Thursday, April 26, 2007

Senate approves Iraq war funding bill with timetable for pullout

Well, the Senate has passed the Iraq war funding bill with the withdrawal timetable. This is from MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - 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.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

“The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq,” said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: “It’s time to bring our troops home from Iraq.”

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will “get harder before it gets easier.”

And this is rather ironic:

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president’s desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush’s announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on,” Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge “Mission Accomplished” banner.

You do remember Mission Accomplished--do you?







The war funding bill has passed both houses of Congress, and will be sent to the president's desk. President Bush will veto this bill. I'll even go as far to say that Bush will make it a ceremony to announce his veto, surrounded by Iraqi war veterans and current members of the U.S. military, while blaming the congressional Democrats for not funding the troops, for losing the war in Iraq, and then again demanding that Congress sends him a blank check for funding the Iraq war. This may occur either this Friday or possibly Monday--certainly next week. I'm currently watching the MSNBC coverage of this story, and MSNBC is already parroting the White House spin, saying that the Democrats have made their opposition known, now they must pass a troop funding bill that President Bush can sign, thus placing the blame of this controversy on the Democrats in Congress. That is a bunch of crap. The Democrats have passed a war funding bill for the troops. It is President Bush that refuses to provide money for the troops since this bill contains benchmarks for progress, and a timetable for withdrawal if those benchmarks have not been met. President Bush wants a blank check to fund this war, rubber-stamped by Congress. The Democrats refused to provide that rubber stamp.

That is what this fight is all about.

Update: This is just a minor observation, but Republican presidential candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain did not vote on this war funding bill. Democratic presidential candidates Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted to approve the war funding bill.

2 comments:

DCBundtit said...

This is one of the best commentaries of this situation that I've read today - I have no doubt that your "veto ceremony" prediction will come true.

At least some of us know where the blame for this disaster should truly lie... and I'm glad that the Dems stood up today.

FYI - clips of today's debate, in case you want to post!

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/244062/US

Eric A Hopp said...

Jenny: Thank you for your comment. I clicked on your weblink to The Newsroom.com, and it doesn't surprise me that the Senate Republicans will uphold Bush's veto on the Iraq war funding. What you have to understand here is that the congressional Republicans are in between a rock and a hard place. The Bush administration is expecting the congressional Republicans to goose-step behind the president on every issue. The problem here is that President Bush does not have to face a re-election in 2008--however, the congressional Republicans do! And these congressional Republicans are facing an American public, at home, that has turned both against the war in Iraq, and against the Bush administration's handling of the war. So the Republicans here have a really bad choice of either facing the anger of an already embattled president, or facing a growing anger with the American public.

Which would you choose?