Senate Passes Iraq Supplemental: AP Says Bush Veto Expected

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:18:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From AP's lips to . . .:

A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war. At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.

I love this quote from McConnell:

"The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

McConnell says ignore the will of the American People and just bow to the Boy-King. Nice. I have another idea - why not set a date certain where Congress will no longer fund the Bush/Lieberman/McConnell/McCain/GOP Iraq Debacle.

Reid-Feingold. That's a simple solution too.

Update [2007-4-26 15:25:57 by Big Tent Democrat]: Yet again, Senator Obama and I disagree:

We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home.”...

Senator Obama's statement is false and a dangerous game of chicken. If Bush signs the bill, then what will Obama say when this bill does NOT end the Iraq Debacle? Unlike everyone else apparently, I think this is a huge gamble and not smart. Dems need Bush to veto this bill so they can fashion a real plan to end the war. And yes, I believe that plan is Reid-Feingold.

And John Edwards makes the same mistake:

"Today, the Senate passed a bill that would fund the war in Iraq while bringing the conflict to a close.

Bad show all around.

< What Is Being Missed Regarding The Bill Moyers Indictment Of The Media | Atlanta Cops Plead to Manslaughter in Botched Drug Raid >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Senate Passes Iraq Supplemental: AP Says Bush Veto Expected | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I don't think so, I think they did this bill up (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:42:24 PM EST

right and if he signs it Enduring Freedom is done. If he violates the legislation after signing it I don't know what to do....we have a king. If he vetos it, then we have better things in store for him and he knows it.

This bill is Schumer's bludgeon (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:51:25 PM EST

to use against Collins, Sununu, Smith etc. I agree with you about the danger: if Bush signs it, we've got a problem.

Don't fret over fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by chemoelectric on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:23:57 PM EST

You are worried about fantasies; Bush, who suffers from severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder, will veto the bill and what Obama said will have its desired effect. I say this though my judgment of Obama in general is not, what you might say, complimentary.

Good luck (2.00 / 1) (#5)
by jarober on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:59:52 PM EST

You're nine votes short of overriding a veto (more in the House) - and way more than 9 without all the arm bending pork. So the bill will get vetoed, and - since the Democrats aren't going to cut funding - a supplemental with no strings will get passed.

I think you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Peaches on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:26:05 PM EST

And so does Elizabeth Drew

The Democrats understood that following the expected presidential veto, they might be faced with having to vote for a new bill without a cutoff date, risking a revolt from the antiwar left. Shortly after the recess began, Harry Reid joined Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a strong antiwar advocate, in backing a new bill with a mandatory cutoff of funds by next March 31, though also including the new missions for the troops that remain there. (According to Democratic sources on Capitol Hill, Reid had promised this to Feingold in order to win his support for the Senate bill.) Reid has said that he sees this as the logical next step in increasing the pressure on the President and the Republicans; the prospect of voting for such a bill could be used to get the support of liberals who may be asked by the party leadership following a veto to vote for the current appropriations bill without a withdrawal date. Democratic strategists also admit that a proposal to order a withdrawal by an earlier date than those so far approved could be much more difficult to get through the Congress.
Democratic sources told me that the likely compromise between the House and the Senate bills to be sent to the President would include benchmarks and perhaps some sort of goal for ending the war, but not the House's firm deadlines. Winning House support for such a proposal will be a serious challenge for Speaker Pelosi, but there is confidence that she can pull this off--by promising more restrictive measures in the future. On the supplemental bill itself, these officials say that eventually Congress will probably have to give way and not require or even set a goal for a pullout of the troops by a certain date. But that could come later. As of this writing, the President and the Democrats are conducting a minuet over whether they would meet at the White House to see if a compromise was possible. But Bush's press secretary said on April 10 that "this is not a negotiation."
In any event, Bush is fighting a political phony war over "funding the troops": Congress will supply the money for the troops in Iraq. When it does, he will undoubtedly claim a great victory. But the wars over Iraq between the Democratic Congress and the President, and within the Democratic Party, as well as within Iraq itself, aren't going to end any time soon.

Maybe or maybe not. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:37:23 PM EST

If Bush never signs a bill, the war is over..

Congress can give the troops funding for three more months, period.

Without being able to override a veto, I am not sure what else can be done until the American people take to the streets to demand that Bush resign.


: Waiting until June to have to take care of this (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:17:15 PM EST

I think is going to be a very unpleasant feeling for "W". Squaring off in June, shaving that "emergency" feeling close, I wonder who packs the support of the American people as we head into that showdown? CNN says we haven't had a funding fight like this since Vietnam, imagine that? They also said though that Democrats are risking GOP attacks that they are putting the troops lives in danger....Reid and Pelosi had better be fully ready to ride this one out because it is saddled up and HOT and I think they are.

Could someone tell me (1.00 / 2) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:50:53 PM EST

Could someone tell me when telling your enemy that you are leaving the field of battle has become anything other than surrender.

Could someone tell me when telling your enemy the schedule for leaving the field of battle has become an acceptable military strategy?

When it is a civil war (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:39:09 PM EST

that has nothing to do with America, which is only an occupation force at this point.

The only solution is political and they and we need benchmarks and progress that will only happen when forced by a deadline.


lilybart (1.00 / 3) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:41:13 PM EST

Makes no difference.

The avowed aim of our enemies is to make us leave. If we follow the surrender plan of the Demos, that is how it will be viewed world wide and we will pay a hefty price in future deaths and attacks.

Listen, one more time to what OBL said.

Interview of OBL by then CNN reporter Peter Arnett, 3/97

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia,
their withdrawal
, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

I trust that is plain enough. i.e. "whole world"


::aggressive intervention:: (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:09:25 PM EST

is what he was talking about there.

"I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy." "The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams."

Why do you do this to yourself?


edger (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:29:42 PM EST

Get the whole thing in:

aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

So no matter what the radicals do, anyplace in the world, we are not to aggressively intervene??

So I ask you again. What would you be willing to give in negotations??


You. (5.00 / 5) (#27)
by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:35:35 PM EST

edger (1.00 / 2) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:10:19 AM EST

Snarky humor aside, since we have OBL's statement, and since you want fight, the options are surrender and negotiate.

The Demos are taking of the surrendering.

What are you willing to give up?

Think about, edger. In the long run, you have no other choice.

We already have Shari law being introduced in Minneapolis .. Taxi drivers who won't carry passengers with alcohol and dogs..... grocery store check out clerks who won't check bacon....a local college who is using public funds to build foot washing facilities for Moslem students to use before they go to Mosque

What's next? Approval of honor killings?


: Latest on Taxi Drivers (5.00 / 5) (#29)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:17:18 AM EST

Jim,
Aside from the fact that Osama is one man who leads a movement that has only a small following (which we can aggressively pursue with the help of many nations, and who we let out of our grasp and sites in Afghanistan), your continued reference to the taxi drivers in Minneapolis supports very little. What we have here is a dispute that is being worked out in our court systems. It is not the invasions of the Muslims, but rather a common occurrence that often happens when a new immigrant community is integrated into another established community and conflicts between cultural practices must be worked out in this new community while attempting to be fair and show as much respect as possible to everyone. Let this work itself out as it is being done right now in fair and just system we currently have in America. Here is the latest. {Please stop with your rhetoric that is meant to fuel hate, fear and distrust of other communities - especially the Muslim communities here in America that are working hard and raising families as many immigrant families and communities have before them (including your own) while attempting to maintain their cultural traditions and integrating into American societies.

: That was not snark, Jim. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by Edger on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:04:20 AM EST

Who is my enemy again that I'm about (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:54:34 PM EST

to tell I'm leaving what defined battlefield?


Tracy - Ask and learn (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:42:02 PM EST

Read my comment to Lilybart, just above


Ohhhh Bin Ladin! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:58:48 PM EST

Isn't he in Afghanistan? ;p


and since we have offed every (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:03:24 PM EST

#2 man in Al Qaeda to the point that they are now like the 13th floor and they don't even make them anymore, I expect no further conversation about this from you!


Tracy, read what he said. (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:31:09 PM EST

That, as you know, is the point. Not where he is at.


: Yeah, Osama speaks for who? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:56:43 AM EST

It seems to me that everybody you are afraid of has a sort of imaginary quality to them.

Could someone tell me ... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:51:12 PM EST

... why after bush said we'd leave when the iraqis wanted us to, and 70% of them and Americans want us to, we're still there?

The war was started on lies (see aluminum tubes, WMDs), it's been sold on lies (see Tillman, Lynch), it's been escalated on lies (see civilian deaths down), and still some torture loving, lynching loving, bush loving 28%ers want more blood and guts.


: I don't know (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:31:06 PM EST

I also wonder how CNN really can blast away too that Democrats are now in a very precarious position because the President will veto this bill and Harry's talking about not revisiting this issue until June. Harry says that we aren't putting any troops lives on the line by waiting til June to fight some more. I wonder who the majority of America is likely to believe on this Harry Reid or who ever these mystery Republican accusers are going to be. I'm tired of being afraid of shadows, the shadows in the middle east, the shadows in Iraq, the ghosts of irrationally angry Americans. I'm just sick to death of these hazy ghostlike figures I'm supposed to be scared of! To all the scare freaks I would just like to say BOO!

Don't count on USA (none / 0) (#3)
by Fritz on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:26:08 PM EST

The Party of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson, & John Kennedy no longer exists.

We can count on (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:50:20 PM EST

pepole like you who want it defunded and ended now, right Fritz?


No (none / 0) (#7)
by Fritz on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:19:46 PM EST

Congress could easily pass a funding bill with overwhelming support that President Bush can sign, this was a stunt. Adding insult to injury, they are going to hold the bill until Tuesday so that the veto will come marking the 4th anniversary of the "Mission Accomplished" episode. This is all about Bush and nothing to do with America. I will not be surprised that the holding tactic will backfire and the bill will arrive at the White House before Tuesday.


: Congress cannot easily pass such a funding (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:03:52 PM EST

bill because I don't for one minute think that Reid and Pelosi are going to roll over on this for anyone. If they do, I'm not a Democrat anymore but I don't think I'm going to have to worry about that.

The Veto (none / 0) (#6)
by rmwest2001 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:17:28 PM EST

I'm surprised Dubya's pupeteers don't instruct Dubya to just do a signing statement. After all, he did a signing statement on the anti-torture bill.

--Ron

http://revolttoday.blogspot.com/

: oversight (none / 0) (#10)
by chemoelectric on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:26:25 PM EST

That would basically be asking for a major Congressional investigation, but the main reason for Bush not to sign is not wanting to be seen 'failing'.

I disagree. (none / 0) (#12)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:34:35 PM EST

I thought what Obama said was the right thing.

Telling the American people that Congress has done their job and now if they want to the war to end, it is up to BUSH.

Have we learned nothing from the republican PR machine? Short terse phrases are all the media can handle.