home

Senate Passes Iraq Supplemental: Short Term Funding As A Response To Bush?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:32:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Bumped because of update. -BTD

Update [2007-3-29 11:25:1 by Big Tent Democrat]: Senate Passes Iraq supplemental 51-47. The game is on. And by game, I mean Bush's veto game. Getting out of Iraq is no game. Not sure but it appears that all Dem Caucus members save Lieberman voted for it. That would mean Pryor (D-Ark) voted for it. The 2 Republicans who crossed over were Smith and Hagel.

Sam Rosenfeld notes that one plan, to provide only short term funding for dealing with a Bush veto of the Iraq supplemental funding bill that has been bandied about, has been floated by some conservative Dems Congressmen:

Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding, if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.

The source of the idea intrigues more than the idea itself. I prefer a different approach, but it is a good sign when conservative Dems are preparing fighting tactics, as opposed to rollover tactics.

< The Right to Jaywalk | Kyle Sampson Contradicts Alberto Gonzales on PurgeGate >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Senate Passes Iraq Supplemental: Short Term Funding As A Response To Bush? | 5 comments (5 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yes, that is great news (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by fairleft on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    As the incremental battles get closer to primary season, they'll eventually be impossible for Bush to win.

    Of course, this all assumes Bush will not sign the bill. And he might not, despite his handlers' advice. He's in the habit recently of not taking the politically smart advice.

    Yes (none / 0) (#2)
    by roboleftalk on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    Good news indeed.  That's not a "better" bill, even if it happens.  Do you really think Bush will veto?  I thought not, but his comments yesterday lead to the opposite conclusion.

    IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TexDem on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    I think he was still baiting Congress/Senate with his comments. As I've said before, a bit of the Brer Rabbit plea.

    I think he'll take any funding and ignore any restrictions. And if Congress doesn't like it tough, take it to court. And of course in court it could be drawn out and out.

    From where I sit any bill that funds the war short of having a date certain where there will be no funding, is a win for Bush.


    Parent

    Cardoza has much to lose if Dems lose on... (none / 0) (#3)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:01:34 AM EST
    the Iraq War issue.  His Dem electorate base is more liberal than conservative districts in the midwest or south.

    Short (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    term funding would be better than the pork-laden bill now running around.  

    Senate Passes Iraq Supplemental: Short Term Funding As A Response To Bush? | 5 comments (5 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment