50-48 Senate Victory for Democrats on Iraq

[RMNIXON]

March 27, 2007, 5:54 pm
Senate Democrats Prevail in Iraq Vote

By Kate Phillips
Senate Democrats considering an Iraq spending bill mustered enough votes late this afternoon — (barely) at 50-48 — to defeat a Republican amendment that would have stripped out language setting a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The Senate’s actions, with a vote on the full measure expected as early as tomorrow, follows the House vote by four days. However the two bills are meshed, President Bush has vowed to veto whatever reaches his desk if it includes a timetable for removing troops from the war. The Democratic-backed Senate bill calls for troop withdrawal to commence within 120 days of the enactment of such a law, with them out by March 31, 2008.




The amendment defeated today was proposed by Senator Thad Cochran, a Republican, and cosponsored by nearly a dozen others. It contained this language as its mission:

To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As the Times’s Jeff Zeleny mentioned in an earlier post, Republican Chuck Hagel decided to vote with the Democrats in support of a timetable for withdrawal, as did Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas, joined the Republicans, as did Senator Joe Lieberman, independent-Democrat.

There’s a procedural vote tomorrow morning, and the majority leader, Harry Reid, saying there were more than 100 amendments proposed on the bill. He and the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, were trying to figure out how to proceed with the main spending bill.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Senate Democrats Prevail in Iraq Vote - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog


So now it is back to the the House with more than 100 amendments and a certain Presidential Veto. I would be curious to know if that could have be prevented with the language knocked from the Senate Bill? Sorry if I don't see this amount of red tape as a good reason to parade. But if this is what the new majority wants, it is what they will get.....

[motivez]

I can't really support the bill because of the sheer amount of pork in it, but this is a hard one to come down on because the idea of forcing Bush to the table unless he wants to be responsible for cutting funding for the troops and the war might make it worth it in the long run.

If he veto's it and it goes back to the House, why would there be another outcome? They'll pass something similar, and so will the Senate, and so on and so forth.

So, either Bush will have to compromise something or be responsible for denying funding to the troops.

[Pro Street]

The pork apparently was approved by the 109th and this was a carryover.

whatever.


Bush is going to veto it not because of the pork, but because of the deadline. So it will go back up, hopefully again with a deadline.

The only person blocking the funding right now is Bush, who refuses to give up having total power over this war.

[Thorgrim]

Huge victory for Democrats, The Congress of the People of the United States of America has now pushed through legislation for the full funding of soldiers to the President calling for a deadline to end the war

If Bush vetoes it, he's setting himself up for a worse bill that's harder to veto...the Democrats now saw how everyone is going to vote

Just keep everyone happy, consult with Smith, Nelson and Hagel...and in the house with blue dogs and GooIN caucus...try to remove the pork, and it'll get to the point that a veto would hurt the soldiers

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

So, either Bush will have to compromise something or be responsible for denying funding to the troops.

I think that cuts both ways? Bush didn't write the bill!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think that cuts both ways? Bush didn't write the bill!

That's because Article I of the Constitution doesn't give him that power

Unless the media goes out of its way to blame democrats, there's really not many ways Bush can win this one

Every week Congress is in session, they see Congress passing full funding to the soldiers and the president issueing a veto to stop the funding

If the American people see Congress sending the money over and over again, with conditions 6 out of 10 americans approve of...they are going to blame Bush for refusing to accept the funds on the grounds that he disagrees with a majority of Americans

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think that cuts both ways? Bush didn't write the bill!

he's the one throwing a temper tantrum and turning the funding down because he has to aacknowledge that he's one of three branches of Government.