Senate GOP will not block Iraq bill

Source: Associated Press

Senate GOP will not block Iraq bill By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) said Monday he won't block Senate passage of an Iraq war spending bill even if the GOP fails to kill its troop withdrawal deadline because he knows President Bush will veto it.

Facing a cliffhanging vote this week, McConnell promised to fight the provision, which calls for combat troops to be brought home within a year. Even if he fails, McConnell said he won't stand in the way of the bill's final passage because the sooner it is sent to the president, the sooner Bush can veto it.

Unable to override the veto, Democrats will then be forced to redraft the bill without a "surrender deadline," McConnell predicted.

"Our goal is to pass it quickly," McConnell said of the war spending bill. "Our troops need the money."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AgjAAhGBHjcxvC1xhW9p79myFz4D

Fuck the troops, just leave them hanging indefinitely in the meat grinder while we play political games against the will of the voters.

I have a feeling these republics are going to let Bush take the hit on everything from here on out. They know he's already damaged.

doesn't it have to go back to the senate to be reconfigured? No money till it passes again and it's signed? Would bush do that to the troops??

1 - pass the bill over the veto, which takes a 2/3 majority - very unlikely

2 - reconfigure and re-pass the bill, which Bush can veto again.

If they hammer it out and it looks veto-proof, can the pResident stop it?

And even if it's close, could Shrub pull off another veto like the only one he's done before (stem-cell issue)?

This will get attention.

Mainly because the majority of the public are against continuing this "war".

and thats highly unlikey.

even a signing statement isn't really necessary because the get out of Iraq clause has loopholes so huge you could fit the entire Middle East in it.

Bush gets his cash to drop bombs on Iraq indefinately.

Two days ago this bill could have been dead.

mark my words on that one

It's a challenge to his power as "the decider," even if only a symbolic one. He'll veto the thing, all right.

for the welfare of the troops,is missing in action.

I'd like to see a concerted effort at an override, in that case, as unlikely as success may be.

The Bushbots may also choose not to veto and try to ignore the Iraqi benchmark/Congressional oversight standards of the bill.

One other possibility that comes to mind - given Bush's penchant for passing the buck and blaming someone else for his own missteps, 'tho *really* slim I admit - is that he signs it, Iraq can't meet the benchmarks, we withdraw/redeploy troops and Bushco tries to pin a "failure" meme on the Dem's going in to the '08 elections. I sincerely think he cares less about Iraq post-Saddam or the troops for that matter than his own persona.

:shrug:

This one's going to be watched around the world, that's for sure.

That's the beauty of having the withdrawl plan as part of this particular funding bill. And even if the Senate passes a weakened version, it can be restored in Conference because the Dems control both committees. It's a game of chicken that * is set up to lose and everyone knows it. That's why it was so critical for the bill to pass in the House.

the clause which tells Bush to leave Iraq is so full of escape clauses.

See this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x501943
it has the actual clause wording

read it and weep

Both parties want this war.

for the Republicans up for reelection is 2008. Depending how this plays out- that could be very smart strategy.

(Why, oh why can't the Dems learn how to play the game like the far right does?)

He can take it or leave it. Congress can keep sending up this bill, with minor changes. Congress is trying to fund the soldiers. Bush is stopping the funding, now.

there is no real reason to rush into a new ill thought out bill at this time.

It was taken care of last Congress. This new "emergency" spending bill is for 2008 and beyond and the majority of it goes to Halliburton anyway...

stuff today.

.......Likewise, Bush has said he will veto any measure that attempts to micromanage the war.

"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen," Bush said last week.

Whether Republicans can prevent such a showdown between Bush and Congress is unclear. Democratic leaders have labored to bolster support for their proposal and their success could hinge on a single vote.

Earlier this month, the Senate rejected a similar timetable on the war with Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record) of Arkansas siding with Republicans against the proposal in a 50-48 vote.

Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon was the lone Republican voting in favor of the resolution.

Since the March 15 vote, Reid and others have made changes in hopes of persuading Nelson and Pryor to support the withdrawal proposal. The changes include a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly.

Nelson said last week he agreed to support the measure because the benchmarks "can be used by Congress to make future decisions about U.S. military presence in Iraq."

Pryor remains reluctant.

"I think if the public timetable remains, Senator Pryor would likely oppose it," said spokesman Michael Teague.

While most Republicans are expected to reject setting a timetable in Iraq, the vote is likely to be a difficult one for those facing re-election next year.

Sorry to ask but I'm from Florida...

Pryor and Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) broke with fellow Democrats earlier this month to oppose a nonbinding Senate resolution to withdraw from Iraq. Nelson has since fallen in line on the war funding bill, after nonbinding benchmarks for the Iraqi government were added.

He'll let stupid do it instead.

Doug D.

Democrats jab Bush over Iraq by Stephen Collinson
1 hour, 28 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Senate Democrats kicked off a new tussle with President George W. Bush over Iraq Monday, defying his veto threats and pushing a measure which sets a goal of withdrawing most US troops within a year.

~snip~

But Republicans parried with an attempt to strip the Democratic withdrawal timetable inserted in a 121.6 billion dollar war spending bill, during opening shots in an emotional Senate debate.

They also demanded time for Bush's new troop surge strategy, aimed at quelling raging violence in Iraq, to yield results.

~snip~

A poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found six in ten Americans wanted their congressional representative to vote to get US troops out of Iraq by August 2008.

~snip~

"Our job in the Senate is not to look backwards, but to look forwards, the constitution clearly gives the Congress the power ... to decide when this nation should go to war ... and the power of the purse."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070327/ts_afp/usiraqpoliticscongress_070327045847;_ylt=AlSsJz82zdNQNBeA0veQGdhX6GMA

I though the Dem's plan said 18 months - must be out by 9/2008?