Tweet
It seems the Democrats actually got this passed. It's good news since getting out of Iraq was what they were elected to the majority to do. No doubt Bush will veto it but both houses of Congress have now voted to put a dead line to be out of Iraq by 2008. That is right before the next election.
-
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate. -
US Senate votes for Iraq deadline
US soldiers in Baghdad
Some Democrats want US troops to be brought home now
The US Senate has endorsed a deadline of March next year for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
The Senate narrowly rejected a Republican amendment that would have removed the troop withdrawal clause from a bill on military funding.
The vote is a boost for the Democrats and a setback for US President George W Bush, who has vowed to veto any bill setting out a timetable for withdrawal.
The House of Representatives also backed withdrawal in a vote last week.
The House bill, which imposes a 31 August 2008 deadline for pulling troops out, was passed narrowly by 218 votes to 212 on Friday.
Both pieces of legislation are tied to more than $120bn (£60bn) in emergency funding for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A final Senate vote on the whole funding bill will take place later this week. It will need the support of a dozen Republicans to pass.
'Must change course'
Two weeks ago, Senate Democrats failed to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal, but two more senators sided with them this time, giving them a victory by 50 votes to 48.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the vote a significant step forward and a pointed message to Mr Bush.
"With this vote, the Senate is giving our troops the resources they need in combat - including a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices," he said.
"The president must change course, and this legislation gives him a chance to do that," he said.
But there were no concessions from the White House.
Mr Bush "is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law," his deputy press secretary, Dana Perino, said in a statement.
And a presidential hopeful, Republican John McCain, said that setting a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq would encourage insurgents.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate. -
I wanna pony!Last edited by DanS; March 27, 2007, 22:17.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Basically Democrats, along with several Republicans, have said they'll gladly pass the President's emergency spending bill but they're going to put requirements on it. That name is more then a bit of a lie since it isn't an emergency and instead is just a routine spending bill which the President calls an emergency just so he doesn't have to include costs for his war in Iraq into the regular budget.
Even after Bush vetos the bill although there isn't enough votes to over ride the veto Bush will still have to eventually sign it if he wants the money. Bravo.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Unconstitutional
happily Bush can sign it and say he has no intention of following a blatantly unconstitutional law, and the Court will either back him up or call it a political question.
Comment
-
Err... since when has a non-binding vote ever been "unconstitutional", Kuci?
They were doing so simply to express their position on the issue (and to show they can get votes if needed on Iraq type stuff).“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Oh, I read it to say that he had to withdraw. Nevermind
Comment
-
To be fair, there was nothing in the article clarifying whether it was binding.Comment
-
Fair enough. It seems a lot of media outlets don't get this. The NYTimes website does though, at least.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
To be fair, there was nothing in the article clarifying whether it was binding.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unconstitutional
You're a nut!
Congress routinely puts strings on money and has since the founding of the Republic including requirements to end foreign involvements. How do you think Vietnam came to an end?Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
From the OP: "The House bill, which imposes a 31 August 2008 deadline for pulling troops out, was passed narrowly by 218 votes to 212 on Friday.".Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Oh, I read it to say that he had to withdraw. Nevermind
From MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17811336/
It appears it is nonbinding.
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
So the bribery worked?I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Don't you think this is nothing but political grandstanding?Welcome to earth, my name is Tia and I'll be your tour guide for this trip.
Succulent and Bejeweled Mother Goddess, who is always moisturised yet never greasy, always patient yet never suffers fools~Starchild
Dragons? Yup- big flying lizards with an attitude. ~ Laz
You are forgiven because you are FABULOUS ~ ImranComment
-
Unfortunately. I read the BBC article and it never said it was non-binding. I didn't find out it was non-binding until I read the MS/NBC report. MS/NBC really is one of the better news sources out there in terms of completeness and fairness.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
As I understand it, the House version sets a deadline. The Senate version sets a goal.
Bush has says that he'll veto anything with a deadline.
If I were one of his advisors, I'd tell him to back the Senate version, no deadline, and "goals" sometimes don't get met.
No one's mentioning that, if Bush vetos this bill, he'll be the one cutting off spending for the troops.Comment
Comment