House Democrats appear ready to capitulate on Iraq. Again.

Once again, House Democrats appear ready to punt.

According to the Washington Post:

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.

If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject.

So, let’s be clear: for eleven billion dollars more in domestic spending, House Democrats are willing to waste hundreds of billions more on the disastrous war in Iraq. Not to mention, you know- lives. Perhaps it should occur to them that there would be a helluva lot more for domestic spending if we weren’t busily bankrupting ourselves in Iraq. Not to mention, you know- lives.

I’m sure it will come as great comfort to our troops, the families and friends of our troops, and the Iraqi people that we’ll have more money for domestic spending. Certainly, their lives are worth it. Or something.

Meanwhile, our ostensible coalition has all but evaporated. According to a different Post article:

President Bush once called it the “coalition of the willing,” the countries willing to fight alongside the United States in Iraq. The list topped off in mid-2004 at 32 countries; troop strength peaked in November that year at 25,595. The force has since shrunk to 26 countries and 11,755 troops, or about 7 percent of the 175,000-strong multinational force, according to mid-November figures provided by the U.S. military.

Everyone else is coming to their senses, but not us. Not even with a Democratic Congress.



Skip to comment form

  1. Alarmingly, Reid has apparently caved:

    But the deal has a long way to go before it can be enacted. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed last month to oppose any additional money for the Iraq war that does not come with a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In talks this week with White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and White House budget chief Jim Nussle, Reid signaled that he could accept the McConnell deal, according to Senate Democratic aides. But Pelosi is uncommitted, spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

  2. 3886

    Later today, these young dead men will be profiled:

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Dewayne White

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Eric Hernandez

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Adam Snyder

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    I am up because I am working on their profiles.  I weep for their families and for my country.  

    Bless you, Turkana.

  3. There is a mass hypnosis afoot in the land.

    There is no guiding star coming from the media or our elected leaders or our best and brightest.

    Yell loud. YELL LOUDER!

    Scream like stuck pigs great high pitched squeals of outrage.

    • oculus on December 8, 2007 at 08:35

    withdrawal passed, even though many Dems had promised not to vote for it.  At the last minute, lots of money for pet projects was either placed in the bill or in a side agreement bill.  Looks like that is what is happening here, although the White House is trying to make it look like Congress is going crazy spending money.  

  4. It’s not much fun to have to call Nancy Pelosi a liar.

    • Zwoof on December 8, 2007 at 08:49

    It’s groundhog day again

    but I did that yesterday

    yesterday yesterday yesterday  

  5. The Iraq war is obviously really important to Bush, so we should see if he’s willing to actually fund it. See if he likes to be forced to choose between the rich “base” that is his real reason for starting the war and continuing the war.

    • Edger on December 8, 2007 at 15:37

    Capitulate? Capitulate my ass. Complicit is how it’s spelled.

    They are playing the electorate like marionettes. The tens of millions who come home from work every day too tired to think, then turn on the TV when their resistance and reasoning ability is at it’s lowest believing they’ll get “news” and instead get “programming”. There’s a good reason it’s called “programming”. The word is descriptive of the effect what pours of of those screens. Then those tens of millions go to sleep repeating to themselves how “different” and “better” the democrats are. How they are the “lesser of two evils”, and since they are they are the ones who must be obediently voted for since they repeatedly “promise” to end the debacle… once given “the rest of” the keys to the kingdom.

    Someone is capitulating. Too many people are capitulating. But it’s not the democrats in Congress.

    Lookitthat! $11 Billion in domestic spending! Aren’t they wonderful?

    The marionettes get back $11 Billion out of the nearly a Trillion that has already been taken from them to pay for the debacle and the mass death….

    ….and they go to sleep happy and smiling. And they’ll line up obediently at the polls next year to vote for “antiwar” democrats. Because they are incrementally better? Because they are the “lesser of two evils”?

    Someone pass me one of those airsick bags, will you please?

Comments have been disabled.