House Bid To Override Bush Veto Fails

222-203 Vote Falls Far Short Of Two-Thirds Majority Needed For Override

(CBS/AP)  Hoyer would not speculate on exactly what the bill might look like, but said he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30, as Mr. Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders will adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to fund the war two or three months at a time.

As for bipartisan cooperation in Congress, neither side seemed in much of a hurry Wednesday. "There have been discussions about talking," Hoyer said.

Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said his party won't take any options off the table. But "what I want is a clean bill" without a timetable on the war, he said

The situation has Democratic lawmakers in a difficult position. Because they control the House and Senate, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill that Mr. Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.

The party's most liberal members, especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the war if there's no binding language on troop drawdowns. The bill Mr. Bush rejected would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"I think the Democrats are in a box," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in an interview. "We're pretty resolute on our side. We are not going to tie this funding to any type of withdrawal deadline or any type of redeployment deadline."

Some Democrats believe the GOP solidarity will crack over time, noting that polls show heavy public support for a withdrawal plan.

Numerous possible compromises are being floated on Capitol Hill, all involving some combination of benchmarks. Some would require Mr. Bush to certify monthly that the Iraqi government is fully cooperating with U.S. efforts in several areas, such as giving troops the authority to pursue extremists.

The key impasse in Congress is whether to require redeployments of U.S. troops if the benchmarks are not met.

Under one proposal being floated, unmet benchmarks would cause some U.S. troops to be removed from especially violent regions such as Baghdad. They would redeploy to places in Iraq where they presumably could fight terrorists but avoid the worst centers of Sunni-Shia conflict.

A new spending bill "has got to be tied to redeployment," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the House's fourth-ranking Democratic leader. He conceded, however, that Democrats have yet to figure out where they will find the votes.

"Our members will not accept restraints on the military," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said. He suggested tying benchmarks to continued U.S. nonmilitary aid to Iraq, an idea that many Democrats consider too weak.

Democrats won control of the House and Senate in elections that largely focused on Iraq. They showed impressive solidarity in passing the bill that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday, losing only 14 House Democrats while holding 216.

But top Democrats say they have no hope of replicating that showing once they begin making even modest concessions to the president. That makes them dependent on Republican help.

[adafmtdue]

Not pride - president. No president would or should sign a bill that would limit there power as define by the constitution and the power explicitly vested in the office of the President of the United States

[realpatriot1]

madash38,

We don't have a Parliamentary system so there can't be a special election. Too bad...it would save America from idiots like you.

In case you didn't notice, we had an election last November dfominated by this war and the public voted overwhelmingly to NOT stay the course. The polls you refer to are not limited to the east and west coast. State polls show overwhelming opposition to this war in EVERY region and state.

I know you Neocons are having difficulty accepting democracy but you're just going to have to try harder because this is not going to quiet the "whimpering". The authority for this little conflict was to stop Sadaam. from using WMD-he didn't have them and he's dead.

We can negotiate with parties in the region or just pull out. Even Bush is hinting at an earlier withdrawal than the Democrats. He's saying we'll know by fall if we're going to succeed or not. The funding bill dosen't call for us being out until next April. If the surge works, he can always go back to Congress and ask for new authority. But that would mean working within the system and not like a King.

[madash3ll]

"Congress must go before the American people and tell them: if we don't stop funding them, we CANNOT stop this war--so what do you want? If we still want the funding--Americans must reconcile themselves to staying in the war and shut up about troop withdrawals (bush will NOT let it happen and neither will the minority GOP Congress) If the majority say, okay--thanks for the truth--pull the funding." toldyouso21

Wow, (21 must be your age) the biggest problem with the youth of today...you believe polling numbers that never touch most Americans outside of the East or West coast and trust that poll as you would an election.

If you believe truly that a majority of Americans want to withdraw from Iraq then spur on your elected officials to pass a law that would allow them to call a special election to hear you. There%u2019s not even a provision to poll Americans in special elections right now. You'd think even a benign group like the one we're stuck with now could think of that if they truly believe that they have the majority behind them. How could it not pass since anyone blocking hearing from the American people on such a high profile issue would be truly shunned by everyone? But, don't bet on them doing it...you voted for them, and they'll use their position as they see fit to make the decision...as will the President.

[gramto7]

Posted by toldyouso21 at 09:19 AM : May 03, 2007


WELL SAID!!!

[toldyouso21]

Congress must go before the American people and tell them: if we don't stop funding them, we CANNOT stop this war--so what do you want? If we still want the funding--Americans must reconcile themselves to staying in the war and shut up about troop withdrawals (bush will NOT let it happen and neither will the minority GOP Congress) If the majority say, okay--thanks for the truth--pull the funding. Then Pelosi needs to get on tv and tell us what to expect: the dying, more chaos, until Bush blinks.

She should make it very clear that it is Bush who is standing in the way of the funding, and like he did for the past few months--keep hammering that home, in address after address after address. A simple message--One man's pride and his pen stand between the troops and their funding. One man, who held over 150K lives in his hand when he placed them in harms way, who still holds those lives while he KEEPS them in harm's way, and who now will determine if they have the money to be there, or if his pride and getting his own way is worth more than their lives.

[madash3ll]

The override failure proves this was simply a show for Democrats. I guess a lame duck bill is good enough to quiet the liberal whimpering. Maybe Pelosi should have crossed the aisle and compromised rather than wasting her time and our money on tea and chatting in Syria.

This version of the Democratic Party is all double talk and showmanship. Hillary would love to say that she'd pull the troops out, but she knows that pulling out would be a terrible mistake and so she'll quietly say she'd keep "some" troops there...Uh-huh, as many as she felt she needed...and she's the front runner from her party. In short, that's why the Democratic party will still (after all the bad press to the Republicans) have trouble landing the White House in 08...they would be extremely dangerous if in charge of foreign policy in their current state because they are more set on being against a particular American than doing what's best for America.

Pelosi's "benchmarks without teeth" quote is simply priceless. I believe that's the same argument that got Iraq invaded in the first place...UN benchmarks (resolutions) without teeth. If the liberal masses were willing to give Saddam more than a decade to decide if he would cooperate and still weren't ready to do something with teeth, then they certainly don't stand a chance of forcing the US President's hand. They'll whine all the way to handing him the bill he wants...just a bunch of political hypocrites and weaklings that won't stand their ground.

[toldyouso21]

tuckerndfw
I remember reading somewhere that Bush & Co had arranged to have IMMUNITY from prosecution for WAR CRIMES.

Posted by homespunlady at 06:20 AM : May 03, 2007


Guess you missed the signing into LAW last year of immunity for war crimes (this only applies domestically) AND for circumventing FISA. Funny, how Bush asked for immunity from something he said was legal.

it really behooves Americans to keep up with what is going on in our own country. if we fail to do so--then it will not help us to learn about actions/laws or what fresh hell is being cooked up--after we are already in the pot, and the heat is on.

[the74blaster]

I know one thing for sure never again I have had it with the GOP.

Posted by antoniof123,

I fully agree with this statement! If Bush had any serious intentions of involving the Arabs in stabalizing Iraq he would be Egypt work with regional leaders to address the situation in Iraq. He made a choice to stay here and play politics by vetoing a bill that contains some milestones to chart progress.

Would anyone of the conservatives that post here give a home builder a 300-400K and not ask for a completion date for their new house?

If not, then why are you supporting Bushs Iraq program, after all its you money!

[antoniof123]

I know one thing for sure never again I have had it with the GOP. Nixon, Bush they are all a bunch of wing nuts and I will never vote for them again.

[booyaw_77]

Yer a god damned embarrassment to freedom, and everything it represents. Go to yer room and lock the door and don't come out until 2008. Go play with yerself, ya corporate skaaank.