Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senate GOP will not block Iraq bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:12 PM
Original message
Senate GOP will not block Iraq bill
Source: Associated Press

Senate GOP will not block Iraq bill By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) said Monday he won't block Senate passage of an Iraq war spending bill even if the GOP fails to kill its troop withdrawal deadline because he knows President Bush will veto it.

Facing a cliffhanging vote this week, McConnell promised to fight the provision, which calls for combat troops to be brought home within a year. Even if he fails, McConnell said he won't stand in the way of the bill's final passage because the sooner it is sent to the president, the sooner Bush can veto it.

Unable to override the veto, Democrats will then be forced to redraft the bill without a "surrender deadline," McConnell predicted.

"Our goal is to pass it quickly," McConnell said of the war spending bill. "Our troops need the money."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AgjAAhGBHjcxvC1xhW9p79myFz4D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. In other words, we'll let the President take the hit while we play dumb.
Fuck the troops, just leave them hanging indefinitely in the meat grinder while we play political games against the will of the voters.

I have a feeling these republics are going to let Bush take the hit on everything from here on out. They know he's already damaged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. If there is a veto
doesn't it have to go back to the senate to be reconfigured? No money till it passes again and it's signed? Would bush do that to the troops??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If there is a veto, they can do one of two things
1 - pass the bill over the veto, which takes a 2/3 majority - very unlikely

2 - reconfigure and re-pass the bill, which Bush can veto again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. Can't the Senate make a veto-proof bill?
If they hammer it out and it looks veto-proof, can the pResident stop it?

And even if it's close, could Shrub pull off another veto like the only one he's done before (stem-cell issue)?

This will get attention.

Mainly because the majority of the public are against continuing this "war".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. only with 66 votes
and thats highly unlikey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. There probably won't be a veto, just a signing statement
even a signing statement isn't really necessary because the get out of Iraq clause has loopholes so huge you could fit the entire Middle East in it.

Bush gets his cash to drop bombs on Iraq indefinately.

Two days ago this bill could have been dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. And we will move further into a crisis
mark my words on that one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. Doesn't matter what it means legally.
It's a challenge to his power as "the decider," even if only a symbolic one. He'll veto the thing, all right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Mr Bush's concern
for the welfare of the troops,is missing in action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Democratic response to a veto will be interesting. 'Specially the Senate with our slim majority.
I'd like to see a concerted effort at an override, in that case, as unlikely as success may be.

The Bushbots may also choose not to veto and try to ignore the Iraqi benchmark/Congressional oversight standards of the bill.

One other possibility that comes to mind - given Bush's penchant for passing the buck and blaming someone else for his own missteps, 'tho *really* slim I admit - is that he signs it, Iraq can't meet the benchmarks, we withdraw/redeploy troops and Bushco tries to pin a "failure" meme on the Dem's going in to the '08 elections. I sincerely think he cares less about Iraq post-Saddam or the troops for that matter than his own persona.

:shrug:

This one's going to be watched around the world, that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. If * vetoes, the President is vetoing funding for the troops
That's the beauty of having the withdrawl plan as part of this particular funding bill. And even if the Senate passes a weakened version, it can be restored in Conference because the Dems control both committees. It's a game of chicken that * is set up to lose and everyone knows it. That's why it was so critical for the bill to pass in the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Please read the bill
the clause which tells Bush to leave Iraq is so full of escape clauses.

See this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x501943
it has the actual clause wording

read it and weep

Both parties want this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. Allowing a "conscience" vote
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 05:13 PM by depakid
for the Republicans up for reelection is 2008. Depending how this plays out- that could be very smart strategy.

(Why, oh why can't the Dems learn how to play the game like the far right does?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Fine with me. Bush can veto the funding for his war(s), then.
He can take it or leave it. Congress can keep sending up this bill, with minor changes. Congress is trying to fund the soldiers. Bush is stopping the funding, now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. Isn't this an Emergency spending bill, if bush vetoes it, then it obviously isn't an emergency and
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 06:59 PM by VegasWolf
there is no real reason to rush into a new ill thought out bill at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. In name only..money for 2007 has already been approved and in the pipeline
It was taken care of last Congress. This new "emergency" spending bill is for 2008 and beyond and the majority of it goes to Halliburton anyway...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. Lieberman and Coryn intro. an amend. to strip the bill of the withdrawal
stuff today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. "their success could hinge on a single vote." (see here)


.......Likewise, Bush has said he will veto any measure that attempts to micromanage the war.

"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," Bush said last week.

Whether Republicans can prevent such a showdown between Bush and Congress is unclear. Democratic leaders have labored to bolster support for their proposal and their success could hinge on a single vote.

Earlier this month, the Senate rejected a similar timetable on the war with Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record) of Arkansas siding with Republicans against the proposal in a 50-48 vote.

Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon was the lone Republican voting in favor of the resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. look---this time Nelson will vote with the DEMS!!
Since the March 15 vote, Reid and others have made changes in hopes of persuading Nelson and Pryor to support the withdrawal proposal. The changes include a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly.

Nelson said last week he agreed to support the measure because the benchmarks "can be used by Congress to make future decisions about U.S. military presence in Iraq."

Pryor remains reluctant.

"I think if the public timetable remains, Senator Pryor would likely oppose it," said spokesman Michael Teague.

While most Republicans are expected to reject setting a timetable in Iraq, the vote is likely to be a difficult one for those facing re-election next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Very good. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Which Nelson - Bill or Ben...
Sorry to ask but I'm from Florida...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Ben
Pryor and Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) broke with fellow Democrats earlier this month to oppose a nonbinding Senate resolution to withdraw from Iraq. Nelson has since fallen in line on the war funding bill, after nonbinding benchmarks for the Iraqi government were added.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
17. McConnell doesn't want to step in front of that legislative bus...
He'll let stupid do it instead.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
19. Democrats jab Bush over Iraq
Democrats jab Bush over Iraq by Stephen Collinson
1 hour, 28 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Senate Democrats kicked off a new tussle with President George W. Bush over Iraq Monday, defying his veto threats and pushing a measure which sets a goal of withdrawing most US troops within a year.

~snip~

But Republicans parried with an attempt to strip the Democratic withdrawal timetable inserted in a 121.6 billion dollar war spending bill, during opening shots in an emotional Senate debate.

They also demanded time for Bush's new troop surge strategy, aimed at quelling raging violence in Iraq, to yield results.

~snip~

A poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found six in ten Americans wanted their congressional representative to vote to get US troops out of Iraq by August 2008.

~snip~

"Our job in the Senate is not to look backwards, but to look forwards, the constitution clearly gives the Congress the power ... to decide when this nation should go to war ... and the power of the purse."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070327/ts_afp/usiraqpoliticscongress_070327045847;_ylt=AlSsJz82zdNQNBeA0veQGdhX6GMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
23. 12 months? Or, 18 months?
I though the Dem's plan said 18 months - must be out by 9/2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC