Senate Approves Iraq Funding With Withdrawal Timetable
And now it is cast in political concrete: President George Bush will get an Iraq funding bill with a withdrawal timetable in it and he will veto it in a historical showdown between the two branches of government. The Senate has just put the final ribbon on the gift Congress is about to present to GWB:
A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.
One interesting aspect is both sides these kinds of largely party-line votes are going to underscore the fact that elections matter. The GOP is likely to rev up its fund-raising capabilities to use these votes to try to regain majority party status. The Democrats will point to this as an example of Democratic-controlled success. But the wild card still remains independent voters — who so far continue to be breaking for the Democrats. MORE:
“The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq,� said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: “It’s time to bring our troops home from Iraq.�The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.
Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will “get harder before it gets easier.”
That statement doesn’t portend well for the final two years of the Bush administration, the Republican Party and for those who want to see more government by consensus and coalitions.
Because it means casualties could increase, the barrage of troubling news from Iraq could continue…all plopped down in the middle of an early-Presidential election primary period where Presidential wannabes of both parties are above all scrambling to appeal to their parties’ respective bases.
Bush will most certainly veto the bill. But no matter what political ballet comes next, it’s unlikely the troops will go without funding — and likely that the political temperatures are about to sharply increase.
24 Responses to “Senate Approves Iraq Funding With Withdrawal Timetable”
There is no way Bush can win this. As Nancy Pelosi said: “Provide for the common defense” is the purview of the Congress. As well, Congress has sole authority over the Purse Strings that funds war and everything else.
The Congress, with a clear mandate from the American people, MUST exercise its oversight responsibility and refuse money for the war in Iraq. They have no other choice.
The president has failed. The military has failed. All because of a flawed policy initiated by the president and his administration. All this is clear to the American people.
The right meekly accuses the “Democrat Congress� of playing politics with the so-called emergency military spending bill. Yes, they are. They are playing politics to get us OUT of a war. Which in my opinion is far nobler a cause than playing politics to get us INTO a war.
Politically, military opinion is irrelevant. Congress decides, not generals. The president has but one choice, agree to a removal time line, or get no more money. The later gives the president a final two choices; remove the troops, or let them die in the field. Should the president again chose the later of these, then Congress will impeach him, try him in the Senate for high treason. The later of which carries the capital penalty of death.
Yes Mr. President, we are serious.
I give Bush a lot of credit. He has been steadfast and resolute. This whole thing is painful to watch. Let’s be clear – Americans don’t have a very good record in terms of results when actually getting what they have asked for. Remember health care? Most Americans resented the system as it was and wanted change. Now all I hear from people is how much better it was before. As for Iraq, when gasoline prices end up at 7 or 8 bucks a gallon after a Middle East meltdown after a troop pull-out, Americans will blame everyone but themselves. The problem in this country is that many Americans are not only short-sighted, but have short memories as well.
Again, this is kabuki theater for 2008.
After this episode winds down, Congress will pass yet another funding bill, with no deadline (or at least not a firm, enforceable one), and even more pork (knowing that Bush will have to sign in the absence of a deadline), and Washington will continue on swimming in the cesspool that is American (and really, all countries) politics.
Damn, I am so freaking cynical these days.
And my beloved Cubbies have decided to have the August swoon in April this year. By the end of July, Pinella’s head is going to literally explode in the middle of a 6 run 8th inning against the Cubs. Not that that has a single thing to do with this thread, mind you.
Ummm, they don’t refuse money for Iraq. They want to run the show in Iraq and bad or good that is the Presidents power not the congress. I don’t think you can say there is any clear mandate, Leberman anyone? The military has not failed and in truth can’t fail unless we leave. They are not being forced out and the main damage is political not military. If the congress were truly foolish enough to go your route and “let them die in the field” then that would be the practical end the the democratic party as we know it. I’m not going into it because we all know in the end someone will fold or they will compromise. But the idea of “let them die in the field” is sick and the American people would not allow any party who was involved in that to get away with it.
Let’s see who votes to override and who passed the bill but changes his or her vote when the override vote comes.
DLS- The bill don’t even have to pass and Congress wins. Why, because Bush needs something from Congress, but Congress don’t need a damn thing from Bush.
Eric- That is a lie. Congress has never expressed the desire to “run things in Iraq. They want to leave Iraq with an OBVIOUS clear mandate. I have no idea how in hell it can be anything but a CLEAR mandate. What does Lieberman have to do with anything? Nothing of course.
The military has failed because Iraq is out of control. Period. “The war cannot be won militarily”, I believe everyone agrees on, so they Failed before they even entered!
And dumbarse, learn to read, Congress don’t “leave them in the field”, the Commander and chief decides if they come out or not, but without Congress supplied money he must pull them out or let them die in the field. Its nor Congress, its the President. Of course its sick, but more than two thirds of this nation believe that Bush is indeed sick enough to try it.
Get your facts straight. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Brian’s comment here is a copy of the comment he made on the thread above this one.
This is political spamming and should be removed.
> The bill don’t even have
> to pass and Congress wins.
If it doesn’t pass, Congress will have to try again and Congress is (the Democrats are) assuming political risk in trying to force a deadline. (Will it be announced not only in Dearborn but on al-Jazeera? Is there a time of day as well as a date the Congressional Democrats have in mind?)
> Congress has never
> expressed the desire
> to “run things in Iraq.
Or elsewhere in the Middle East, such as with Syria?
If they’re not trying to run things, they’re at least trying to deliberately undermine President Bush, which is bad enough already.
WA – Did you used to hang around here under the pseudonym ‘Salmineo’?
WA –
Actually, based on the posts here, on other blogs, in the press, by other politicians, by other military commanders, there is a REAL question as to whether that is true or not.
What is undeniably true is we cannot win if we leave.
I wonder if the Dimmie debaters will be asked how they voted on the bill and what they believe the solution is in Iraq, exactly what should be done instead of what we are doing now.
DLS, well Feingold “sorta” answered it this morning……”It’s no biggie, just another Somalia”…………
This morning, Senator Feingold on CNN’s American Morning citing the US withdrawal from Somalia…
HOST: “[Your legislation] forces a redeployment of the troops because there’s a date certain that the funding will be cut off. … â€?
Sen. Feingold (D-WI):  “It’s just like Somalia. We had to get the troops out of there, it wasn’t working out. We didn’t take anything away from the troopsâ€?.
Now, since so many of you are crack historians, who had these things to say about the US withdrawal from Somalia?
 “After a few blows, [America] rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader… I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered…â€? Â
And…
“We believe that the defeat of America is possible … We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. … America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing. America left faster than anyone expected. … [America] gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.�
If it weren’t for the God (Allah) references, C.O. I’d have sworn you could have been quoting from the extreme Left.
*grin*
> DLS, well Feingold “sorta�
> answered it this morning……
>�It’s no biggie, just another
> Somalia�…………
It’s much larger.
Not only does this affect the entire region, but oil and its revenue are at stake. Do we want to see this given to terrorists, or redirected to Iran (the world’s worst terrorist state)? Oil supplies are a vital US and Western (and Japanese, and Chinese) interest.
> Oil supplies are a vital US
> and Western (and Japanese,
> and Chinese) interest.
We withdraw, Iraqi oil no longer is available, oil prices rise — “The withdrawal by the Bush administration was engineered by Big Oil!” (Why were we there in the first place? “It was engineered by Big Oil!”)
It is sad that the conflict in Iraq has degenerated to this point; but that does not mean the Democrats are not able to define what the strategic goals are for the conflict, and that does not mean that the Republicans can muddle through as they have for a couple years (how many ‘last throes’ and ‘turning a corner’ are there?).
The Republicans have a lot of blame to shoulder before they start to shuck it off to others – business as usual when resources are being squandered is not a strategic goal. To top it off, the strategic planning these last four years have been absolutely atrocious that the ‘surge’ was never going to recapture the initiative our military lost in ‘freedom is untidy’ and the April 2004 uprisings.
The Democrats have exactly the same amount of voice in government to dictate what our nation’s strategic goals are. If you don’t agree with them, then vote the bums out. It really is that simple, but remember that we just went through an election period where the both houses in Congress went from Republican rule to Democratic rule – obviously the electorate has had a say about this very hot topic: the leadership better get their proverbial act together.
There are really only two losers in this debate: the soldiers themselves and their families. GWB, Cheney, Reid, and others are trivial points in this debate. After five plus years of being stretched, the military and their dependents are truly caught in the middle where both sides are for the most part wrong.
It was said, “What is undeniably true is we cannot win if we leave.”
That may or may not be true, but who is this “we” you speak of? Is it the 90% of the American nation who really has not done much other than battle on Internet who will win the War of Ideas? Or is “we” the 2% of the nations military folks and the 8% of their families who support them?
It may sound like it is directed towards you, but it is not meant to. It is to show that that there is either a lack of strategic goals set to follow through or the strategic goals are not clearly defined. There is absolutely no way the US military was going to “win” the peace in surge’s four months. That is especially true when we have been on the ground for four years already – and it is not like these problems just appeared overnight.
White the insult was unnecessary, objectionable, and in violations of the policy of this site. It adds nothing to the discussion and is a poor way to cover up your inability to hold a civil discussion or support your position.
We disagree as to what the Democrats want. You say clear mandate (can you say political double talk?), I say hope things get worse so we can blame it on bush.
Leberman is a pro-war candidate who won his election easily……maybe the election wasn’t just about “get out of the war”. Leberman being elected shows that line is just not the truth but rather what some people want to push and get people to believe to further their agenda.
The war can’t be won militarily is not the same as the military has failed. The war never could be won by only military means and no one ever said that it could. But, the military must give the Iraqi people the time and security they need to form their country and secure peace. There is no way that will happen in the next 20 years (barring a horrifying despotic regime) if we just leave.
By the way white I read quite well. The comment was referring to the fact that you believe that if the congress cuts off the money and the solders ” die in the field” that Bush will have all the blame is naive in the extreme. Grow up.
The republicans and Bush have been unable to lay out any goals, plans or visions. The minute they start speaking the Antiwar screams them down with shouts of Fascists, Nazi, Idiot and what ever other names they can sling
The debate ended a long time ago when the antiwar just simply did not want to hear any more and the Democrats went along with them.
Right now their are two governments in this country. The antiwar and the Republicans with the Antiwar Using the Democrats to get their message across.
However what I find amazing is polls have stopped expanding on options and are just focusing on how is Bush doing. Hell Ive been polled and I said he sucks!! Am I anti Bush. No.
A poll I saw a while back indicated that the country wanted a new direction in IRAQ. It did not indicate that they wanted to leave IRAQ. The Democrats have taken that on themselves and all those NEW MODERATE Democrats everyone had such high hopes for are cowtowing right along with it. Afraid to stand up and join in with Sanity and find a new direction, not find the way home.
Americas hope and future lies with these new Moderate Democrats. Its time they stood up and met the challenge.
White Agent:
Gosh, political spamming. I must have gotten under your skin! Three cheers for our side!
Nobody- you think Bush sucks but you are pro-Bush? Explain that one! What did you do vote for him then lower your expectations when he started screwing up?
I do think he has authoritarian tendencies – he surrounds himself with secrecy, has a bunker mentality about his decisions and appointees that go bad, and no one can penetrate a small inner circle. He has treated Congress as an inconvenient, useless appendage, not a co-equal branch. And he’s politicized most of the permanent bureaucracy. Its not like his opposition is just the Democrats or just people who are antiwar.
There were also plenty of people from his own administration who came out later and opposed him and plenty of dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives have as well. He is being attacked by all sides, but for now the GOPers in Congress are sticking by him. But with approval ratings of 28% and 22% how long will it be before they run for the hills,lol? As I said yesterday- he’s a train wreck. Daddy and his friends have always cleaned up for him in other mistakes he’s made- this time he has to take the heat on his own. If he didn’t come from a rich powerful family, would he still be the POTUS?
Brian, so it’s cheap gas versus lives. Every time I hear the mention of what will happen to the price of oil if we leave Iraq, I want to shout, “buy a hybrid dummy” then spend the billions from the war to develope alternative fuels and save lives.