WASHINGTON, May 16, 2007
Senate Rejects Bill Cutting War Funds
Clinton And Obama Support Bill That Would Have Ceased Funding For Iraq War By March 31, 2008
-
Play CBS Video Video Senate Plans Votes On Iraq The Senate gears up for another series of votes on the war while three American soldiers have been kidnapped by a group linked to al Qaeda in Iraq. Susan Roberts reports.
-
Video Senate Rejects Iraq Bill Congress is back to the grindstone as the Senate rejected legislation from Democrats to sever funding the war in Iraq after next March. Susan Roberts reports.
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive 110th Congress The balance of power shifts and new leadership takes control as the latest session convenes.
-
Interactive Iraq: 4 Years Later The conflict wears on as the nation struggles to rebuild.
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
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.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 9
- next
See all 170 CommentsSelf-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.
"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!
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.
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.
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 ***$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.
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)
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."
Re: "As freedom loving Americans we don't have to accept that."
Agreed. But I would add that the Democrats have once again demonstrated their near uselessness, as an "opposition" Party.
www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html (speakers)
Call it a myth if you want. I repeat I DID RECEIVE THAT EMAIL!!
Take it you also believe that our country DID NOT fly the BIN LADEN FAMILY out of the country right after 9/11??
I seem to remember you earlier as a 30 something never seen military service hack but then again you NEVER admit to ANYTHING.
Go back to your remote control cars kid.
Posted by realpatriot1
The system worked well. The half who did not vote for President Bush can't accept that the fact that the other half voted for President Bush. After rediculous attempts to interpret hanging chads, day after day, the election went through the courts. The Supreme Court made a determination and power changed hands peacefully. No coups, no revolutions, no riots--just a peaceful result. President Bush is president of the United States whether you accept him or not. Paper ballots and two days for voting are not requirements under the Constitution for elections and probably would not improve a thing.
Yes there are some really good questions that need to be asked. I know. On Sept 10, 2001 I received an email from a financial advisor titled "something's coming, something big". Boy did HE call it! Know what alerted him?
ALL THE FINANCIAL TRADING GOING ON that matched trading hat occurred right before the previous twin towers bombing. Only 6 died then if you don't count the pregnant lady's unborn baby.
If a financial advisor could see it and SOMEONE WAS TRADING TO PROFIT FROM IT yeah - SOMEONE KNEW AND DIDN'T EVEN HIDE THEIR KNOWLEDGE.
Too bad the scumbags made money from it.
-------------
That myth has made itself all over the internet and has NO MERIT. YOU are a liar.
Post the email in this blog with all the email addresses so we can contact the broker.
Pathetic.
Try again.
Posted by realpatriot1
The system worked well. The half who did not vote for President Bush can't accept that the fact that the other half voted for President Bush. After rediculous attempts to interpret hanging chads, day after day, the election went through the courts. The Supreme Court made a determination and power changed hands peacefully. No coups, no revolutions, no riots--just a peaceful result. President Bush is president of the United States whether you accept him or not. Paper ballots and two days for voting are not requirements under the Constitution for elections and probably would not improve a thing.
Posted by RandalDS at 09:42 PM : May 16, 2007
I just did. Correctly I might add.
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 ***$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.
Yes there are some really good questions that need to be asked. I know. On Sept 10, 2001 I received an email from a financial advisor titled "something's coming, something big". Boy did HE call it! Know what alerted him?
ALL THE FINANCIAL TRADING GOING ON that matched trading hat occurred right before the previous twin towers bombing. Only 6 died then if you don't count the pregnant lady's unborn baby.
If a financial advisor could see it and SOMEONE WAS TRADING TO PROFIT FROM IT yeah - SOMEONE KNEW AND DIDN'T EVEN HIDE THEIR KNOWLEDGE.
Too bad the scumbags made money from it.
Try again
Posted by dlpracer at 09:31 PM : May 16, 2007
Amen Brother.....This site s overrun by liberals who have no ideas. They have "conspiracies", enabling ideas about the inner cities and racism. They have an anti-american, let's paint this country as bad as we can on the global stage agenda that is fueled by the media and hollywood.
That my friends is how it is.
You need to look no further than the comments made by BANDAIDS, and KING77 to see this
Saw the pathetic Republican boot-licking contest er - "debate". Glad to see Ron Paul had a chance to talk this time. He seems to be the ONLY nonbootlicking HONEST ONE IN THE BUNCH!!
Too bad the party Reich-owners would rather commit political suicide than listen to him.
WAR CZAR ALERT - a 3 star will now be telling the 4 stars what to do. George SURE understands how military RANK works - HAHAHAHAHA SO MUCH FOR "Chain of Command". That'll teach those Generals not to boot-lick when told and LOVE IT.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 9
- next
See all 170 Comments