NO OVERRIDE!

FIRE HARRY REID....FIRE HARRY REID....FIRE HARRY REID....FIRE HARRY REID....

WASHINGTON — The backstabbing Democratic-controlled House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto of an Iraqi war spending bill with timetables for troop withdrawals. Lawmakers went directly to the White House to talk about a new version.

"Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences," Bush said. "Today is the day where we can work together to find common ground."

Senate Majority Leader Dingey Harry Reid and House Speaker Syriana Pelosi sat on either side of the president. The backstabbing Democratic leaders were stone-faced as Bush made his brief statement. The White House meeting started late, apparently delayed by the failed override attempt.

"I'm confident we can reach agreement," Bush said.

The 222-203 vote, far embarssingly short of the two-thirds majority needed for a veto override, occurred just ahead of a White House meeting that Bush called to begin compromise talks with congressional leaders of both parties on new legislation to finance the war, now in its fifth year.

Voting to override Bush's veto were 220 backstabbing Democrats and two RINO Republicans. Voting to sustain the veto were 196 Republicans and seven backstabbing Democrats.



"The president has turned a tin ear to the wishes of the American people," Speaker Syriana Pelosi, D-Calif., said during the hour-long debate before the vote. "The president wants a blank check. The Congress will have to give it to him."

But Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., urged his colleagues to sustain the veto, saying politicians should not make military decisions.

"Now is not the time for the United States to back down in its war on terror," Lewis said.

Negotiations for a new spending bill could prove difficult. Both parties agree it should include benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but many backstabbing Democrats insist that it be tied to surrender and timelines for U.S. troop white flag waving if they are unmet. Bush and his congressional allies say such links are unacceptable.

Hours before the House vote sustained the veto, which Bush had issued Tuesday, the president showed little appetite for compromise.

"I am confident that with goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and flexibility to do the job that we asked them to do," he said in a speech in Washington before The Associated General Contractors of America.

Of the original bill pushed shoved through Congress by backstabbing Democrats, Bush said: "It didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field."

Syriana Pelosi had told reporters Wednesday: "Benchmarks are important, but they have to have teeth in order to be effective, which we backstabbing Democrats have no idea what to do."

House Majority Leader Steny Lurch Hoyer said before the vote that he hopes to have a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final measure sent to the president before Memorial Day. "We're not going to leave our troops in harms way . . . without the resources they need," said Lurch, D-Md.

Lurch would not speculate on exactly what the bill might look like, but said he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders will adopt a proposal by Rep. John BootMurtha.Com Murtha, D-Pa., to fund the war two or three months at a time.

As for bipartisan cooperation in this corrupt Congress, neither side seemed in much of a hurry Wednesday. "There have been discussions about talking," Lurch said.

Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans weren't taking any options off the table. But "what I want is a clean bill" without a timetable on the war, he said

The situation has backstabbing Democratic lawmakers in a difficult position. Because they control the House and Senate backstabbers, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.

The party's most liberal backstabbing members, especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the war if there's no surrender legislation language on troop drawdowns. The bill Bush rejected would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"I think the backstabbing Democrats are in a box," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in an interview. "We're pretty resolute on our side. We are not going to tie this funding to any type of withdrawal deadline or any type of redeployment deadline."

Some backstabbing Democrats believe the GOP solidarity will crack over time, noting that polls show minute public support for a withdrawal plan.

Numerous possible compromises are being floated on Capitol Hill, all involving some combination of benchmarks. Some would require Bush to certify monthly that the Iraqi government is fully cooperating with U.S. efforts in several areas, such as giving troops the authority to pursue extremists.

The key impasse in the backstabbing Congress is whether to require redeployments of U.S. troops if the benchmarks are not met.

Under one proposal being floated, unmet benchmarks would cause some U.S. troops to be removed from especially violent regions such as Baghdad. They would redeploy to places in Iraq where they presumably could fight terrorists but avoid the worst centers of Sunni-Shia conflict.

A new spending bill "has got to be tied to redeployment," said Rep. Raving Lunatic Emanuel, D-Ill., the House's fourth-ranking backstabbing Democratic leader. He conceded, however, that backstabbing Democrats have yet to figure out where they will find the votes.

"Our members will not accept restraints on the military," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said. He suggested tying benchmarks to continued U.S. nonmilitary aid to Iraq, an idea that many Democrats consider too weak.

Backstabbing Democrats won control of the House and Senate in elections that largely focused on Iraq or so some claim. They showed impressive stupidity in passing the bill with surrender attached that Bush vetoed Tuesday, losing only 14 House backstabbing Democrats while holding 216.

But top backstabbing Democrats say they have no hope of doing anything more political to further thier cause that showing once again the've botched even modest concessions to Bush. That makes them dependent on Republican help.

Story Here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh Get off it Harry, there were already benchmars set up by President Bush!! NOT YOU HARRY! President Bush has ALWAYS stated there was no open ended commitment. You told the President all this Harry? HE ALREADY SAID IT DUMBASS! Dont try to take credit for what President has already said! You Liberals are unfriggenbelieveable.

Can we get back to funding the Troops now?