t***@shiftmail.com
2007-03-29 22:45:00 UTC
Milenko Kindl
A defiant, Democratic-controlled Senate approved legislation Thursday
calling for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from
Iraq within a year, propelling Congress closer to an epic, wartime
veto confrontation with
President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 51-47 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage
of a separate, more sweeping challenge to Bush's war policies a week
ago, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the
president's threatened veto. It came not long after Bush and House
Republicans made a show of unity at the White House.
"With passage of this bill, the Senate sends a clear message to the
president that we must take the war in Iraq in a new direction.
Setting a goal for getting most of our troops out of Iraq is not -
not, not - cutting and running," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.,
shortly before the vote. Passage cleared the way for negotiations on a
compromise with the House.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of
Kentucky rebutted quickly. "Nothing good can come from this bill," he
said. "It's loaded with pork that has no relation to our efforts in
Iraq and
Afghanistan, and it includes a deadline for evacuation that amounts to
sending a `Save the Date' card to al-Qaida."
Several blocks away, the commander in chief stood with Republican
House members and told reporters they were united. "We expect there to
be no strings on our commanders, and that we expect the Congress to be
wise about how they spend the people's money," he said.
In private, Bush was more emphatic, according to participants at a
closed-door session in the White House East Room with the GOP rank and
file. "He said he will veto a bill that comes to his desk with too
many strings attached or too much spending," said one official in
attendance, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was
closed to the press.
While both sides have spoken positively about a need for compromise,
there also was strong political pressure within both parties for a
veto fight.
Democrats are under pressure to challenge Bush on the war following
their victories in last fall's elections. At the same time,
Republicans say Bush will blame anti-war lawmakers if money begins to
run short for the troops in the field, and will accuse them in any
event for ceding ground to the terrorists in the Middle East.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House
Defense Appropriations Committee during the day that a delay in
funding would have a chain reaction that could keep units in Iraq
longer than planned. He said if the bill is not passed by May 15, the
Army will have to cut back on reserve training and equipment repairs,
and possibly delay the formation of units needed to relieve those
deployed.
The House-passed measure requires the withdrawal of combat troops by
Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate bill mandates the beginning of a withdrawal
within 120 days, and sets a non-binding goal of March, 2008, for its
completion.
Both bills contain more than $90 billion for the military to continue
operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, where more than 3,200 U.S.
troops have lost their lives in four years of combat. Money for
domestic programs push the measures' totals above $120 billion.
If anything, it is more likely that House and Senate Democrats will
have trouble in forging a compromise among themselves than that they
will flinch from a confrontation with the White House. Mindful of the
need to assure a flow of funds, Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting
record), D-Pa. said Congress may consider passing monthlong spending
bills while it decides what changes it wants in war policy.
There is a strong reluctance among the rank and file to approve funds
for the war without attaching conditions to force a change in war
policy, and lawmakers said that situation portended a House-Senate
compromise that would include provisions Bush has already rejected.
"I don't think the leadership will give in. I don't think they can
give in," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "We have very strong feelings
among members. And the real strong pushback would come from voters."
"I'm not willing not to have input," said Murtha, who has emerged in
the past year as one of the Democrats' most vocal critics of the war.
Nor is the war the only issue in dispute.
Home
Street
Town
City
address
Country
A defiant, Democratic-controlled Senate approved legislation Thursday
calling for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from
Iraq within a year, propelling Congress closer to an epic, wartime
veto confrontation with
President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 51-47 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage
of a separate, more sweeping challenge to Bush's war policies a week
ago, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the
president's threatened veto. It came not long after Bush and House
Republicans made a show of unity at the White House.
"With passage of this bill, the Senate sends a clear message to the
president that we must take the war in Iraq in a new direction.
Setting a goal for getting most of our troops out of Iraq is not -
not, not - cutting and running," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.,
shortly before the vote. Passage cleared the way for negotiations on a
compromise with the House.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of
Kentucky rebutted quickly. "Nothing good can come from this bill," he
said. "It's loaded with pork that has no relation to our efforts in
Iraq and
Afghanistan, and it includes a deadline for evacuation that amounts to
sending a `Save the Date' card to al-Qaida."
Several blocks away, the commander in chief stood with Republican
House members and told reporters they were united. "We expect there to
be no strings on our commanders, and that we expect the Congress to be
wise about how they spend the people's money," he said.
In private, Bush was more emphatic, according to participants at a
closed-door session in the White House East Room with the GOP rank and
file. "He said he will veto a bill that comes to his desk with too
many strings attached or too much spending," said one official in
attendance, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was
closed to the press.
While both sides have spoken positively about a need for compromise,
there also was strong political pressure within both parties for a
veto fight.
Democrats are under pressure to challenge Bush on the war following
their victories in last fall's elections. At the same time,
Republicans say Bush will blame anti-war lawmakers if money begins to
run short for the troops in the field, and will accuse them in any
event for ceding ground to the terrorists in the Middle East.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House
Defense Appropriations Committee during the day that a delay in
funding would have a chain reaction that could keep units in Iraq
longer than planned. He said if the bill is not passed by May 15, the
Army will have to cut back on reserve training and equipment repairs,
and possibly delay the formation of units needed to relieve those
deployed.
The House-passed measure requires the withdrawal of combat troops by
Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate bill mandates the beginning of a withdrawal
within 120 days, and sets a non-binding goal of March, 2008, for its
completion.
Both bills contain more than $90 billion for the military to continue
operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, where more than 3,200 U.S.
troops have lost their lives in four years of combat. Money for
domestic programs push the measures' totals above $120 billion.
If anything, it is more likely that House and Senate Democrats will
have trouble in forging a compromise among themselves than that they
will flinch from a confrontation with the White House. Mindful of the
need to assure a flow of funds, Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting
record), D-Pa. said Congress may consider passing monthlong spending
bills while it decides what changes it wants in war policy.
There is a strong reluctance among the rank and file to approve funds
for the war without attaching conditions to force a change in war
policy, and lawmakers said that situation portended a House-Senate
compromise that would include provisions Bush has already rejected.
"I don't think the leadership will give in. I don't think they can
give in," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "We have very strong feelings
among members. And the real strong pushback would come from voters."
"I'm not willing not to have input," said Murtha, who has emerged in
the past year as one of the Democrats' most vocal critics of the war.
Nor is the war the only issue in dispute.
Home
Street
Town
City
address
Country