The Senate has passed legislation ordering troops to begin coming home Oct. 1...

[SlowwHand]

The Senate has passed legislation ordering troops to begin coming home Oct. 1, paving the way for a presidential veto.

That's all I see as released so far.

[Zkribbler]

Last I heard, it was the House that wanted firm deadlines, that the Senate that wanted softer "goals" and that in the converence committee, the House caved and adopted the Senate position.


BTW: I'm surprised the Dems haven't taken a firmer position over all, saying something like: "Here's your extra money. You can veto this bill if you like because you don't like our guidelines, but this is the only bill, you're getting. The American people spoke in the last election; they want the troops home, and this bill is designed to impliment their will. If you veto this bill, you're not getting another."

[Asmodean]

Maybe I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs of American politics....but how would not making another bill expedite the return of the soldiers?

Seems to me that if Bush vetoed this bill, the dems would try to make another, softer bill that would be more to Bush's liking??

Asmodean

[Zkribbler]

Seems to me that if Bush vetoed this bill, the dems would try to make another, softer bill that would be more to Bush's liking??

Your suggestion is probably what will happen.

I think the Dems were quite cunning to put the "goal" of beginning a withdraw into a bill providing supplemental funding for the Iraq War.

Under my scenario -- which probably won't happen -- Bush would be given the choice of signing the bill he hates or not getting any bill at all...and he desparately needs the additional funding to the troops.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Under my scenario -- which probably won't happen -- Bush would be given the choice of signing the bill he hates or not getting any bill at all...and he desparately needs the additional funding to the troops.

Aah, okay...that's what I missed That the funding for the troops is tied to the bill.

Asmodean

[rah]

Any bets who's going to take the blame if there is no additional funding.

I bet the dems blink first. But at least they'll be able to whine afterwards that they tried to get the troops home.

[Apocalypse]

Senate passes Iraq withdrawal bill; veto threat looms
Story Highlights
• NEW: White House says bill calling for troop withdrawal is "defeatist legislation"
• NEW: GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith side with Democrats
• NEW: Democrats are likely short of votes to override threatened veto
• In 218-208 vote, House passed $124 billion war spending bill Wednesday

WASHINGTON (CNN)-- Senators followed their defiant House counterparts' lead Thursday, passing a war funding bill that sets a deadline for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq by next year.

The bill passed 51-46 and now heads to President Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon joined Democrats in supporting the bill. Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, voted with Republicans opposing it.

Passage sets the stage for a showdown between Bush and congressional Democrats, who do not appear to have the necessary two-thirds support to override the president's threatened veto.

Democrats will need the support of 67 senators to override a veto.

The White House quickly denounced the Senate vote.

"The Senate has now joined the House in passing defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micromanages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away, and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending," White House spokeswoman Dan Perino said after the vote.

Prior to the vote, Lieberman condemned the bill -- which he said laid out "a strategy based on catchphrases and bromides rather than military realities" -- as a guarantee of failure in the war in Iraq.

"In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost," Lieberman said, countering a remark to the contrary made last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "But if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Mideast."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, argued before the vote that continuing the war defies the will of the American people and that the U.S. military "should not police Iraq's civil war indefinitely."

He defended the need for a deadline to withdraw troops, calling it "the only realistic way to encourage the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future."

The House of Representatives late Wednesday approved a $124 billion funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timetable for withdrawing troops. The bill requires the "redeployment" of troops to begin October 1 and be complete by April 1, 2008.

The House originally had called for a binding deadline of removing combat troops by August 2008, but the Senate passed a nonbinding bill setting out a goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq no later than March 2008.

House leaders agreed to adopt the Senate's language to get the bill through Congress and to Bush's desk.

The 218-208 vote Wednesday, largely along party lines, was well short of the 290 yeas needed to trump Bush. Two Republicans voted for the bill, while 13 Democrats voted it down. (Watch how the battle between Congress and Bush is nearing a climaxVideo)

The Pentagon has said it can fund the war through June. Without the additional appropriations, the Pentagon will have to begin shifting money and deferring projects to find the funds to continue the wars.
General: Effort may get harder first

Before Wednesday's vote, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus went to a series of private briefings on Capitol Hill, during which he argued against setting a timetable, according to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers who attended.

Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, spoke to reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday about the briefing he gave to Congress.

As the U.S. military continues to administer its new security plan, troops will be moving into unchartered neighborhoods and there is a "very real possibility" that more U.S. casualties could ensue, Petraeus said.

"This effort may get harder before it gets easier," he said.

However, there is a "sense of incremental progress" in many areas that's often overshadowed by the "sensational attacks" exacted by the insurgents, Petraeus said.

Bush repeatedly has vowed to veto any appropriations measure that contains a timetable for withdrawing troops.

Reid, D-Nevada, has called the deadline for withdrawing troops "fair and reasonable."

"If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative," Reid said earlier this week. "Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, conceded Thursday that Congress is using "the power of the purse" to end the war and compared the maneuver to how Congress ended U.S. involvement in Somalia in 1994.

The staunch war critic also rejected GOP accusations that Democrats are trying to snatch funding away from troops in the field.

"When the mission ends, the funding ends, and that's perfectly reasonable," Feingold said. "Gen. Petraeus will have the funding as long as we feel there should be a mission there, but there shouldn't be a mission there anymore by the end of next March."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Question to Drake,

Will Hagel ever see political office again after this?

Certainly not as a repug.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
Any bets who's going to take the blame if there is no additional funding.

From people who's opinions matter... both sides. Everyone else will just blame the "other side".

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by rah
Any bets who's going to take the blame if there is no additional funding.

I bet the dems blink first. But at least they'll be able to whine afterwards that they tried to get the troops home.

Okay....I know that you as a republican would probably be against a withdrawal. Add to that the fact that as things stand now, a withdrawal would probably be the worst thing possible for Iraq.

But you can't argue against the fact that it's the will of a majority of the American people. And that Bush with his continued stance on this is probably worsening the chances of having a republic president after the 2008 elections.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Imagine if Bush signed it.

[Apocalypse]

I would think the democrats would lose a lot of ground if troops left before the presidential election.

It's not like Bush has been following basic Republican doctrine about the economy, so the Dems can't win on that easily., especially when the Democrats have failed to win on that in the previous two elections.

A Republican governor, especially one without strong religious ties, could step in and win it.

The Democratic primary is going to basically turn into another who wants to spend more on various program debate like in 2000, which turned off a lot of people. Not necessarily that good when you want to attack the Republicans on the economy too. That is the more optimistic situation too, assuming they don't go into character assassination.

I don't really see why the Democrats really want to pull out that soon. Especially when things can easily go to hell there in a 6 month period after troops are gone.

[Dinner]

This is what almost 2/3rds of the American people want so the Congress is doing they're job and carrying out the will of the people. Bush on the other hand is playing politics and threatening to remove funding for our troops. He needs to stop playing politics and recognize reality.

[Dinner]

BTW here's a great piece where John Stewart utterly pwns John McCain on just about every Republican talking point. Seeings how the Republican candidates are all pretty much the same on this issue Stewart just pwnd them all.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/16620/1/TDS-McCain-042407.wmv

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I repeat "imagine if he signed it". What would happen? Play along.