At the forefront of Democrats' minds is the more than $147 billion that Bush has said he needs to continue funding the war through budget year 2008, which begins Oct. 1.Of course, President Bush would veto such a spending bill. But if Democrats refused to bring to a vote any funding bill other than what is outlined here, it wouldn't matter how many Republicans got behind it. The question would then be whether Democrats would bend again and fund the war when the inevitable White House attacks begin. Surely they must have given some thought on how to avoid what happened in May from happening here. Hopefully, this is a sign they have.
"That's where we're going to fight the real fight on the war," said Rep. James Moran, D-Va., a member of the House panel that oversees the military budget.
Moran said an option being considered is a bill that funds the troops, but in three- or four-month installments, and directs the money pay for the logistics in bringing home the 160,000 troops in Iraq, instead of combat.
The approach is similar to those tried earlier this year by Democrats. But lacking enough GOP votes, such bills have failed to become law. Democrats say they hope the lack of political progress being made by Baghdad politicians will frustrate Republicans into jumping ship, no matter how much military progress is made.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
According to this AP article, House Democrats are considering a possible short-term spending bill that would pay only to bring troops home: