House passes spending bill with Iraq deadline

[maddezmom]

Source: CNN

House passes spending bill with Iraq deadline
POSTED: 1647 GMT (0047 HKT), March 23, 2007
Story Highlights• NEW: House passes war spending bill by 218-212 vote
• Legislation includes 2008 deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
• Vote is under way Friday; Republicans are mostly united against legislation
• Defense secretary warns of consequences if funding not provided soon

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives on Friday passed a spending bill that includes a firm deadline -- August 31, 2008 -- for combat troops to leave Iraq.

A running total on House Television of members' electronic votes showed the bill passing 218-212. Those voting in favor included two Republicans.

Before the vote, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told CNN that Democrats had the numbers to pass the bill.

But the measure is unlikely to pass the Senate, and President Bush has said he will veto the bill if it contains such a deadline.

To get the votes, the leadership had to win over anti-war Democrats who felt that the measure didn't go far enough.



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/iraq.funding/index.html?section=cnn_latest

---

House Democrats Pass Troop Withdrawal Bill
(AP) WASHINGTON A majority of the House has voted to approve a bill requiring President Bush to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by fall 2008, with the vote still under way.

After days of lobbying by party leaders, chances of passage increased after many liberal opponents of the bill — who had said that it did not go far enough to end the war immediately — announced they would not stand in its way.

The $124 billion bill would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but require combat troops to return home before September 2008, possibly sooner, if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements.

"Today, we are demanding accountability," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

Confident they had the votes to win, Democrats celebrated in a closed-door meeting in advance of the debate. some described it as resembling a pep rally.

"I would call it the coming together of conscience, conviction and caucus," said Rep. John Larson, D-Conn.

more:http://cbs2.com/politics/politicsnational_story_082102520.html

[Danieljay]

1. does this really mean anything? Bush will Veto it, there will be no override...

Help me see the positive in this?

[Akoto]

2. If nothing else ...

It'd be yet another dent in *'s armor. Spending was not denied in this bill. Rather, it was granted, with the caveat of introducing a date of withdrawal. If he vetoes it, he's vetoing money that's needed by the military while simultaneously rejecting the wishes of the people and their representatives.

[drm604]

3. Exactly.

Bush vetoed funding for the troops.

[19jet54]

36. Strings...

... If Bush wants the money, there are strings attached, otherwise no money - Do the same thing again, and again, and again... Let him turn the money down?

Congress controls the purse strings; NO MORE BLANK CHECKS!

Instead we finally have Checks & Balances like the Constitution says - Democracy Works!!!!!

[TellTheTruth82]

49. Problem with this

The real problem with this is that it puts the troops in a hard position. If Bush doesn't veto it (not very likely), then the troops still have a mission to perform, and they will have to do it without funding...which means it will be very difficult to defend themselves. More will die as a result.

The real issue is the deadline. Picking a day out of the air is fairly meaningless. You need to tie it a set of conditions, as any military expert / historian can tell you. I would rather say the withdrawal happened because the provinces weren't placated, rather than we withdrew because it was the 1st of october (or whatever). A set of reasoned conditions is much more palatable to everyone involved (and those not involved) than some arbitrary date. Now if the conditions could be tied to a date, well then....but it has to be realistic, or it could easily backfire.

The GOP could say, look at all the troops who dies because the Democrats wouldn't fund the war. Then the counter to that is simple - you can give a meaningful reason (didn't meet the conditions) other than saying, well, we didn't want them there past the 1st of October, because, uh, er.....

[renaissanceguy]

48. It does put * in a tough spot

A very good move on the Dems' part.



http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[Danieljay]

4. true, but wont the Dems ultimately be forced to provide funding? ..Will they ultimately cave?

or will they grow a spine and hold out. Who will ultimately get blamed for not funding the war? Bush? The Dems? Considering the current media, I'm guessing the Dems will take the heat in the media. Can they take the heat without giving in is my question. History being the judge, the Dems will bend over and take it.

[Akoto]

9. I'm afraid that I don't understand.

The Democrats will not be forced to provide the funds. In this bill, they do so willingly. It's the timetable for pullout that made this bill different from its predecessors.

[Danieljay]

12. You are right, I guess my question is how will the media frame it?

Time will tell....

[Frances]

5. Great explanation

As Kos pointed out, the headlines after this vote are excellent for Democrats because they say that Democrats voted for a date for withdrawal. The Republicans voted against a deadline. Bush is now in a lose-lose position. He will argue against a deadline for withdrawal which will make his approval numbers go lower which in turn will help weaken him.

[Danieljay]

8. I truly hope your right... it will be interesting to watch. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

15. It depends on the Senate version and the joint conferece to iron out

the differences.

[truebrit71]

11. It means Bush will have to veto a spending bill for the troops. Which means...

...WE get to say, out loud, without fear of contradiciton "Bush doesn't support the troops"...

[enough already]

37. It's never getting out of the Senate looking like this

Sorry, but that's reality.

[SteppingRazor]

23. Two things:

1. It's a moral victory.

2. Bush will veto it (assuming it passes the Senate -- which, I must concede, isn't likely). The House must then come up with another warfunding bill. The process repeats. Thus, the war is essentially defunded.

[leftupnorth]

32. Bingo!

Pleases everyone but Bush. Defunds the war by default, makes Bush look weaker or stubborn or both.

And we get to say that it is Bush who is putting the troops in harm's way, not Congress, by not voting for the funding.

[Maraya1969]

35. What's up with putting farm subsidies in the bill? Or am I confused?

[19jet54]

38. WW II

... it takes food & farmers to run the War too. Why should only the big War Machine companies (Haliburton, Lockheed, ect) get all the funding while the farmers take a loss? Some pork maybe, but also good politics!

[SteppingRazor]

39. Pork, pure and simple...

I imagine a congressman with spinach farmers in his district wanted that inserted in exchange for his "yes" vote. Hey, it's politics.

[kirby]

6. Democrats voting against....

Barrow
Boren
Davis, Lincoln
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Marshall
Matheson
McNulty
Michaud
Taylor
Waters
Watson
Woolsey

[Danieljay]

10. Kucinich... obviously didn't think it went far enough... I love that guy, Dem with a spine!

He is consistant, thats for sure.

[liberalnurse]

13. These are our honorable

PDA..."Progressive Democrats of America" Congress Caucus. :woohoo:

[Ned_Devine]

29. Same with Woolsey, Waters, etc...

Those folks are against ANY more funding, period and I have no beef with that

[athena]

42. According to the NYT,

Lee and Lewis also voted against the bill because it didn't go far enough:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[goodhue]

25. I'm disapointed that my Rep Ellison is not on that list

There are some who will now maintain he broke campaign promise to not fund the war

[kirby]

7. Republicans voting for...

Gilchrest
Jones (NC)

[SIMPLYB1980]

18. All right!

Don't know much about Mr. Jones but glad he voted with us!

[Frances]

21. Us?

I think the majority of DUers, like the majority of MoveOn members, were FOR the bill. Almost all Republican representatives were AGAINST the bill. A few Democratic representatives joined the Republicans in voting against the bill.

[The Doctor.]

26. SIMPLYB1980 Is directly referring to Jones. eom.

[Frances]

28. Thanks for pointing out that Jones was one of two

Repubs who voted for the bill.

[The Doctor.]

31. The rest voted against

based on the timetable?

Holy shit these people are assholes.

... and they don't support the troops.

[MayorCandidate08]

14. It means our proud new Dem's are standing up

I will give them some praise, now it forces bushies hand to cut the funding.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. bush may sign it with signing statements that just ignores everything but the

money.

[ananda]

17. Why not 2007?

Why not now?

It's pretty much a worthless, spineless pr maneuver by the Dems.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

43. I'm with you ananda, I wanted dems to have the balls to say...

We'll fund the safe return of our troops and nothing else!!

The money doesn't go to the troops anyway.

[lonestarnot]

19. Woot! Yes for Nancy!

Now the Senate will be another story. I'm sick of this symbolic crap. Can't we do more?

[Toucano]

45. I wish it weren't just symbolic, but you sometimes build victories

by having the right symbols in your corner.

It's a huge victory for Nancy who managed to keep the Dems together.

[deadparrot]

20. Good.

I'd prefer them out now, but you have to take what you can get. And this is a beginning; we won a psychological victory today. :thumbsup:

[meldroc]

22. There's one way to defund the war...

Rather than explicitly defund it, pass a bill that funds the war, but has things like the August 2008 deadline that doom the bill to a veto. That way, the GOP can't say "The Dems aren't supporting the troops!" which is bullshit anyways. We did send him a bill with the money he requested. If Bush doesn't like the strings put on the money by those who have the power of the purse, he can do without the money.

[RBInMaine]

24. Our side is playing it SMART!

Our side has been smart in setting out some legislation that FINALLY places some conditions on this war policy. It may not have been everything all of us wanted, but it is a good start and everyone has to remember the political realities. But we are finally getting some binding votes to check this terrible President's terrible policies. I unerstand that the Senate did pass something and that now the bills need to be reconciled. Fine, go ahead Bush, veto away to your legacy's perile and to your party's 2008 electoral perile.

[The Doctor.]

27. So how many troops by 08/08?

All of them?

Five of them?

[HappyWeasel]

30. Well, we have what it takes.

Let the soldiers go without their benefits and equipment or tell them they only have 16 more months to play.

[ButterflyBlood]

33. Good

Now watch Bush veto funding for the troops.

[tranche]

34. McCain - "Let's Not Give Peace a Chance"

Hey, a super lurker here -- been loving the site for years now, but rarely post... had to today though -

I was sitting down having lunch, watching McCain and Lieberman respond to this bill. Heard McCain say, "Let's not give peace a chance". Context was within giving "victory" a chance, but it looks to be a hell of a sound bite.

Leiberman said something about those not knowing about war... found that equally hilarious.

Have a good day!

[PATRICK]

40. This is what the

Dems have votes for until the next election or some outbreak of GOp defection. Bush had two dangerous for him choices. Veto his war money. Abuse the legislated money distribution. The first is a poor option because it immediately empowers the Democrats who just gave him his best deal. Now if he goes ahead and accepts a bill he must cheat and accept those consequences. So now he has a new Scylla and Charybdis opening under his feet to add to the DOJ showdown. And more on the way.

The net effect is absolutely the best that the present Congressional makeup can do and the liberal peace group continuing to press feet to fire make this work, albeit not satisfactory to the real need- which is to remove Bush's power to abuse every single thing they send him. In order to "cave" into Bush a large number of Democrats must side with a GOP plan. That is extremely unlikely and someone should clue Chimpy in that he had better take the money and cheat with it. Then the ball is again in the Dems court about the next step. Impeachment or complete defunding.

It is working, it is ugly, it is process and so is the Bush march against Iran and our remaining liberty. The real war to save this nation is still in play and Dems ARE on the attack with what is available. As to whether this is bold or persistent enough or will work makes this no discussion for the squeamish. It is what the Dems CAN do regardless of talk about risk, political machinations etc. that is in play against Bush and practically speaking the blow and initiative are in our favor. Bush could in his wild belligerence give the ball in effect to the most liberal contingent of the anti-war forces.

[jamesinca]

41. Have we all called Pelosis office

Thank her for pulling this off! Force a confrontation with Bush and make him handle something. Make him be the one that cuts funding for the troops. Make him come up with a plan, something that has definitions and benchmarks. Make him explain what victory is. If he can not define it, he has no clue where he is going and point that out too. I don't know how to define victory, but I know it when I see it. They tried that argument with pornography, a war is not a place for that type of BS. We are not exactly sure why we are attacking the beach head at Normandy, but if we are victorious we will know it when we see it. I wonder if Washington had a clue why he went across the Delaware river into New Jersey, I wonder if he could tell you what victory was in that case? You think Kennedy could tell you what the meaning of success was during the Cuban missile crisis? Have we heard what success in Iraq is defined as? When they stand up we will stand down! We are giving him time for his troop surge to work, he has until early 2008. 1 year to pull this off, then we are out. Call Mrs. Pelosi and thank her!!

[Cant trust em]

44. No one in the public is againt this

Confidence in the war has gotten to the point where anything that ends this war faster is best. Who in this country wants this war to go on forever? If a year and a half isn't enough time then how much is? Two years? Five years? Ten Years? Like a woman who's been engaged for years at a time, Americans are getting impatient and arent going to wait around forever.

[cqo_000]

46. Bush won't veto the money

Bush is going to take the money and ignore the strings attached to this bill and the media will as always look the other way.
The law means nothing to Bush, I thought you guys knew that?

[jmowreader]

47. Can anyone say "signing statement"?

We KNOW this fucker uses signing statements as line-item vetoes.

I believe this will be resolved in one of three ways, and we won't like any of them.

The first way is that Bush will use what few friends he has left in the Senate to strip the withdrawal language out of the bill. The bill will then be returned to the House, because according to the Constitution the same bill has to pass the House and the Senate before the President (or Bush, in this case), can sign it into law. Once it returns to the House, the Mighty Wurlitzer will pump up the meme that the House Democrats don't support the troops if they won't strip their withdrawal language. Because Not Supporting The Troops is the kiss of death for any American, obviously the language will be removed.

The second way is kinda illegal but Bush has a long track record of doing it: a signing statement allowing Shrub to disregard the withdrawal language based on his reading the Patriot Act upside down and backwards...you know, like this:



The third way is absolutely unconstitutional but there's precedent for it. About a year ago, the Budget Reconciliation Act--one of the basic laws a president signs every year--went through the same old shit every bill goes through these days: the House writes one version, the Senate writes another and the two bodies join in a conference that ultimately results in one bill that goes to the president. Or, in this case, that's SUPPOSED to go to the president--but the "president" liked one of the pre-conference bills better than the one he was supposed to sign, so that's the one he ultimately approved.

At the end of the day Bush is going to get his funding without getting a withdrawal deadline to go along with it.

[Turnagain]

50. What other people are thinking

about what Bush is planning. Its just their opinion but I suppose that we shall see. Go to:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html