Is It Really Better To Be Late Than Never?

Created: November 15th, 2007 | Written By: Kyle E. Moore

We will have to wait and see.

The Democrats finally look like they are ready to go to the mat on the issue of the Iraq War. A year after they were elected the majority, House Democrats just barely passed a squeaker of a bill that would give bush a quarter of what he asked for to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This money comes with its own, heavy price.

On top of forcing the President to redeploy troops out of Iraq, the bill would also require the following.

It would ban the White House from using federal funds to establish permanent bases in Iraq or assert U.S. control over Iraq’s oil supply. It would prohibit the president from deploying any military unit to Iraq until he has certified it in writing to be “fully mission capable.”

This is indeed a bold move, but also one that has no prayer at being signed into law. Given that there has been spinnable progress in the war in Iraq which has given Republicans wiggle room on the issue, Bush will veto the bill and it Democrats will not be able to override it.

But this isn’t really the issue; the issue is if Democrats can manage to stonewall on this issue long enough to actually affect some true change of course. Given that the Senate is not expected to move on this bill until next month, we’ve got a long time to wait before we see.

Share and Enjoy:

Sphere: Related Content

Like what you've read? Consider subscribing to our RSS feed or listening in to our weekly podcast for more up to date political news and commentary.

From The Uncategorized department.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Is It Really Better To Be Late Than Never?”

Mark (formerly known as PE) on November 15th, 2007 12:33 pm

They don’t need to affect change- they just need to hold out, period. At some point, they may want to realize that they control the pursestrings, not Bush. So if he wants to veto anything they give him that has a withdrawal condition, he’ll be forced to withdraw even sooner- there won’t be any money to keep the troops over there. Of course, he’ll blame them for not supporting the troops, but if they want to fall for that old canard at this point, then they really are just dumb.
Kyle E. Moore on November 15th, 2007 12:41 pm

Agreed, which is a marked change from where I was about six or seven months ago. If theplanets align, I intend to do a follow up to this later this evening.
mick on November 15th, 2007 2:07 pm

At some point, they may want to realize that they control the pursestrings, not Bush.

Be nice, wouldn’t it? Better late than never, as they say.
The Burden Of Proof » Comments from Left Field on November 15th, 2007 7:54 pm

[...] been something nagging at me for some time now, and the news this morning that House Democrats passed a funding bill for Iraq complete with withdrawal strings attached only seemed to aggravate [...]
Tramadol. on December 24th, 2007 2:53 pm

Tramadol….

Cheap tramadol. Tramadol side effects. Tramadol. Tramadol 180 free shipping….