The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!

9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004

Best Articles & Videos

Top 9-11 & Hacking Election
Articles & Videos
9-11 What You Are Not Being Told Videos

Videos Re: Secret Government

WTC 7 Website

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

Report: Magnet and PDA Sufficient to Change Votes on Voting  Machines

Al-qaeda Is Creation of Bushites and Mass Media

Good 9-11 Truth Video
What Top Players Say about 9-11
The Category of Terror

9/11: Re-examining the 3 WTC High-rise Building "Collapses"
NIST Admits Total Collapse of Twin Towers is Unexplainable
Dr. David Ray Griffin Interview in Copenhagen
New Eyewitnesses to WTC Basement Explosions
Full Movie: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
Barry Jennings Was Witness to WTC 7 Controlled Demo
Patriots Question 9-11 Website
Did Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville, Pa.?
NYC Emergency Service Director-WTC 7 Was Controlled Demo
Hunt Boeing-Shanksville Edition
9-11 Case against Cheney
Analyst: al-Qaeda Tapes Doctored by US Company
WTC 7 Security Official Details Explosions in WTC 7
WTC 7 Set Up for Controlled Demolition for Morning of 9-11
Cheney Was in Command of NORAD on 9-11 Video
Mineta Confirms Cheney Ordered 9-11 Stand-Down
9-11 NIST Report Debunked
9-11 Asbestos Contamination-A Website to Help You
9-11 CNN and Fox Live Video Coverage
Rumsfeld on 9-11: An Enemy Within
9-11 Must Watch Truth Videos
WTC Slow Motion Video-Floors Being Blown Out
Mark Crispin Miller-No to Holt Bill Video
Theft of 2004 Election-What You Must Believe
Jim Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes Re: 9-11 Video
Cutter Charges Confirmed at WTC
NIST Confronted over 9-11
WTC Controlled Demolitions-Video
Bush Told of 9-11 Attack Before He Left Florida Hotel
Many Explosions in WTC
Rare WTC 7 Video-Limited Fires
FBI-No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9-11
Open Complicity-Anatomy of 9-11 Cover-Up Video
Professor Jones 10 Part 9-11 Truth Video
CNN Reports Complete Disinfo on 9-11 Video
9-11 and the Evidence
USAF Stand Down on 9-11
Third Stage- Very Good Short 9-11 Truth Video
9-11 Video: WTC Loaded with Explosives
9/11 'Smoking Guns'
9/11 Report: A 571-Page Lie
9-11 Growing Skepticism
Pentagon Official Story is False-Video
WTC 7 The Smoking Gun of 9-11 Video
Flight 93 Crash Site Video-No Plane
Alex Jones-9-11 Holes Video
Webmaster Talks on 9-11 
Morgan Reynolds Talk on 9-11

  • Expert on Record-Bin Laden Confession a Fake
    CNN Live Report- No Airplane at Pentagon
    Mineta Testimony on Cheney Stand Down/shoot Down Censored
  • House Democrats work on huge Iraq money bill

    House Democrats work to extend war funding for another
    year

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/28/MNCU10BATO.DTL



    Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau <mailto:zcoile@sfchronicle.com>

    Monday, April 28, 2008

    House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending
    bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the
    Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

    The bill, which could be unveiled as early as this week, signals that
    Democrats are resigned to the fact they can't change course in Iraq in the
    final months of President Bush's term. Instead, the party is pinning its
    hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.

    Bay Area lawmakers, who represent perhaps the most anti-war part of the
    country, acknowledge the bill will anger many voters back home.

    "It's going to be a tough sell to convince people in my district that
    funding the war for six months into the new president's term is the way to
    end the war," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the Out of
    Iraq Caucus who plans to oppose the funding. "It sounds like we are paying
    for something we don't want."

    The bill is expected to provide $108 billion that the White House has
    requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lawmakers who are drafting
    it say it also will include a so-called bridge fund of $70 billion to give
    the new president several months of breathing room before having to ask
    Congress for more money.

    The debate is shaping up as a key test for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    The San Francisco Democrat, who opposed the war from the start, faces fierce
    criticism from the anti-war left for refusing to cut off funding for the
    war. She's trying to hold together a caucus split between anti-war
    lawmakers, who'd prefer a showdown with the White House, and conservative
    Democrats, who believe cutting off the war funding would make the party look
    weak on national security and put its majority at risk.


    Guns-for-butter


    Pelosi is plotting a "guns-for-butter" strategy to try to force Bush to
    accept some new domestic spending in exchange for the money he needs to
    fight the war. The speaker is floating a proposal to extend unemployment
    benefits for 13 weeks for those whose benefits have run out. The package
    also could include a new GI Bill benefit to help veterans from Iraq and
    Afghanistan pay for college.

    Bush is already vowing to veto any spending that goes over his $108 billion
    request. House Republicans, eager for an election-year fight with Democrats
    over spending, are pledging to back up his veto threat.

    "We're going to insist that this is about funding the troops and nothing
    else," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.

    Pelosi has been trying to ease tensions within her caucus over the bill.
    Anti-war lawmakers - including Woolsey, Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles
    and Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland - met with the speaker last week to urge her
    to keep the votes on war spending and domestic spending separate.

    "We raised concerns," Lee said. "It just wouldn't make sense to force
    (members of Congress) to choose between providing food stamps for people who
    are hurting and need help during this terrible time and funding an
    occupation that people do not support."

    House leaders may be able to get around the issue by splitting the votes.
    Last May, Democrats used a similar tactic, staging votes on two amendments -
    one for $22 billion in domestic spending, and another for $98 billion for
    the two wars - to allow anti-war lawmakers to vote for the domestic
    spending, but against the money for the war.

    The strategy would let many Democratic lawmakers register their opposition
    to the war, but it wouldn't change the outcome. The Senate would eventually
    wrap all the spending into one package to send to the White House for Bush's
    signature.

    Democrats may use the bill to put Republicans on the defensive by offering
    an amendment to boost tax incentives for renewable energy as well as
    language that would block the administration from implementing new rules
    that would cut Medicaid payments and shift those costs to the states.

    House leaders also may introduce an amendment that would require Bush to use
    any new war money only for redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq. Bush vetoed a
    bill with similar language last year and Democrats lacked the votes to
    override it. Still, Democrats say it would remind voters that it's Bush and
    Republicans who are refusing to end the war.

    But anti-war activists say Democrats are being disingenuous by claiming to
    oppose the war while also preparing to give the president even more war
    funding than he requested.

    "They are the biggest hypocrites in the world," said Medea Benjamin, the San
    Francisco-based founder of the anti-war group CodePink. "They want to paint
    the Republicans as warmongers and they want to keep funding the war, and
    they think we don't see through this?"

    Bay Area anti-war activists met at Oakland's Grand Lake Theater last week to
    discuss ways to protest the war spending bill. CodePink plans to renew its
    protests outside Pelosi's home in San Francisco and at lawmakers' offices,
    Benjamin said.


    Pelosi on hot seat


    Pelosi was pressed on the issue last week during a sit-down with CNN's Larry
    King. "Your party became the majority in the House primarily pledging to end
    the war," King said. "That didn't happen."

    "No," Pelosi acknowledged. "It didn't happen because we had hoped that the
    president would listen to the will of the people and at least be willing to
    compromise on ... how the war is conducted and some timetable for
    redeployment of our troops."

    Congress watchers said Democrats are still stung after losing repeated
    battles with the White House and Republicans over the war last year.

    "Last year they tried a lot of confrontation and they went nowhere," said
    Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress and an
    expert on congressional war powers. He said Democrats still fear being
    portrayed as putting U.S. troops at risk if they try to shut off war funds.

    "That argument seems to win almost every time," Fisher said. "Look how long
    it took to cut off the funding in Vietnam. It wasn't until the summer of
    1973."

    Congressional scholar Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said House
    leaders are making a wise choice to give a new president, whether Democrat
    or Republican, some time to chart a new course in Iraq. He noted that even
    the Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary
    Rodham Clinton, have said it would take a few months to begin withdrawing
    troops.

    Democrats in Congress may risk frustrating their base by funding the war
    into next year, but Mann said it's unlikely to hurt them in the November
    election. The public still generally sees the Iraq conflict as Bush's war,
    he said.

    "This only becomes a Democratic war if a Democratic president fails to
    deliver on his or her promise to end the war," Mann said.

    E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.

    This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle