See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Senate passes bill to pull troops out of Iraq, paving way for veto showdown (51-46 VOTE)
Source:
Huffington Post (AP)
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070426/us-iraq
Published: Apr 26, 2007
Author: ANNE FLAHERTY
Post Date: 2007-04-26 13:33:22 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 198
Comments: 16
Senate passes bill to pull troops out of Iraq, paving way for veto showdown ANNE FLAHERTY | AP | April 26, 2007 01:22 PM EST WASHINGTON — 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. "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." Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats. "The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill. "We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism or sectarian violence. Or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving," Lieberman said. Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner. Bush since has acknowledged that the war has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, he announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that if Democratic lawmakers timed the sending of the bill to the anniversary of Bush's speech, it would be "a ridiculous P.R. stunt." "That is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate," she said Thursday morning. As Democrats pushed through the bill, Petraeus depicted the situation in Iraq as "exceedingly complex and very tough." He said there have been some improvements in the two months since Bush's troop buildup began, but "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort." Asked at a Pentagon news conference Thursday about the impact on the effort in Iraq if that legislation passed, Petraeus said, "I have tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals." In the House, two Republicans _ Reps. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina _ joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. Voting no were 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said Democrats were still considering what to do after Bush's veto. One option would be funding the war through September as Bush wants but setting benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet, he said. Murtha chairs the House panel that oversees military funding. "I think everything that passes will have some sort of condition (placed) on it," he said. Ultimately, Murtha added, the 2008 military budget considered by Congress in June "is where you'll see the real battle," he said. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the immediate focus should stay on the president "making such a tragic mistake in vetoing this." Eventually, "I think he's going to have to accept constraint on his bad judgment here. . . . We've got to keep relentlessly putting pressure on him." The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has said the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Ie. Keep sending US troops to fight an unnecessary war, slash the minimal funds allocated for needed programs, and keep filling Haliburton's pockets.
yes, and the fact that you are not voting to leave an extremely unpopular and illegal war can have ramifications that are very real. sort of like, if you don't get the troops out, you can add another nail into the coffin of the republicons.
"Inability to accept the mystic experience is more than an intellectual handicap. Lack of awareness of the basic unity of organism and environment is a serious and dangerous hallucination. For in a civilization equipped with immense technological power, the sense of alienation between man and nature leads to the use of technology in a hostile spirit---to the "conquest" of nature instead of intelligent co-operation with nature." -Alan Watts /
Apparently, polling shows the Iraq war has become quite unpopular in Kentucky. If McConnell (who is up for reelection in '08) keeps it up, he may just lose his seat. I think the last Senate Majority Leader to fail to win reelection was Ernest McFarland from Arizona in 1952.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The senators not voting were: Tim Johnson (who is still recovering from his stroke), John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
So two of them are having serious brain problems. Where was Graham??
have you seen this video:
Graham and McCain have been campaigning together. I suspect they were making some kind of campaign appearance.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Yes, they were both campaigning in South Carolina today.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Graham is positioning himself for 2012. He's getting brownie points with the hardcore Republicans, who still back the war.
Surely the D's can mandate a withdrawal without overridding a veto since they control the spending. Pass a bill providing funding ONLY for withdrawing the troops.
Graham Asks Reid: 'Who Won in Iraq?' WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid's recent statement that Iraq 'is lost.' Graham is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If the war in Iraq is lost, then who won? Was it Al Qaeda? Iran? Sunni extremists? Shia extremists? "Do you believe allowing any of these groups to emerge victorious is in our long-term national interests? "I certainly do not believe allowing them to win is in our long-term interests. They all stand against the forces of moderation in Iraq and the entire Middle East. "As part of the War on Terror, Iraq is a test of wills - our will to succeed versus our enemy's will to drive us out. It's in our national interest to stand by peaceful Iraqis and against the extremists who not only want to destroy Iraq, but our own way of life." http://www.senate.gov/~lgraham/index.cfm? mode=presspage&id=273020 Hey Senator, if you believe that crap you are spouting, you need a REALITY CHECK!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I think they're afraid that could be spun as not supporting the troops.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You'll find this a good read: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=51058&Disp=0
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
McCain has to play the voters, so he can't vote on anything controversial, as then he'd piss off half of the people he's counting on for his vote.
No I haven't but I'll check it out. Thanks.
When Chimp rejects this, the blame for the miserable failure that Iraq is will then be squarely upon Chimp's head from here on out.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition"The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House.
#3. To: FormerLurker (#1)
#4. To: FormerLurker (#1)
#5. To: aristeides (#4)
The senators not voting were: Tim Johnson (who is still recovering from his stroke), John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.
#6. To: FormerLurker (#1)
#7. To: Paul Revere (#5)
#8. To: Paul Revere (#5)
#9. To: aristeides (#7)
#10. To: aristeides (#0)
#11. To: Paul Revere, aristeides (#5)
(Edited)
serious brain problems
#12. To: Neil McIver (#10)
#13. To: BTP Holdings, ALL (#11)
Graham Asks Reid: 'Who Won in Iraq?'
#14. To: aristeides (#4)
The senators not voting were: Tim Johnson (who is still recovering from his stroke), John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#15. To: christine (#6)
have you seen this video:
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#16. To: aristeides (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest