Sparks Fly Over Iraq Vote

Bush Blasts Democrats After House Passes Bill Setting Deadline For Troop Withdrawal

(CBS/AP)  A sharply divided House of Representatives delivered a stinging rebuke to President Bush on Friday, voting to order him to bring combat troops home from Iraq by the fall of next year.

Just over an hour later, an angry Mr. Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than an "act of political theater" and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions."

Ignoring Mr. Bush's promised veto, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Joined at the White House by veterans and service family members, Mr. Bush said: "A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job.

"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."

The House vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Mr. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that the bill also requires troops get a year's rest between tours of duty — making it difficult to maintain the President's troop surge.

The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi, who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party's more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

But to get enough members of their own party on board, Attkisson reports, Democrats practically had to buy votes by tacking on billion of dollars in pet projects that have nothing to do with the War on terror — including special-interest money for spinach, tropical fish, citrus ... $13 billion worth in all.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Voting for the bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed the bill, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

Excluding the funds in the House-passed bill, Congress has so far provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. More than 3,200 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since war began in March 2003.

The next step is up to the Senate, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss. Democrats there are backing a bill that has already passed out of committee and funds the war with an even tighter troop pullout deadline — one year instead of 18 months.

They don't have the 60 votes to pass it, but Republicans don't have 60 to fund the war without conditions, either — meaning that will be the first place to start looking for some kind of compromise between letting the president make all the decisions about the war and having Congress decide when it will end.

Attkisson reports that there "no way" the Senate will pass any bill with a firm deadline. The most likely scenario, she says, is that in the end Congress compromises and that President Bush and the troops get their funding — with no deadline.

In Friday's House debate, Democrats said it was time for them to begin influencing the war's path.

"The American public expects the Congress of the United States to do something," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Not simply to say 'yes' to failed policies, but to on their behalf, speak out and try to take us in a new direction."

"What we're trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had helped write the bill.

With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 "no" votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best chance of forcing Bush to change course. To aid the argument, they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending — labeled pork by detractors — in an effort to lure votes.

They got a breakthrough Thursday when four of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not stand in its way. California Democrats Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it because it would not end the war immediately.

"Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience," said Watson.

The Iraq deadline created an unusual dynamic in the sharply partisan Congress. Bush loyalists teamed up with some anti-war liberals in opposing the measure. Conservatives said a firm deadline for the war would tie the hands of military commanders and embolden insurgents after the U.S. left Iraq, whereas many liberals said the bill would continue to bankroll an immoral war for more than a year.

"If you want peace, stop funding this war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"Approval of it means we vote to abandon Iraq at an arbitrary time no matter the situation, said Republican Rep. Ted Poe. It's also "loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war," added Poe, R-Texas, referring to the billions of dollars added to the bill to fund domestic programs and attract votes.

But members said Pelosi was able to convince liberal members of her caucus that the legislation was their best shot at challenging the president on the war, even if it fails to become law.

[us_infidel]

"(CBS/AP) House Democrats voiced confidence Friday that they had enough support to approve Congress' boldest challenge yet to President Bush's Iraq policy, a bill ordering combat troops to leave the country before the fall of 2008."

Wow...that's mighty BOLD of them. That's probably right along the timeline of when we were going to start drawing down, anyway.

Dems are such losers. I mean, republicans are bad, but at least they are held to a higher standard. Dems have no standards.....except the lowest common denominator.

[mudrose-2009]

The era of economic prosperity started long ago, in the Reagan administration, and really took off when the R's got a majority in Congress.. No way that we would have controlled budget deficits, reduced welfare, and kept tax hikes under control without a Republican majority. Clinton is the luckiest president in history in addition to all his other "firsts" (most of which are dubious or embarrasing).

Hahahahahahahaha. The little people were doing quite well when BJ took office. Give it a rest.

[terrapin78]

...mean, republicans are bad, but at least they are held to a higher standard.

Posted by US_Infidel at 11:04 AM : Mar 23, 2007

LOL! LMFAO!

[bigsk8fan]

"That's probably right along the timeline of when we were going to start drawing down, anyway." Posted by US_Infidel

W shows no signs of pulling out of Iraq anytime in the next century. He said not until the job is done so many times. And since the middle east has been this way for centuries, that means the US has to be there that long to "fix" the situation.

[diamtool]

"The former No. 2 official at the Interior Department has agreed to a felony plea admitting that he lied five times to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and its investigators about his relationship with Abramoff, people involved in the case told the AP."
Looks like at last the swamp is draining. So far the Dems have racked up Rumsfield, Bolton, Libby, Abramoff and Gang, Gonzalez' deputy, Alberto is twisting in the wind and it looks like Domenici is going to have at least a nasty ethics rap. Not bad for three months. keep the pressure on! You might not end the war right away but at least with adult supervision Bush won't be starting any new trouble and they know they have to get Iraq wrapped up very soon. That will save lives.

God Bless our Troops
God forgive George Bush

[roger_inkart]

...mean, republicans are bad, but at least they are held to a higher standard.

Right. The only people Republicans hold to a "higher standard" are non-Republicans.

[getagrip54]

...mean, republicans are bad, but at least they are held to a higher standard.

Posted by US_Infidel at 11:04 AM : Mar 23, 2007

STANDARDS?? THEY'RE POLITICIANS!! THEY DON'T HAVE NO STINKING STANDARDS.

Republican, Democrat they don't do whats best for the country, only what pleases the special interests that help get them re-elected.

[forthepeaple]

THE WHITE HAS NOTHING TO STAND ON, WHN NIXON ASK THE COURTS FOR ( EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES)AS PRESIDENT HE WAS TOLD BY THE COURTS ONE THING.

DEINIED......... THAT IS WHY THEY ARE TRYING NOT TO GO TO COURT OVER THIS MATTER...

[processor2]

A better Headline:

The SurrenderCrats are confident of surrendering

...

[forthepeaple]

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT BUSH AND COMPANY BETTER BE SHEDDING EVERYTHING NOW BEFORE THIS GET REALLY UGLY

[mudrose-2009]

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said a vote against the bill would be a vote against the troops.

%u201CYou%u2019re voting against supporting the troops if you%u2019re voting against the money that goes to the troops,%u201D Murtha said.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! This is why term limits are so important. These people are dimented.

[j-whitman]

John Boehner in Congress today,,,, Yelling genocide is happening in Lebanon ???? - Another Lying Off The Hook Idiot --
. Repubs ignored genocide in the Sudan for 6 years -
- They should lynch these people on the spot for thier lies...
. These Republicans are amazing Lying is dishonorable, very dishonorable..

[j-whitman]

Mudrose,,, Get off the lies & evil rhetoric idiot & start paying attention will you ????? -- It doesn't touch the troop's money, not 1 bit,,,, It gives them the training & equipment they need to save thier own lives.

[mudrose-2009]

Yeah, whitman, so does the spinach, peanuts and avocados. Right?

[j-whitman]

Republicans are held to high standards
--- They all have to dishonor themselves with lies & ignorant wrongfull rehtoic
-- Those are Bush's standards ,,, along with selling our nation & military out to the enemy's we should be fighting === Radical Sunni's & Communist China

[j-whitman]

Mudrose,,, Nope,,,, You should start watching & listening to these republicans you love so much -- They now lie when the return from Iraq -- They compare it to Detroit & Chicago -- As they did 3 years ago yelling "Iraq is so safe, I'll take my families there"" --------- MUDROSE,, YOU'RE NOT THE LEAST BIT HONORABLE - IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION

[mudrose-2009]

Whitman,

I'm tired. You have your point of view and I have mine. You will never convince me that the socialist left has good intentions. Sorry, buddy. I just can't stomach them.

[j-whitman]

Mudrose,,, Reconstruction has failed,,, the Surge has only slowed the violence & then only in a few areas while attacks are increasing in other areas -- Listen to General Petreaus,, He will tell you the Surge alone won't work,, Only 1/2 of Iraq army show up at all & most of them don't like our troops ----- SNAFU ---- IRAQ IS LOST

[mudrose-2009]

Pray, Whitman, because if that's true, we're going to be in for a very bad time. Ciao.

[forthepeaple]

$2.2 trillion dollars. That?s a lot of money. $8,000 for each American. It?s our government?s projected surplus the next 10 years.? (Background...) Al Gore plans to spend it all. And more.? (Background...) Gore is proposing three times the new spending President Clinton proposed . . . wiping out the entire surplus, and creating a deficit again. (Background...) Al Gore?s big government spending plan threatens America?s prosperity. (Background...) THIS IS WHAT BUSH SAID ABOUT GORE,, AND LOOK WERE WE ARE AT NOW LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE

[xgi123]

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT BUSH AND COMPANY BETTER BE SHEDDING EVERYTHING NOW BEFORE THIS GET REALLY UGLY
Posted by forthepeaple at 11:49 AM : Mar 23, 2007

You have given me the impression that YOU support the Bush doctrine. Aren't you the one who advocates a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a yet un-named country? That would be the Bush doctrine. American supremacy? Bush doctrine.

[j-whitman]

Mudrose,, Just what the hell is a socialist???,,, You definatly should look the word up - & get pissed at the GOP for insulting you.
- Buddy, the GOP as usual think thier own people are too stupid to know what it means -- Look it up

[j-whitman]

GOP CALLS THIER OWN PEOPLE IGNORANT -- Congressman John Boehner today said Genocide has been going on in Lebanon & still is today

REALITY CHECK --
Republicans have been ignoring genocide in the Sudan for 6 years ---- As President Carter wrote about, & UN Experts say there is a type of Genocide in Palestine.

[mudrose-2009]

Socialist, collective, communist, communalist, collectivist, Marxist, Leninist, Maoist. Antonym-capitalist.

Okay, I looked it up. Feel better?

[xgi123]

mudrose,,,synonyms and an antonym do not constitute a definition.

[j-whitman]

Mudrose,,,, There is a lot more to the defenition than a few isolated words -- Marxist, a little agreement,, But the rest you can directly apply to this administration & thier actions & policies,,,
, We are now a Debtor country to a Communist nation,,,, Capiolism always teaters on the edge of communism & socialism --- Our democracy is a Capitlolist democracy, Both parties

[forthepeaple]

HEY XGI123- DONT EVER PUT ME AND BUSH TOGETHER AGAIN..HES THE S/H/I/T/ I TAKE EVERMORNING AND HIS ADMINASTRATION ARE THE SQEEZE OFF AT THE OF MY S/H/I/T/ JUST REMEBER THAT

[j-whitman]

Mudrose,,,, Sorry buddy, The GOP missuse of the word Socialist - Simply is wrong & you should be offended...
. Personally, I won't stand for anyone calling me ignorant let alone my own political party.. But, You people fell for the whole concept of WMD's & Iraq being a threat.... The GOP's got all of you hook line & sinker.

[xgi123]

HEY XGI123- DONT EVER PUT ME AND BUSH TOGETHER AGAIN..HES THE S/H/I/T/ I TAKE EVERMORNING AND HIS ADMINASTRATION ARE THE SQEEZE OFF AT THE OF MY S/H/I/T/ JUST REMEBER THAT
Posted by forthepeaple at 12:44 PM : Mar 23, 2007

Well,,,You and Bush seem to advocate the same doctrine as far as your talk of "get them first" and American supremacy, don't you think?

[mudrose-2009]

I will not cater to this debate. Take care one and all.

[j-whitman]

House just passed the Iraq spending bill --- Question now is --- Will Bush veto it & really cut funding for our troops ????

[j-whitman]

House just passed the Iraq spending bill --- Question now is --- Will Bush veto it & really cut funding for our troops ????

[fredegrar]

I might just be paranoid because I watched 'Why We Fight' last night (I know, I'm way behind the times), but my guess is both parties want the war to continue. They will vote to continue the war while they only talk about ending it. If the supplemental ever passes both houses, its withdrawal clauses will be so watered down as to be meaningless. Most of the dems (except the very few ultra-liberals who stand on their principles) want to keep the defense contractors happy because the defense contractors are smart enough to produce their 'product' in every state/district in the union. Voting against this war, or any future war for that matter, will be painted as an anti-jobs vote by the military industrial complex. Only a politician that doesn't care about the next election would dare vote against building more bombs. The president will not stop this war and congress will not stop this war. Nothing short of an enormous popular movement by everyday Americans standing up against the militarist-imperialist society we've made ourselves into will ever stop the ceaseless military action to which we've become accustomed. I'm not holding my breath.

[rsoxfan1123]

j-whitman-what happens if Bush just signs it and then doesn't withdraw the troops as promised?

[tucano2]

Sure fine OK fund the troops overseas BUT first fund and enforce current laws to repell and expell illegal alien terrorists already in the USA and crossing over our southern border daily.
Where is the first 700 miles of anti-terrorist fencing? We do NOT need any new or revolving door laws concerning illegal aliens. What is needed is the effective enforcement of current laws.

[huskerarmy]

"When everbudy is politicaly corect and thinks like us, then we can all get along."
When you are among the oppressed, it makes little difference which system oppresses you. Those on the obedient right easily recognize the tyrany of so-called "political correctness," a term they excuse all versions of intolerance behind, but tyrany of a privileged or majority class is just good ole democracy at work. Greed is good, social responsibility is a communist plot.

[forthepeaple]

XG1 123- AGAIN THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN A MAN(ME)AND A WHIMP(BUSH)is that no troops would of died.he has murder all out brave troops for his own personal gains. nothing he did was for this counrty and all america and the americans in it.

[rsoxfan1123]

again, what happens if Bush just signs it and then doesn't withdraw the troops as promised?

[huskerarmy]

"...expell illegal alien terrorists already in the USA and crossing over our southern border daily."
Does anyone have a link to evidence that terrorists are coming into the U.S. from Mexico?

[xgi123]

I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by fredegrar at 12:54 PM : Mar 23, 2007

Neither am I! The whole situation flat sucks! Having experienced both a failed war and a failed presidency in the not so distant past, there is absolutely nothing to be happy about either one at the present time.

[forthepeaple]

you all have to remeber the bill still has to go through the senate before it gos to s/h/i/t/h/e/a/d/....than if he vetos it than imeachment will come next. so he will note veto it..he will sign and do what he want anyway just as it has been going on.....

[forthepeaple]

you all have to remeber the bill still has to go through the senate before it gos to s/h/i/t/h/e/a/d/....than if he vetos it than imeachment will come next. so he will note veto it..he will sign and do what he want anyway just as it has been going on.....

[rsoxfan1123]

huskerarmy-do you know the answer? what's to stop bush from just signing the thing, getting his money and then refusing to withdraw the troops?

[lars008-2009]

hahahahaha congress thinks they are the executive branch hahahahahahahaha

a good time to use line item veto hahahahahaha

[xgi123]

XG1 123- AGAIN THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN A MAN(ME)AND A WHIMP(BUSH)is that no troops would of died.he has murder all out brave troops for his own personal gains. nothing he did was for this counrty and all america and the americans in it.
Posted by forthepeaple at 12:57 PM : Mar 23, 2007

Does this imply that you would have launched a pr-emptive nuclear attack against Iraq?

[scott4261]

Nothing will happen until Bush is gone. With votes this close, he'll just run roughshod over Congress. Frankly, the numbers are just not there.

[klmetz_cbs]

The answer is: More bombs, less troops.

[rsoxfan1123]

I don't think bush HAS line item veto power. he tried to get it and now we know why.

[xgi123]

I don't think bush HAS line item veto power. he tried to get it and now we know why.
Posted by rsoxfan1123 at 01:07 PM : Mar 23, 2007

When Clinton was given the same power it was declared unconstitutional by the court.

[cathaleen]

What a waste of taxpayer money - this bill is good faith only because in the end it will be vetoed.