{"id":10881,"date":"2007-05-22T16:12:40","date_gmt":"2007-05-22T20:12:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/10881.html"},"modified":"2007-05-22T16:12:40","modified_gmt":"2007-05-22T20:12:40","slug":"it-may-not-be-a-blank-check-but","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/it-may-not-be-a-blank-check-but\/","title":{"rendered":"It may not be a ‘blank check,’ but…"},"content":{"rendered":"

The AP reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.<\/p>\n

Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion for Democratic domestic priorities such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought.<\/p>\n

After a bruising veto struggle over war funding, congressional leaders in both political parties said they hoped the compromise would be cleared for President Bush’s signature by Friday.<\/p>\n

Despite the concession, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters that the legislation would be the first war-funding bill sent to Bush since the U.S. invasion of Iraq “where he won’t get a blank check.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

OK, but what does that mean, exactly? Bush wanted full funding without strings; Dems wanted full funding with a withdrawal timeline, or barring that, benchmarks with teeth.<\/p>\n

The details are still a little fuzzy right now, but this looks like a very unwise capitulation by Democratic leaders. Reid pointed to standards that the Iraqis have to meet in order to qualify for aid, but if the AP report is accurate, “Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed.”<\/p>\n

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s basically the plan Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) offered last week, which enjoyed strong GOP support, but which Dems overwhelmingly rejected just five days ago.<\/p>\n

In other words, it’s a defeat.
\n
\nAt this point, and with all due respect, Harry Reid’s sales pitch<\/a> needs a little work.<\/p>\n

QUESTION: How about exit dates and timelines or withdrawal strategies or language in the bill? Isn’t that a significant concession by your side?<\/p>\n

REID: First of all, it hasn’t been determined what we’re going to have in that. But keep in mind the progress that we have made. Even the Republicans now have timelines. Remember, they wouldn’t accept our timelines in the bill that was vetoed? And they’re talking now about a plan B, which basically is what was in the vetoed bill. So I think we have to look at the progress that has been made. We now have the timeline that the Republicans have set, and that’s this September. And that’s the very least. And then, as I’ve indicated, the defense authorization, we’re going to start right where we’ve left off with this bill, continuing our push to change direction in the war in Iraq. And now we’re being joined by Republicans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When Reid refers to the “timeline that the Republicans have set,” I think he’s referring to Warner’s amendment from last week. But that’s not good news at all — Warner’s measure was weak. It’s easy for the president to work around. It’s exactly why Dems voted against<\/i> it five days ago.<\/p>\n

Besides, by saying we “now have the timeline that the Republicans have set,” it sounds as if the Dems’ policy is to go along with what the GOP was willing to give them — which wasn’t much.<\/p>\n

By all indications, this is a big mistake, and gives Bush a spending bill he’ll sign with a smirk.<\/p>\n

Dems went into this holding practically all the cards — public support, power of the purse, a relatively united caucus, and reality. Then they folded.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The AP reports: Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting a timeline for troop withdrawal. Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}