Senate Narrowly Approves Iraq Withdrawal Timeline (UPDATED)
It was only a victory of two votes — but the two votes were enough to change the political equation in Washington:
Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate’s most forceful challenge to date of the administration’s handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
Three months after Democrats took power in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was at hand to “send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war.”
But Republicans—and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat—argued otherwise.
John McCain, R-Ariz., a presidential hopeful, said that “we are starting to turn things around” in the Iraq war” and that a timeline for withdrawal would embolden the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
The effect of the timeline would be to “snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq,” agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent.
Bush had previously said he would veto any bill containing the timeline, and the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote on Tuesday. “This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration’s plan to develop the Iraqi economy,” it said in a statement.
The change will likely be more qualitative than quantitative: the Democrats clearly do not have the votes to override a Bush veto.
But by passing the resolutions in the House and Senate, the Democrats have (narrowly) delivered on the party’s progressive base’s expectations and also likely got thumbs-up from some Centrist Democrats and independents who seek greater oversight on the war or some sign that the war is not open-ended or conducted via a blank check. Reuters adds:
Bush has promised to veto any legislation with dates for withdrawing from Iraq, including a measure passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday.“This war is not worth the spilling of another drop of American blood,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said in pleading for the troop withdrawal plan included in the money bill.
The Senate vote came four days after the House passed its version of a war-spending bill that would set a mandatory September 1, 2008, deadline for withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
Under the Senate bill, which is still being debated, the United States would begin a phased withdrawal of troops this year with the goal, not the requirement, that it be completed by March 31, 2008.
Tuesday’s vote in the Senate marked progress for Democrats, who failed recently to pass a similar, non-binding resolution calling for a troop withdrawal.
One key question that is likely to continue to come up will be the the plans of Joe Lieberman, who some progressives think is toying with switching parties if the Democratic majority takes too strong an anti-war stance. But that seems unlikely, given continued erosion shown in polls for the war, Bush’s low polling status, and the fact that Lieberman differs from the Republicans on a host of other issues. And, if he switched parties, he’d lose any future bargaining power with the on-the-ascent Democrats.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times adds this:
A conference committee of senators and House members will have to write compromise legislation that can clear both chambers and be sent to the White House.GOP Senate leaders were unable today to rally the votes to remove the withdrawal requirement from the measure and unwilling to use parliamentary tactics to block it.
Two Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with the majority Democrats, and one Democrat and one independent voted with the Republicans.
Now, with the Senate poised to approve the war-funding bill that includes the withdrawal timeline as soon as Wednesday, congressional Democrats are about to present Bush with a stark choice: veto a bill funding the war or deal more directly with war critics than at any point since the invasion four years ago.
“He doesn’t get everything he wants now, so I think it’s time that he started working with us,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a lead architect of the Democratic campaign to escalate pressure on the president to change his war policy.
The fact that both chambers attached the withdrawal timetable to legislation to pay for the war effort complicated the strategy on both sides. The Pentagon has warned that unless a funding bill is approved by Congress, and signed by the president in the next month, military deployments to Iraq could be jeopardized.
Neither the Democratic Congress nor Bush wants to be seen by the public as responsible for delaying much-needed supplies to the troops on the ground.
Is a NEW political game of chicken about to begin?
8 Responses to “Senate Narrowly Approves Iraq Withdrawal Timeline (UPDATED)”
I think I need some clarity here. As I see it the Dems don’t really need to override a veto here. I’m pretty sure the House vote was on an amendment to a war-time spending bill, which means Bush can’t veto the amendment without vetoing the spending bill.
That puts him in a bind because he’ll basically vetoed his own war. This will force the issue to come up again, and a new war-time spending bill will have to be proposed.
Unless the political algebra changes somehow in the next few weeks, wouldn’t it be very, very likely that any future versions of spending bills would include the same amendments and time-tables? A veto would simply seem to delay the issue, not solve anything in Bush’s favor.
Am I missing something here?
This actually doesn’t de-fund Bush’s war, it simply gives him the heads up on the fact the public thinks it’s all bullshite and about to be over with.
It’s a question of which aspect of Bush’s character will dominate: the bully who can’t stand being told no, or the monarch wannabe who’ll sign the bill and then ignore the timetable.
If he vetoes the bill, the Democrats can work to make sure the timetable is in every future version of the bill that goes to Bush. That puts more pressure on people who vote against the timetable, as the war continues to erode support for Republicans going into the ’08 season.
If he signs the bill and ignores the timetable, I don’t know what happens.
FWIW, he’s already said he’ll veto the bill.
I think you’re right Kevin.
And it’s his, not the congresses, Game Clock that’s ticking…. Mate in two.
I wonder what Bobby Fisher would do?
Bush can’t fund his own war. If he vetos the bill, he doesn’t get his emergency funds. He’s gambling that the Democrats will cave in in the end, that they won’t allow the surge to go unfunded.
But time is against him. This war is getting more unpopular, the Democrats haven’t suffered for their votes, Republicans are getting tired of the scandals and many want the war done before it costs them another election.
And as you point out, the Pentagon says it needs the funds in weeks or the surge is over.
The fact that the Senate ended up including similar language, despite expectations that the Republicans would filibuster, is a huge red flag that they’re preparing to bail out on this.
President Bush can fund the war out of what is called “cash flow” from the current $400 billion DoD appropriation. What could happen is that the DoD can strip funds out of other accounts to fund the Iraq War. Something that the Bush Adminsitration could do is begin to suspend other programs, furlough civilian employees, and cut back on training in order to create the funds to keep going in Iraq.
Anti-war insurgent? That’s a curious choice of words, isn’t it? Insurgent suggests rebellion against the legitimate candidate, instead of say, the candidate who actually won the primary.
As for the news, if a non-binding withdrawl bill on a razor thin majority is what now passes for “strong stance” I think I’ll go off to the corner and cry about the state of the union now.
Got a question Joe, how does this bill cause independents to veer away from Democrats? Other than the pork, I’ve seen many polls that show independents have virtually the same dislike for the Iraq mess, and wanting us out at the end of the year by a 2/3rds margin.