetoes bill.
(3) Congress votes on veto override, but Republicans block override -- continuing rubber-stamping of Bush's aimless warmongering.
(4) Dems send funds-only bill back up to Bush, and begin tackling benchmarks issue separately -- starting with lambasting Bush and the Republicans for not pushing benchmarks onto the Iraqis.

Bush vetoing the frickin' bill would be a GOOD thing, and Republicans voting to support the veto would be even better! What's the problem?