[NYTr] Latest Dem Ploy: Reid calls on Bush to withdraw troops

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[Safe now for the Dems to claim they won't fund more troops. The US has
already hinted at the beginning of a "draw-down." This is not
unexpected, since military experts said months ago that the "surge"
would have to end and some withdrawals, at least symbolic, would have
to begin soon because the US is out of troops. They cannot
continue to sustain the troop levels they have been maintaining, even
with "stop-loss" extended-duty tours and shortened rotations out of the
war zone. Now, with their scandal-ridden mercenary army under threat of
expulsion (there are at least as many mercs in-country as uniformed
troops) the picture looks even bleaker. 

So the cowardly Dems can now try to defuse popular pressure to REALLY
end the war by not funding it at all, by demanding Bush start
"withdrawals." Bush can say that's what he's planned all along, as soon
as "progress" was sufficient, and "violence levels are down," which he,
they, and the mainstream press are claiming is happening. 

The Dems are still claiming they need enough votes to override a
Bush veto. Don't be fooled. All they need do is NOT SEND A FUNDING
BILL AT ALL. -NY Transfer]

AP - Nov 13, 2007
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=NYPLA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Reid calls on Bush to withdraw troops

By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that
Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless
President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.

By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50
billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would
require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of
ending combat by December 2008.

If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50
billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news
conference.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last
week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

The tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown
with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of
the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is
possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would
probably wait until next year to revisit the issue.

But their remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war:
Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for
troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a
bureaucratic nightmare.

If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would
have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week,
Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays
mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and
weapons development.

The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on
the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican
criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing
the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares
Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war.

"We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American
people," said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "But
tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer."

In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England
warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.

England also said that without more money the military would eventually
have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts.
Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security
forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.

"The successes they (the troops ) have achieved in recent months will
be short lived without appropriate resources to continue their good
work," England wrote in a Nov. 8 letter.

A White House spokesman said Bush would veto any legislation that sets
a timetable for troop withdrawals.

In a speech in Indiana on Tuesday, Bush said Congress should not leave
for Christmas recess without passing a clean war spending bill.

"We don't need members of Congress telling our military commanders what
to do," he said. "We need our military commanders telling us what to do
so we can win the war against these extremists and radicals."

Congressional Republicans said they would back the president.

"It's very clear that the American people want us to succeed," said
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "They would like for our troops to be able to
come home, but not in a losing cause."

The House was expected to vote as early as Wednesday, with the Senate
following suit by the end of the week.

The bill is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to muster the
two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats stripped the
timetable from the $95 billion bill and approved the war money without
restrictions.

© 2007 The Associated Press.