Iraq Plan Moves In House, Fails In Senate
Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush's Iraq policy at both ends of the Capitol on Thursday, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate on a less sweeping plan to end U.S. participation in the war.
Anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote of 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee, brushing aside a week-old veto threat from the administration and overcoming unyielding opposition from Republicans.
"I want this war to end. I don't want to go to any more funerals," said New York Rep. Rep. Jose Serrano, one of several liberal Democrats who have pledged their support for the legislation despite preferring a faster end to the war.
"Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do, countered Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, who sought unsuccessfully to scuttle the timeline for a troop withdrawal. "But we can't afford to turn over Iraq to al Qaeda."
In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.
Senate Democrats promptly said they would try again to force a change in Bush's policy beginning next week when they begin work on legislation providing money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By coincidence, the developments coincided with the traditional St. Patrick's Day luncheon in the Capitol, an annual social event hosted by the speaker of the House and attended by the president. For an hour or so, while lawmakers were debating the war, Bush and the leader of the political opposition, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were seated near one another in an ornate hall not far from the Capitol Rotunda.
If they discussed the war that has so far claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops, there was no evidence of it.
The day's votes in Congress underscored the extraordinary, unpredictable wartime clash between commander in chief and lawmakers.
In the House, only one committee Democrat, liberal Rep. Barbara Lee of California, voted against her party's plan, saying it did not go far enough. "I believe the American people sent a mandate to us to bring home our men and women before the end of the year," she said.
Overall, the committee vote strongly suggested that Democrats will be able to push their troop withdrawal timetable through the full House next week. Even so, there is little if any prospect the Senate will agree to anything remotely similar. And even if it does, Bush's threatened veto that would force Pelosi and other war critics back to the drafting table.
It took weeks for the Senate to agree to hold a formal debate on Democratic calls for a change in war policy, and by the time it occurred, the result was utterly predictable. So much so that Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is running for the White House in 2008, skipped the vote to campaign in Iowa.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky led the opposition to the measure.
"This is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is constitutionally dubious and it would authorize a scattered band of United States senators to tie the hand" of the commander in chief, he said.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote of 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee, brushing aside a week-old veto threat from the administration and overcoming unyielding opposition from Republicans.
"I want this war to end. I don't want to go to any more funerals," said New York Rep. Rep. Jose Serrano, one of several liberal Democrats who have pledged their support for the legislation despite preferring a faster end to the war.
"Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do, countered Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, who sought unsuccessfully to scuttle the timeline for a troop withdrawal. "But we can't afford to turn over Iraq to al Qaeda."
In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.
Senate Democrats promptly said they would try again to force a change in Bush's policy beginning next week when they begin work on legislation providing money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By coincidence, the developments coincided with the traditional St. Patrick's Day luncheon in the Capitol, an annual social event hosted by the speaker of the House and attended by the president. For an hour or so, while lawmakers were debating the war, Bush and the leader of the political opposition, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were seated near one another in an ornate hall not far from the Capitol Rotunda.
If they discussed the war that has so far claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops, there was no evidence of it.
The day's votes in Congress underscored the extraordinary, unpredictable wartime clash between commander in chief and lawmakers.
In the House, only one committee Democrat, liberal Rep. Barbara Lee of California, voted against her party's plan, saying it did not go far enough. "I believe the American people sent a mandate to us to bring home our men and women before the end of the year," she said.
Overall, the committee vote strongly suggested that Democrats will be able to push their troop withdrawal timetable through the full House next week. Even so, there is little if any prospect the Senate will agree to anything remotely similar. And even if it does, Bush's threatened veto that would force Pelosi and other war critics back to the drafting table.
It took weeks for the Senate to agree to hold a formal debate on Democratic calls for a change in war policy, and by the time it occurred, the result was utterly predictable. So much so that Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is running for the White House in 2008, skipped the vote to campaign in Iowa.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky led the opposition to the measure.
"This is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is constitutionally dubious and it would authorize a scattered band of United States senators to tie the hand" of the commander in chief, he said.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 798 Comments
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Boehner calls out Obama administration's "arrogance of power"
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
1) That he is not above the other two branches of US government, that he serves at their pleasure as much as they do him.
2) That we are now a net deficit to the stated goal of creating a democracy in Iraq.
For the former, the Senate needs to focus on reaffirming the status of the three branches of government in terms of checks and balances lest (as in this case) the Executive Branch try to gain too much power at the cost of the voice of the people.
For the latter, since we have now created a democracy in Iraq, we can let the people of Iraq begin to assert that privilege amongst themselves, without prejudice on our part.
US general upbeat on Iraq 'surge'
The US commander in Iraq is hopeful over the latest security push, as four US troops are killed in Baghdad
The longer the Senate refuses to understand that this mess is best solvable with us out of Iraq as a military presence, the longer we will watch our troops die. We go from province to province, one step behind the snipers and bombers, we'll go over the same ground, and get the same results. Unending war. If we had occupying troops in our country you can bet we'd be doing the exact same thing they are.
Get it straight, the majority of Iraqis, according to their own polls, currently think the US is an occupying force, and they condone attacks on our troops. A majority. If we really want to win their hearts and minds we need to give them some breathing room.
President Says Democrats Want To Micromanage Generals'
-this is the type of gift CBS gives to Walking-Liar, without letting us comment on his dog-poo.
Walking-Liar is obviously a liar and he lied to the world (including Americans), in order to let the war machine work and keep America at work. By accusing Democrats of 'obstruction' for political reason, he's still lying over a war-subject that was untrue then and is untrue now (weapons of Mass destruction).
A more accurate analysis shows the true mission of such presence in the Middle-East is more to handle the emergence of Iran as an economical power, competing with Israel-USA, Europe or Russia.
click on link to Syrian-Iranian Automobile manufature in Syria, just built there, whereas car assembly plants are closing in Detroit, Michgan. Middle-East a market badly needed for the American Economy.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-237/0703083891200815.htm
Why don't we sign commercial agreements with those countries, similar we signed with Israel, instead of sending them our troops and bombs.
Bully Walking-Liar. Step down. We need not such a dictator.
Sounds good on paper but the simple fact is the Jews are very smart, very rich and too integrated into American society and politics! But most of all the Jews are a very close group and rarely let outsiders in! The Jews got their act together and you have to give themn credit for that no matter how envious and jealous the rest of the world is about it! The Jews are also a very smart people and you can't just blow them off, there is a lot of brain power there!
"Defeat" in Iraq, if it comes to that, will lie squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. They have completely botched the reconstruction and post-war phase from the outset. The invasion, ill-advised in the first place as Saddam had been neutralized and contained (no WMD's, no connection to al-Qaeda, no allies), lacked a coherent plan to win the peace. The Rumsfeldians consistently ignored the advice of the Generals; in doing so they couldn't control the region allowing the insurgency to take hold. In the meantime Viceroy Bremer (now there's a name with interesting historical connotations) oversaw a corrupt and disastrous Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) more interested in rewarding cronies with graft than doing any substantive reconstruction. This mess has the Incompetent-in-Chief and his crooked cronies written all over it. To now try to dump this on Democrats, who simply want to carry out the will of the people and extricate us from a quagmire, defies description. Look in the mirror Republicans; Iraq's disaster will be staring back at you.
I appeciated the any soldier letters and packages that people sent during the Gulf War, and I know my son appeciated the packages from home while he was in Iraq.
www.notinourname.net/content/view/16/1/
Don%u2019t forget the huge rallies planned for March 18th, 2007, in a city or town near you. Our rights must be constantly exercised, or they will wither and atrophy.
Please consider signing the following petition, calling for an immediate end to the U.S. inflicted debacle in Iraq.
www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow
For incomparable coverage of these, and other various worldwide actions, please visit:
www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm
How Hitler these days? Care to join him?