http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1901696_pf.html


War Funding Bill Will Put Pelosi's Strength to the Test
By Jonathan Weisman WaPo Staff Writer
Sunday, April 20



After years of seeing the House pushed around by President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has learned to say no.

The California Democrat's refusal last month to schedule a vote on a warrantless surveillance bill that the president favors, followed by her decision this month to scuttle a fast-track vote on a U.S.-Colombia trade agreement have shifted some power to the eastern end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

But those tough stands also have raised expectations among antiwar activists and some lawmakers on the larger issue coming in the next two weeks: funding for the war in Iraq.

"What she's done is show people you can stand up to Bush and it's not the end of the world," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a prominent opponent of the Iraq war. "She reminded the rank-and-file here not only do we matter, but we're an equal branch of government, and she reminded the president we're no longer a cheap date."

Added Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for war funding: "She's got a hot hand right now. We want to make sure she keeps that momentum going."

For many Democrats, the standoffs on terrorist surveillance and the Colombia trade deal have been eye-opening for their lack of political fallout.

Republicans continue to say that Democratic opposition to the surveillance bill has jeopardized national security and strengthened al-Qaeda, and that failure to pass the U.S.-Colombia agreement has bolstered Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Raúl Castro in Cuba. But national security arguments that in the past have buckled Democratic opposition have had little impact this time.

"I think that the president has finally realized that the leverage has changed," Pelosi said. "That is the question: Who has the leverage? I think the president realizes now that we do."

In large part, Pelosi's new resolve comes from a changing political environment, according to Democratic aides. With the economy slowing, the war dragging on and Bush's popularity ratings as low as ever, swing-state Democrats are finding their reelection prospects improving steadily. That has given Pelosi more latitude in her confrontations with Republicans.

The economic downturn also has put the war funding fight in a new light, with domestic concerns now weighed against foreign policy ventures. Record gasoline prices have made assistance to oil-rich Iraq more difficult for lawmakers of both parties to accept.

"The Iraqi government has been grotesquely irresponsible with the money we have given them," grumbled Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

Pelosi's allies also say the speaker's allegiance to the House and its prerogatives should not be discounted. "Many in this town continue to underestimate her commitment to this institution and her toughness," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), one of Pelosi's closest lieutenants.

Republican leaders still say Pelosi's stands on warrantless surveillance and Colombia have put her on the wrong side of public opinion and are doing real damage to the economy and national security.

"If they're feeling their oats, I wish they'd feel them in areas that are less dangerous to the country," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

There is no question, however, that Pelosi's battles with Bush have buoyed House Democratic spirits. In the next two weeks her resolve will be put to the test.

By month's end, House Democrats plan to produce a major supplemental spending bill -- totaling as much as $170 billion -- to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the next presidency, channel more federal money to the ailing domestic economy and set policies that they hope will begin to move U.S. troops out of the Middle East.

"I think it's important for the government of Iraq to know that they're going to have to take responsibility for the security of their own country, and soon," Pelosi said. "And that's why the message in a supplemental or something else about redeployment is essential to this, or else they will never move."

Democratic leaders have repeatedly said that, in the end, U.S. troops in the field will be funded. But expectations are high that finally Congress will be able to extract a significant policy concession for that money.

Win Without War, a coalition of 42 groups, is circulating a letter declaring that "it is past time to bring the Iraq war to an end" and that "the best course of action in the upcoming defense supplemental appropriations bill is to provide funding only for the safe and timely redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq."

Antiwar Democrats are girding for a two-front battle. First, they want to beat back efforts to add popular domestic spending to any war funding, which would bolster support for the underlying bill. Then they want to stop any funding for the continuation of combat in Iraq.

"We have two examples of what can happen when the caucus is unified enough to say no," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Democrats -- and many Republicans -- have made clear in recent days that Bush cannot expect to get what he has demanded: a $108 billion war funding bill that hews to the letter of his request -- no added domestic spending, no curtailment of his war-making authority.

Members of both parties in the House and Senate introduced legislation this week to give Iraq additional reconstruction aid in loans, not grants, and to force an Iraqi government flush with petrodollars to assume more of the cost of training and equipping its own forces.

"The time has come to end this blank-check policy and require the Iraqis to invest in their own future," Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) wrote Thursday in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Senate leaders.

At a contentious Senate hearing Wednesday, White House budget director Jim Nussle warned that Bush "will veto any attempt to hijack this much-needed troop funding bill" with domestic spending.

To that, incredulous senators from both parties had a similar response: Tough.

"I will recommend adding significant funds for infrastructure to create jobs in the short term and promote a growing economy in the long term," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

House leadership is likely to prohibit permanent military bases in Iraq, torture by any government agency, and the deployment of troops into combat before they have rested at least as long as their previous combat tour. Senate Democrats will try to add billions of dollars of education benefits for returning troops.

But Pelosi aides and allies have been quick to say that antiwar activists should not believe that because of the two earlier victories, Pelosi will stop a vote on war funding.

"It's an entirely different issue," Miller said.

Republicans relish yet another instance of Democrats trying and failing to affect war policy, only to end up fighting bitterly among themselves.

"The war spending bill will go just exactly the way they have gone before," Blunt predicted. "The Democrats will fund the troops. We're not going to do any additional spending as long as the president holds the line, and they will be right back where they were."

I don't take anything Pelosi or any of her Democratic associates say seriously on this issue anymore. After giving in to Bush every single time on war funding, they have zero credibility left. A jellyfish has more spine. And Sky, how can you even talk about this with a straight face after everything your party has done? Democrats do not have it in them to hold firm on this, although they will milk it for everything its worth for political reasons. Might as well just sign the God Damned thing now and be done with it. Republicans aren't the only ones who suck.

What is of importance here AFW, is not the exact text of the message, but what in fact the MSM is willing to say.
Meaning to read between the lines. Why is the MSM now saying what they are. Is this different or changing?

No, what is important is that the U.S. involvement in Iraq comes to an end, and that Democrats just refuse to give in to Bush Administration demands to stay in this indefinately. But, as we have come to find out, Democrats are more interested in the long-term interests of their party than they are in stopping the war. Even if Obama or Hillary win, I expect the U.S. will stay on in Iraq under a Democratic Administration. I don't even know why you posted this thread. Its not like Democrats are going to actually do anything serious except "make noise" for political effect. How can anyone, even you, respect that?

Darn it Sky

yessir. Always the optomist. My bad.

I don't think AFW's being a pessimist, here, I don't think he's being a troll. I think you deserve more than a cartoon. The Dem leadership in congress, however tied down they are, and however placative they feel they need to be, obviously aren't accomplishing the tasks we elected them to do. The polls prove this, and these aren't election night polls, about who's gonna be a racist or a one issue voter - this is an across the board dis-satisfaction witht the job they're doing. You have every right to be angry with being betrayed... 3/4 of this country feel the same way.

I understand the die-hard devotion to the party that speeks about ending this travesty in the far reaches of the planet, but don't you think you might be giving latitude where it isn't due? don't you think that the dems have just as much, if not more to prove to the publicthan the rupubes do?

I'm not taking the repube's side, I'm just watching history, and seeing how poorly things have gone.

This isn't a Dem's Vs. Repube fight... This is an American patriot Vs. Corporate donor / ruling elite fight.

Picking a side ain't as easy as it seems.

double post...
computer's running as slowly as I am...
good night, and good luck.

Again, it's not about blind devotion to anything!(including the democratic party)

It's about the simple realization that the ONLY power on the floor with any clout that might be able to promote ANY progressive values, is the Democratic party. More specifically, many specific members of the Democratic party as well as the occasional good things most of the rest might do. Either deliberately or otherwise.

Example.

The Green party may have one hell of a progressive platform. But if it can't get more than 5% of the vote, what's the point in backing it? The horse might be beautiful, but if it can't win, why bet on it?

I'm not looking for specifics. I'm looking for an over all trend. I want the country to start to shift back to the left, which I believe has already started to happen. In that shift, the specifics will happen. Without that shift, not much matters because no matter how badly I want it, or how good these changes might be, they just won't happen.


Is the Democratic party the next best thing to Disneyland? I don't think so. I don't think anybody does, including the Democratic party! I'd also like to point out that our form of government is a representational government. Meaning those we elect are there to represent us. Those that we elect don't come from another planet. They are all members of our society, just as we are. This means that WE THE PEOPLE, we are our government! This past weekend I participated on my County Convention. I participated in the process on a level above voting. It was during this day that I actually felt like one of the cogs on many big wheels. I was an important part of the machine. And as a Democrat, that made me an important part of the Democratic party! This means that when anyone hacks on the Democratic party, they are ALSO hacking on me personally! See the connection? Without me, and several million others, there would be no Democratic party. There would be no US government at all! (Ron Paul's wet dream)


No, I do NOT idolize the Democratic party. I can't and also be aware of it's flaws.

Maybe, but it is possible to express one's opinion without being rude and dismissive to people you don't agree with.

And yes, the cartoon was dismissive, so don't bother pointing that out. However, I've come to the conclusion that trying to have a rational discussion with AFW about the Democratic party is a wast of bandwidth.

Boot and Sky are Democrats, not anti-war progressives. When someone jumps on their party, they are quick to kill the messenger. I couldn't care less. I'll speak the truth about the Democratic Party to my dying breath, and any Democrat who doesn't like that can eat it.

I understand your sentiment, and recognize you've toned down your responses in accordance with your views, rather than increasing the venom to fight against those that would love you to leave. I appreciate how you've come back from a recent brief sabatical, and are trying to present succinict, yet derogatory posts against the status quo, and those that believe they cannot expect anything better. I admire the tenacity you present, and hope you stick around... I think people might respect your opinion more if you told people how you moved to change the status qyuo, or tried to enlist people to actively fight the things that piss you off...

no one appreciates a pessimistic nag, but people (except possibly those who you have issues with here) respect action... read the "wow" post recently posted by poac... he expected attacks from the right, but basically only recieved kudos - that's the truth. You can bitch if you act against the stimulus to your bitching. If not, no one wants to hear it.

You are not alone. If you ignore that fact, and refuse to reach out in a positive way to those that comiserate, sympathise, and act, then you inherit self-imposed isolation.

We're here for you, AFW, even if some of the more vocal members are slanted against you.

That's pure bull sheit and demonstrates how disconnected you are.
Truth as far as you're concerned, boarders of trolleriffic!

I mean really, this is pure defensive and irrational horse sheit, and even beneath your usual crap!




Give it up Seuss. The guy doesn't want a peace maker. He needs someone to pat him on the head and tell him he's doing OK. He needs someone to placate his defensive insecurities. Are you that person?

Then how are you still alive?

More than that, he's critical of others supposedly doing this to him,
but has no issue with doing it to others.

There's a word for that.

It is not the Democratic partys job to cater to your every whim. Your not betrayed if they don't do everything you want, that's not how a republic works.

They are supposed to try and represent everyone, not just you. It's perfectly alright to disagree with the party, but you do it in a selfish and arrogant manner.

Sky and I are actually trying to move the party in the direction that we each see as best, we don't agree on everything, but we agree on enough to compromise and work together to achieve some things.

We don't just sit on the sidelines to heckle and whine.

Oh well... I tried.

You know what? screw you guys! If you can't try to help the disaffected by democratic betrayal of the last year and a half, and try to give them hope, rather than constantly bashing them, then you deserve the last seven years, and possibly a McCain presidency. The reason why I can tolerate the concept that the democrat will be Obama (or Clinton, if derisive, finagling, dishonest perspectives have their way) as the democratic nominee is because I expect all perspectives to be considered. I may be naive here, but, hell, the only way out of this hole is compromise on the national level, combined with unwavering ethics on the local level. Obama gave me a piece of his hope toward this end after N.H. - which candidates are you listening to?

The truly disaffected might welcome your help Seuss. But that's not what this is.
Wish that it were, many of us have tried, but that's just not the case this time.

Exactly, but you have to compromise on both sides, when the Democrats compromise with the Republicans, all some do is whine that they have been betrayed.

You can't just expect one side to always make concessions, it's give and take.