February 11, 2009 4:51 PM

Senate Rejects Bill Cutting War Funds

(AP)  The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding — an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."

Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."

The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill.

"We stand united.... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war," said Reid, D-Nev.

Feingold's measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.

"We don't want to send the message to the troops" that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. "We're going to support those troops."

But other Democrats said the move was necessary.

"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Senate vote on Feingold's legislation was one of several expected Wednesday, as the Democratic-controlled Congress struggles to clear legislation for Mr. Bush's signature by the end of next week to continue U.S. military operations through Sept. 30.

The House last week passed legislation funding the war on two separate, 60-day installments.

The Senate must take the next step by passing its own measure. Given the political forces at work, that legislation will be a placeholder, its only purpose to trigger three-way negotiations involving the House, Senate and Bush administration on a final compromise.

As a result, officials said Tuesday that Reid and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had discussed jointly advancing a bill so barebones that it would contain no funds and do little more than express congressional support for the troops.

Negotiations on the final compromise are expected to take days.

Wednesday's votes on Feingold and other proposals "will provide strong guidance to our conferees and help shape the conference negotiations we have ahead of us," said Reid.

In addition to Feingold's measure, members were expected to vote on legislation by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would threaten billions of dollars in U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad does not make progress on certain military and political reforms.

Reid said he would oppose Warner's measure because it doesn't go far enough; the proposal would allow the president to waive the restriction on foreign aid.

"It is nothing," said Reid.

Levin pulled from the floor his proposal to set an Oct. 1 date to begin troop withdrawals, but allow the president to waive that requirement. He had pitched the idea with the expectation that the president would accept it because of the waiver; but, Levin said Wednesday he had been advised by the White House that the president would veto the measure regardless.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 151 Comments
by rhs648 May 17, 2007 2:38 PM EDT
Why not cry over the presidential election of 1812. There have been many contested elections and all kinds of games played including the counting of deceased persons and their votes. Crying over the past doesn't solve today's problems.

Self-hate is something Americans have to take a close look at. To hear some, we are the root of all evil. There is no other country that offers greater freedom, greater individual rights, and more opportunity. Do we have faults? Of course we do. In spite of mistakes, we are still the greatest and most powerful country in the world. Just ask illegal immigrants who risk life and limb to be here.
Reply to this comment
by rhs648 May 17, 2007 2:29 PM EDT
It's all politics folks. It doesn't matter if it is 1977, 1987, or 2007. Some things never change. Democrats today and Republicans tomorrow. One thing both parties can count on is that people have short memories and even shorter attention spans.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 May 17, 2007 2:20 PM EDT
Bush did not cause 9/11, unless not investigating the warship that was bombed and ignoring terrorists because it was like "swatting flies" qualifies.
Reply to this comment
by randalds May 17, 2007 3:42 AM EDT
RandaIDS,

"I would posit that Bush has brought this lack of credibility on himself."

I can't argue with you that President Bush doesn't have a very good track record on somethings, but as far as him knowing or causing 9/11, I just can't believe that.
Posted by AJMarine1 at 09:00 PM : May 16, 2007

Oh I agree with you there. I don't believe that Bush had any part of planning or executing the tragedy on 9-11. I do believe he had enough prior warning to have at least tried to investigate and that there was a chance he could have taken steps to prevent it, except for the fact that he's an incompetent idiot. I also believe that as the towers came down there was nothing but dancing and celebrations in the White House as Bush, Cheney, Rumseld, Wolfowitz and all of the other gang of Neocons realized that this was the "Pearl Harbor type event" they'd been hoping for as an excuse to go after regime change in Iraq. Planned it? No. Could have prevent it? Maybe. Was unbelievably happy that it happened? Absolutely 100% ecstatic that the towers were brought down! Never been happier in his whole life! Best thing that ever happened to him since the first time he discovered what his Wee Willy was for!
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 May 17, 2007 3:08 AM EDT
Re: "What Hillary Clinton said was "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."

Just last November, Hillary was still strongly backing the Bush regime's war of terror, as she defended her Senate seat.

If Clinton is elected, then we will have exchanged one Corporate/AIPAC prostitute for another.
Reply to this comment
by randalds May 17, 2007 2:42 AM EDT
Please save me the conspiracy theories that it is because Bush is so cleaver...or Rove is so cleaver they can dodge all these obvious illegal issues that only bloggers know about.

Yikes!!

Posted by dlpracer at 09:17 PM : May 16, 2007

I wasn't speaking to you. Shoo. You're like a gnat. Small minded and irritating, but with no sting since everything you say are right wing myths, urban legends and outright lies. Shoo. You're not worth discussing anything with. Making fun of, yes, but speaking to as the adult you are not, no. Shoo. Shoo.
Reply to this comment
by randalds May 17, 2007 2:37 AM EDT
BTW...When you tell people that we don't have a president you do two things.
1. Advertise your ability to give people incorrect information
2. Advertise your overt immaturity. When Clinton was president, I didn't vote for him (because I have a fuc$ing brain in my head) but that did not change the fact that he was my president. It was Clinton you might remember who was our president when Osama Bin Laden first appeared on our radar screen. Remember the USS COLE and the 1st WTC bombing. At any rate, by saying that "he's not my president, you tell the world that you are an intellectual infant.
Posted by mpville72 at 09:53 PM : May 16, 2007

I disagree (my right as an American (you might want to note that we still have rights)). If Charles Manson were somehow elected president I would disavow myself of any loyalty to him too and I consider Bush to be somewhat below Manson on the level of morality and certainly the level of intelligence, so why would I accept him as my president? Bush to me is an unprincipled monster and a mass murderer, so I certainly feel no reason to accept that I'm under his authority in any manner. He has not earned the right for me to say he's my president and in fact has done everything he can to make me hate him as an alleged human being even more. He is not my president.
Reply to this comment
by slipster01 May 17, 2007 2:31 AM EDT
"the good questions about 9/11 are being asked - the problem is the good answers are not being given - what are they trying to hide and why ?
Posted by king77shaw at 11:09 PM : May 16, 2007"


What are you trying to prove? I guarantee if there were a conspiracy, it would have been shown by know. Too many TV cameras, too many eye witnesses, and NO FRIGGIN WAY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU CLAIM WITHOUT WITNESSES TO BE ABLE TO COME FORWARD AND CONFIRM IT!

So STFUAGFU, we are all tired of it. I'm sure Hamas, the Taliban, and Al Queda are looking for a few good nutcases just like you.

Leave the country and don't come back. IF EVERYTHING YOU CLAIM IS TRUE THEN YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE OUTTA HERE, BECAUSE THE FEDS WOULD BE OUT TO FIT YOU WITH CEMENT SHOES TO SHUT YOU UP

Which, obviously, hasn't happened. So, go take your paranoia medicine, and leave.


So say all of U.S(.A)
Reply to this comment
by slipster01 May 17, 2007 2:26 AM EDT
Posted by skyk at 05:52 PM : May 16, 2007 "We, the Democrat Party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this War".

What Hillary Clinton said was "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."

skyk the little POS quotes Clinton, then rewrites history in the same post. Then goes on to accuse Conservatives of being Nazis (which obviously means he never read the ROE for these boards, i.e. "no comparing anyone to Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot")

The point I was making was that the Democrats were DIVIDED on their vote, yet Clinton claimed they are a 'united party", and she is trying to pull the wool over America's eyes with her lies.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20
070516/D8P5I9S80.html
"The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold's proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders."
Reply to this comment
by king77shaw May 17, 2007 2:09 AM EDT
the good questions about 9/11 are being asked - the problem is the good answers are not being given - what are they trying to hide and why ?
Reply to this comment
See all 151 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook