Panel keeps Iraq timeline in budget plan

A Democratic plan to require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq' passed its first test on Thursday as the House Appropriations Committee voted to endorse the proposal, overcoming Republican opposition.
(What a waste of taxpayer money, IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, YOU HAVE NO POWER!-LNN)
Members voted 37-27 along party lines to uphold a provision in a $124 billion war spending legislation that calls for troops to leave Iraq before September 2008, and possibly sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. Republicans had proposed stripping out the timetable.
(And it’s going to get vetoed and you don’t have the votes to over turn the veto, *sigh* What a waste-LNN )
The Democratic-RUN committee (CLASSIC, that sounds about right, RUN-LNN) then approved the overall spending measure by 36-28. Rep. Barbara Lee D-Calif., a strong foe of the war, was the only lawmaker to switch sides in the vote.
The votes gave Democrats a victory, if only for the moment, in their effort to challenge President Bush's war policies and pressure him into starting a withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Despite the measure's approval, its longer-range fate is dim.
(That’s an under statement-LNN).
In the Senate, minority Republicans can use procedural moves to block the troop withdrawal language and the White House has threatened to veto the bill if it contains the provision forcing the removal of troops.
Rallying enough support for the bill, which allots $95.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan' has been a challenge for Democratic leaders.
(And they knew it was going to be, put they told the American voter they would get it done, and the American voter bought it, hook, line & sinker-LNN)
Many party members support bringing troops home sooner than the 2008 deadline, while others have been reluctant to embrace a firm deadline to end the war.
The defeated Republican amendment would have eliminated the 2008 deadline and inserted language that would promise not to cut funding for troops.
"We are trying to end the authorization of the war if the Iraqis and the administration don't perform," said Rep. David Obey D-Wis., committee chairman.

(How can the administration, when you consistently ties his hands Mr Obey-LNN )

"Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do" but "we can't afford to turn over Iraq to al-Qaida," said Rep. Bill Young of Florida, top Republican on the subcommittee that oversees military spending.
(Someone who gets it-LNN)
Democrats said the timetable was necessary to force the Iraqis to step up, and by another 37-27 partyline vote pushed through a provision promising to "fully support the needs" of service members in combat.
Young proposed a separate amendment that would have restricted funding to steps needed to carry out a troop withdrawal. He said he would vote against it but was an issue that should be settled.
Sensing an effort to lure them into a vote that could be used against in re-election campaigns, Democrats opposed Young's proposal as well and it failed 64-0.
Republicans accused Democrats of micromanaging the war, taking over a role best left to the generals. Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky accused Democrats of an "ill-advised and precipitous withdrawal" plan. And Rep. Roger Wicker of Mississippi said the legislation was a backdoor method of cutting off funds for the troops — a charge that Obey disputed.
The political landscape was different across the Capitol, where Republicans expressed confidence they had the votes to defeat an alternative approach advanced by Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats.
Their proposal sets a goal of a troop withdrawal by March 31, 2008. A mid-afternoon vote was expected.
The Iraq debate spilled over to the 2008 campaign for the White House.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton' a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a New York Times interview (In other words ‘The liberal daily news’-LNN) that if elected she would maintain a scaled-down American military force in Iraq that would stay off the streets in Baghdad and no longer would try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence.

(This is confussing- Read it carefully-LNN)
She cited "remaining vital national security interests" for a continued deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq aimed at fighting al-Qaida, deterring Iran' protecting Kurds and possibly supporting the Iraqi military, the newspaper reported Wednesday night on its Web site.
(Funny isn’t THAT what we are doing NOW, you Liberal Nutcase-LNN )
And NOW-
WASHINGTON - Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush'Iraq' policy at both ends of the Capitol on Thursday, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate on a less sweeping plan to end U.S. participation in the war

(More egg on the face of the Senate Dems, as I predicted, see report below-LNN)