Congress, White House remain divided over Iraq spending bill
Sunday, May 20, 2007
DEMOCRATIC leaders in Congress and the White House remained bitterly divided over an Iraq war spending bill as prospects of a deal dimmed after talks broke up in acrimony last Friday.
Angry Democrats said they offered President George W Bush the right to waive troop withdrawal timetables they want in the funding bill, and would rip out billions of dollars in domestic spending the White House has opposed.
But top Republicans said Democrats had gone back to insisting on "surrender dates" and the White House said timelines, even if not enforced, would embolden US enemies.
The breakdown threw the Democrats' goal of getting a bill to Bush by the end of next week into doubt, and further embittered the months-long struggle between Bush and Congress for control of the war.
"To say I was disappointed in the meeting was an understatement," a grim-faced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said after the talks which lasted one hour and 20 minutes.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who hosted the meeting, accused Bush of refusing to accept any "accountability or responsibility" for events in Iraq.
White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten also said the meeting was a disappointment, and accused Democrats of digging in withdrawal dates, which caused Bush to veto an initial US$124 billion spending bill.
"The Democratic leaders did talk about having timelines for withdrawal that might be waivable," Bolten said.
"Whether waivable or not, timelines send exactly the wrong signal to our adversaries, to our allies, and most importantly to the troops in the field."
Before the talks, there had been hope for compromise on establishing political and security benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
But it is clear the two sides are still far apart on the consequences of any failure of Iraq to meet those benchmarks and on the best way to pressure Iraq to act.
Democrats are trying to find a way to curtail Bush's powers to fight "a war without end" and mollify their fiercely anti-war supporters, but still offer financial support needed by troops under fire in Iraq.
The human cost of the war intruded into last Friday's talks, as Reid mourned a young constituent just confirmed killed in Iraq, with the number of US fallen now at 3,404.
Bolten said the White House was prepared to negotiate on the basis of a resolution which passed the Senate this week authored by Republican Senator John Warner, which sets out certain benchmarks.
Failure to meet the benchmarks would leave the Iraqi government liable to losing certain financial aid, and the president would be required to report to Congress in July and September on progress in Iraq.
Reid derided that plan as "weak and tepid" in the Senate this week.
The Democratic position appeared to be modelled on an amendment which called for troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days to pressure Iraqis to act.AFP
Angry Democrats said they offered President George W Bush the right to waive troop withdrawal timetables they want in the funding bill, and would rip out billions of dollars in domestic spending the White House has opposed.
But top Republicans said Democrats had gone back to insisting on "surrender dates" and the White House said timelines, even if not enforced, would embolden US enemies.
The breakdown threw the Democrats' goal of getting a bill to Bush by the end of next week into doubt, and further embittered the months-long struggle between Bush and Congress for control of the war.
"To say I was disappointed in the meeting was an understatement," a grim-faced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said after the talks which lasted one hour and 20 minutes.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who hosted the meeting, accused Bush of refusing to accept any "accountability or responsibility" for events in Iraq.
White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten also said the meeting was a disappointment, and accused Democrats of digging in withdrawal dates, which caused Bush to veto an initial US$124 billion spending bill.
"The Democratic leaders did talk about having timelines for withdrawal that might be waivable," Bolten said.
"Whether waivable or not, timelines send exactly the wrong signal to our adversaries, to our allies, and most importantly to the troops in the field."
Before the talks, there had been hope for compromise on establishing political and security benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
But it is clear the two sides are still far apart on the consequences of any failure of Iraq to meet those benchmarks and on the best way to pressure Iraq to act.
Democrats are trying to find a way to curtail Bush's powers to fight "a war without end" and mollify their fiercely anti-war supporters, but still offer financial support needed by troops under fire in Iraq.
The human cost of the war intruded into last Friday's talks, as Reid mourned a young constituent just confirmed killed in Iraq, with the number of US fallen now at 3,404.
Bolten said the White House was prepared to negotiate on the basis of a resolution which passed the Senate this week authored by Republican Senator John Warner, which sets out certain benchmarks.
Failure to meet the benchmarks would leave the Iraqi government liable to losing certain financial aid, and the president would be required to report to Congress in July and September on progress in Iraq.
Reid derided that plan as "weak and tepid" in the Senate this week.
The Democratic position appeared to be modelled on an amendment which called for troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days to pressure Iraqis to act.AFP
Business Besides Oil
