Senate keeps call for Iraq pullout in spending bill, defies veto threat

[sabra]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defying a veto threat from President Bush, the Senate Tuesday voted 50-48 to keep a call for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in a $124 billion war spending bill.

...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the bill's demand for a U.S. withdrawal would effectively set a "surrender date" in the 4-year-old war.

"Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit and replan until the day we leave," he said. "It's a memo to our friends, too, telling them we plan to walk away and leave them on their own, regardless of what we leave behind."

But Sen. Dick Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said the call for a pullout is a step toward bringing "the worst foreign policy mistake of our time" to an end.

"Now it's time for us to make it clear to the Iraqis it is their country. It is their war. It is their future," he said. Bush has threatened to veto any bill that contains a call for a U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq or what he considered extraneous pork-barrel spending.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/senate-keeps-call-for-iraq-pullout-in_27.html

[sillyphoenix]

1. Why does George Bush hate our troops?

Seriously, that's how the Dems should frame the argument.

"Congress wants to spare our troops further harm. George Bush wants them to die. Why isn't George Bush supporting the troops?"

Admittedly, that's pretty partisan rhetoric, but hell, he deserves it. Call it justified retribution for the Republican Congress' interminable Clinton-bashing back in the day.

[olddad56]

16. He doesn't care one way or the other about the troops....

He has an obligation to the banking industry and the oil industry to keep the middle eat destabilized.

[tom_paine]

33. I agree, He seems to be indifferent to the suffering or feelings of others

There are a thousand unscripted examples where his true and imperious/imperial nature shines through.

Mocking reborn Christian Karla Faye Tucker "Please don't kiiilllll meeeeee." in a falsetto.

"It would be a heckuva lot easier if this was a dictatorship, so long as I was the dictator."

Rubbing black men's bald heads on more than one occasion (Rod Paige was one, I forget the others).

"What a great picture. I can't wait to HANG it." (to Coretta Scott King about a picture of her husband, to the laughter of the assembled white crowd)

"Now watch this drive."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's impromptu backrub.

And on and on and ON...

The man is at best a narcissistic personality disorder. At worst he is as stupid, mean and crazy as Caligula. In either case, it is quite obvious he has ZERO empathy.

[jazzjunkysue]

36. Agreed. Destabilized. That was the plan. I took alot of hell for sayint that way back

but it was obvious. With no government to negotiate with they can put their pipelines and anything else they want in place. Defend their oilwells, whatever.

Those pesky governments really slow down the profits.

Freedom is on the march. Freedom from safety, order, electricity, laws, security, jobs, and especially, oversight.

[harun]

55. One of the things even I don't want to admit about this admin...

is that from their actions this may be the truth. That they actually are having success according to their plan, which is keeping Iraq in a chaotic Wild West apocalypse that allows them to stay and do what they please forever. Can't sell solutions for the place if there isn't lots of problems.

[PegDAC]

88. Q: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

[peacetalksforall]

21. Why do Republicans have contempt for people, including U.S. soldiers

and their familes and friends.

[pretzel4gore]

35. parallel realitys...

the fake reality is that george bush jr is the prez, the nation was hit on 911 and this prez stood up the the evil, which his opponents both underestimated and glorified! The people are smarter then the 'pointy head intellectals' and wisely supprt pres bush and our outgunned, outspent and constantly betrayed military, who are taking the fight to the evil doers, but years of criticism and back stabbing by liberals has confused the people and undermined america.
The real reality is absolutely appalling, though most people want to know nothing about it. It says that a ruling elite, which controls the money, or capital, of the world, has long ago committed the world to oil energy, and has played what they call the 'great game' with the human race and its future. Until about 50 years ago, the main victims of the 'great game' were poor 3rd world countries, but the point is that this 'game' is 'played' by a select few, who are reacting to efforts to end such things as sexism, racism, religious intolerancxe, promoting equality, fraternity, fair wages, education health freedom and so on, which have always been the fighting issues of the 'left' ...the right has fought back by destroying the left, but when junyer bush came along, it was decided by the 'great game' players to impose junyer on the usa, and after that to stage 911 and viciously invade blah blah blah...somewhere along the line, the 'players' lost control of it, and it's now getting very crazy...
so the answer to your question is that the repubs aren't very swift-they choose to pretend that oil energy is vital though at the VERY SAME TIME they secretly schemed to prevent electric cars, for example, from gaining the market, or legalise marijuana (hemp) and most of all to calibrate the news media news according to guidelines they've developed over the years to further the interest of the select (and very few repubs belongs to it!)...so along with the people, the troops etc they hold themselves in utter contempt too, but they don't know it (though in this case what you don't know can indeed hurt you-the iraq war has cost a trillion dolars, bush has basically killed the future, even if the democrats regain power) or rather they simply refuse to admit it...

[ryanmuegge]

84. Well, that's how they framed it against us in '04.

With the whole I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it soundbite.

This makes Bush look very hypocritical.

[monmouth]

2. Won't he still veto it because of the timeline?? n/t

[VP505]

6. Let him veto

it, then he can explain why he is cutting off the funding for the troops and HIS occupation of Iraq, plus his party can enjoy the backlash in 08!

[Divine Discontent]

9. EXACTLY!

and him vetoing it sends a message he loves war, at least that's what most people will think

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff!

[ryanmuegge]

85. You can tell that he's in an uncomfortable position.

It's something hitherto unexperienced for little Georgie. Right after the house passed it last Friday, the man who never speaks to the press, immediately came out and publicly responded to it in an angry tone, complete with a sad-faced female actor in a soldier's outfit to complete the photo-op.

You know he's uncomfortable when he's deciding to talk to the press; a demonstration of his dimwittedness.

[tblue]

38. Right! They should never let the threat of a veto stop them from doing the right thing.

[bullimiami]

8. yes. but him vetoing it means HE refused to fund the troops.

And if the dems have any staying power they will just send pretty much the same bill back to him again and again.

[knight_of_the_star]

31. That's the idea

Puts the whole funding issue in Bush's lap. It's better than directly cutting the funding because it throws the whole "Support Our Troops" shit back in his face and leaves him to deal with it.

[D23MIURG23]

71. I think its more likely that he will use a signing statement to nullify the call for a pullout

He needs the money, and if he vetoes he runs the risk of either getting another bill with the same language, or not getting the funding in time. Either way it will be a big loss and potential liability for him. :evilgrin:

[MGD]

72. That's what I'm thinking too but I also think there will be major ramifications if he does this

That will be the act thats sets the impeachment ball into motion IMO.

[BonnieJW]

82. Yes but

Here is the best explanation for forging ahead even though he will veto. I got this off another blog (can't remember which one).

With the votes in on the supplemental bill from both houses, you may be wondering what good it does to send these bills to bush when he clearly plans to veto them.

As these votes pile up, the unified Democrats are not just moving to end this war. They are forcing the Republicans to cast one uncomfortable vote after another against the wishes of the American people. Republicans are being forced to vote over and over to support a President against whom the American people have turned in large numbers. They’re being forced to vote not only for an unpopular war but an open-ended war without timetables for getting out. They’re voting against provisions that ensure our troops are properly trained, equipped and rested. And they’re voting against holding the Iraq government accountable for meeting the political benchmarks that even Republicans think are essential for making progress. And by fully funding the President’s request to support the troops, and his surge, the Democratic bills removed the Republicans’ only argument that might have resonated with the voters.

[lizbitchwitchy]

93. Come on people

He is not going to veto it. This is all a big song and dance to make it look like there are two seperate agendas - one for the republicans and one for the democrats - neither which have any real desire to end the war. Why would he veto it? It is non binding. It's such a crock of you know what - I am surprised we are sitting around arguing about it like it really was a trying and successful piece of legislation. It wasn't. It gave the war lords all the money they needed and more and we still have a war going on with no definte time line for withdraw. Meanwhile back in Iraq - the BLOOD IS SPILLING. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BLOOD SPILL PEOPLE - Someone needs to because none of these leaders with few exceptions will - they don't care - they are all making some money or makind deals on this war even the beloved demcrats. I'm telling you guys - we need to start looking for a third party - these guys are NOT on our side.

[superconnected]

3. Dear Iraq. I surrender. Our president is an idiot. Do with him what you will.

[tblue]

40. Dear Iraq. Please forgive us our trespassess, tho we didn't forgive those who trespassed against us

[rurallib]

4. Let the fun begin

Troops still dying and money being wasted foolishly BUT a small ray of hope appears.

[lizbitchwitchy]

94. small ray of hope eh?

Where? I must be blind because I don't see anything that even resembles a ray of hope.

[Nimrod2005]

5. k

[MasonJar]

7. He will veto it, but then he will not have any money. Zany!

[ejbr]

10. It's not as if he is using the money for the troops.

It's all for his buddies to continue to fleece America. I would love to see him veto it, if only to witness the first time in 7 years that he refused to give a welfare check to Halliburton.

[The Stranger]

11. Unbelievable, that 48 Senators would vote against the will of the American People.

Who are these Senators? Who are these Representatives?

Who do they serve?

Why are they still in power?

[Old and In the Way]

15. It's the Bootlicker Party.

The Party of Bush. The War Profiteering Party. Plus the Party of Lieberman.

Now the Decider can decide...does he SUPPORT THE TROOPS or does he starve them for funds because he got his wings clipped today? :ROFL:

[pink-o]

42. How much you wanna bet..

...one of 'em is Joe Lieberman

[saigon68]

51. Yes Joementum losermann

[ProudDad]

53. DING! You win!

Now off to Guantanamo with ya' :)

See my post #52

[lebkuchen]

65. The pics the rethugs have on Lieberman must be awesome

There needs to be a "Bradgelina"-like name for Joe and George, they're that connected to each other's backside.

[PegDAC]

89. Lieberbush? n/t

[Duer 157099]

12. When does this spending bill get voted on in the Senate?

My reading of today's vote was whether to amend it to remove the pullout timeline, which failed.

But when does the actual vote happen?

[mzmolly]

13. Good question.

:shrug:

[DB1]

14. Reid and Mcconnell are talking about that now

Reid said on c-span about 100 more amendments to the bill had been proposed and they were going to look at them to see if any of them were relevant to the main bill. He said he would be back in 15 minutes which means at least an hour DC time. He will drag it out because right now the evening news will have the headline the Dems want, Senate votes to withdraw.

[skooooo]

17. Democrats being uppity!

Whoo hoo! What a great thing to see after soooooooo long.

[Mr. Ected]

18. It's Not A War, It's An Occupation, and Withdrawal Is NOT Surrender

The USA has not been a party to a war since Bush infamously claimed "Mission Accomplished".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. I have said that a million times. (occupation not war) A;lso, it is

a reallocation of funds toward redeployment - not troop fund cut

[cureautismnow]

19. Surrender THIS, McConnell!

[eagleswing963]

45. Never thought I'd say this

I'd like to wake up tomorrow and find he had a stroke!!

[muryan]

20. my respect for hagel continues to grow

seemingly the inverse of my disdain for lieberman

[tblue]

41. This is why he willl never get the Republic nomination: He ain't a neocon and he's now pissed off

the neocon wing of the Republic party. Ch*ney, the King of the neocons, will never forgive him, even if Chuckie did vote with Idiot 99.99% of the time.

[scavenger]

22. If Bush pushes this back....

It will only prove that he supports the war, and not the troops.

Its about time the democrats got some balls. Good job.

[pwb]

23. the war of choice is over... we won. ..our military defeated the Iraq military

bring our troops home and leave blackwater to clean up and die, what is there something like 40,000 rent a soldiers bush has hired. the neocons won't need them to harass voters until the next election in 2008.

i declare victory, let's have a parade.

[harun]

58. I don't know why this isn't said more often, we won the war,

Saddam was removed. The American public and those who volunteered to serve in the armed forces did not sign up for an open ended occupation with policing duties. Our forces are designed for fighting and winning wars not occupations.

[jayctravis]

63. Actually, our reserve forces are designed

for protecting us at home when disasters such as Katrina strike.

Imagine how much better that would have went if we'd have plenty of reservists to call up and help those people out of there.

[PegDAC]

90. Courtesy of Phil Ochs

So do your duty, boys, and join with pride
Serve your country in her suicide
Find the flags so you can wave goodbye
But just before the end even treason might be worth a try
This country is to young to die

I declare the war is over
It's over, it's over

[Hissyspit]

24. Senate Signals Support For Timetable (Defeats Cochran Amendment Removing Withdrawal Timetable 48-50)

Source: Associated Press

Senate signals support for Iraq timeline
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

Three months after Democrats took power in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said the moment was at hand to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."

But Republicans — and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), an independent Democrat — argued otherwise.

MORE

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[superconnected]

25. I wonder if Joe is invested in defense companies.

[Hissyspit]

26. .

[lizbitchwitchy]

95. Can you explain

what your post means? I have seen that before but I don't know what it means - is it an emoticon - or did you hit post before you meant to or what?

[Zenlitened]

27. Senate.gov has the roll call up:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00116#position

[eablair3]

32. Lieberman (I) & Pryor (D-Ark) side with Repub's

thanks for the link

Lieberman (I) & Pryor (D) side with Repub's

Hagel(R-Neb), Smith (R-Ore) and last but certainly not least, Bernie Sanders (I) vote with majority

[MGD]

77. WTF is that Statement of Purpose all about? That can't be for real.

Statement of Purpose: To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00116#position

[whistle]

29. Great, Shrub* will now veto the bill and congress can override *s veto

...and then impeach his ass and that bastard Dick Cheney as well!

[WinstonSmith4740]

34. Unfortunately...

it takes a 2/3 majority to over-ride a veto. I seriously doubt they'll be able to convince that many republicans, and especially Joe Lieberman, to leave the dark side and come into the light. What scares me about that asshole is he's always sort of threatening to switch sides...if he does, will that swing control of the Senate to the Repugs? I can't think of the exact breakdown right now. I know there's 2 independents (well 1 independent and Lieberman), but I can't remember if the dems have a 1 vote edge or not.

[PegDAC]

91. When Johnson comes back,

it'll be 51-49. If Lieberman bolts, that makes it 50-50. That throws Darth into the mix as tiebreaker.:scared:

[pinto]

30. Kudos to the Democratic Senate (and [R's] Hagel and Smith, of OR) for this.

:thumbsup:

[jazzjunkysue]

37. 14th rec. Got it. n/t.

[jazzjunkysue]

39. This seemed impossible just a few months ago. Wow. The world is telling the

chimp to go f himself.

I think this new decision from both houses might just turn military families into peace-niks. The possibility of their kid coming home is too much to hope for.

How will George stay in power if he pisses off his only remaining base: The military families?

If the senate and congress say we can go home, it must be OK, right?

After all, George is really only one man, I mean, chimp.

[Megahurtz]

43. Kick. n/t

[anotherdrew]

44. oh come on - this isn't going to do squat about pulling out of Iraq

he'll "certify" to congress that progress is being made and no troops will be pulled out because of this.

They need to impeach both of them and that's the only way it's going to happen.

[harun]

59. Anyone read the bill, what would actually happen if he didn't vetoe and

didn't pull out troops?

[anotherdrew]

80. what would happen? Then... Then we shall become very very cross with him indeed... ( + more info )

Democrats pass “anti-war” bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
By Barry Grey
24 March 2007
After weeks of public posturing and behind-the-scenes maneuvering, Democrats in the House of Representatives secured passage Friday of an emergency spending bill that grants the Bush administration’s request for over $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In what amounts to a colossal political fraud, they presented their “Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act” as a measure to force an end to the war in Iraq by September 1, 2008.

It does nothing of the kind. Even if a similar Democratic measure were to be passed in the Senate—and it will not—and the final bill were to survive a presidential veto—a political impossibility—the resulting law would do nothing to halt the current military escalation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would allow upwards of 75,000 US troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

The bill is a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation. The vote to authorize war funding flies in the face of the will of the electorate, which expressed its desire to end the war and its opposition to the policies of the Bush administration in last November’s congressional elections, overturning Republican control in both houses of Congress.

In remarks following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to declare her party’s support for the US military and the so-called “war on terror,” calling the bill “a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq” so they could concentrate on Afghanistan, “where the war on terrorism is.”

The Bush administration has denounced the bill and promised to veto it, in line with the White House’s blanket opposition to any conditions, no matter how toothless, being placed on its war-making powers.

The bill passed by the narrowest possible margin, with 218 votes in favor and 212 opposed. Only two Republicans voted for the bill and 14 Democrats voted against it.

The conditions attached to US troop deployments by the bill are themselves so conditional as to be meaningless. Under the measure, Bush would be obliged to certify to Congress on July 1, 2007 and again on October 1, 2007 that the Iraqi government has made progress in meeting certain benchmarks, such as containing sectarian violence, reining in militias, and reforming the constitution. Should Bush fail to go through the motions of making such a certification, withdrawal of US combat troops would begin. Even if the government certified progress, US combat troops would be withdrawn by September 1, 2008.

But this “final deadline” could be extended if the administration obtained approval from Congress. In any event, less than half of the 140,000 US troops currently in Iraq are designated as combat forces, meaning that 75,000 or more troops would remain after the “deadline” to conduct counterinsurgency operations, train Iraqi forces, police borders and protect US assets.

As New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, made clear in an interview with the New York Times last week, if elected she would keep a large force of American troops in Iraq indefinitely to secure “remaining vital national security interests” there. She elaborated on these “national security interests” by noting that Iraq is “right in the heart of the oil region.”

Similarly, the House Democrats’ bill upholds the war aims of US imperialism by listing as one of the benchmarks the passage of an oil law that will open up Iraq’s vast reserves to exploitation by US energy conglomerates.

The bill also requires the Pentagon to observe standards for training, equipping and resting troops before their deployment and limits the duration of Army tours of duty to 365 days. With the military already stretched to the limit, these provisions could actually create obstacles to the further escalation of the war under Bush’s so-called troop “surge” in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Consequently, the bill allows Bush to waive these requirements in the name of “national security,” giving him a free hand to send as many additional troops as he desires.

In the weeks leading up to Friday’s vote on the floor of the House, the White House and congressional Republicans continually called the Democrats’ bluff, exposing their antiwar pretenses by challenging them to cut off war funding. This culminated last week in the passage, with overwhelming Democratic support, of a Republican-sponsored nonbinding Senate resolution vowing to never cut funds for “troops in the field.”

For their part, Pelsoi and the rest of the Democratic leadership continually tacked to the right, readjusting their war spending bill to placate Blue Dog Democrats and other war supporters within the Democratic caucus by further watering down its nominal restrictions on Bush’s war powers. They secured the support of the party’s right wing by dropping language that would have required Bush to obtain congressional support before launching an attack on Iran.

They loaded the bill with allocations for special projects targeted to win over specific congressmen. Thus the final result includes $25 million for spinach farmers in California, $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia, $15 million for Louisiana rice fields and $120 million for shrimp fishermen.

As Pelosi and her subordinates scrambled to assemble the necessary 218 votes to secure passage, groups on the so-called liberal wing of the party declared their support, including the Congressional Black Caucus and MoveOn.org.

The critical role was played by the misnamed “Out of Iraq Caucus” of House Democrats. This group of some 70 congressmen has postured as the most militant critics of the war. Their key leaders, such as Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, both of California, have been paraded before antiwar demonstrators by protest organizers as living proof that the Democratic Party can be pressured to end the war.

Pelosi dealt with them through a combination of threats and inducements. The house speaker reportedly warned California Rep. Barbara Lee, another leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that she would be stripped of her post on the powerful House Appropriations Committee if she sought to block passage of the bill.

On Thursday, Lee, Woolsey, Waters and company insured passage of the bill at a closed-door session with Pelosi. The Washington Post reported on Friday:

“As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised ten.”

Lee, the author of a bill that would supposedly withdraw US troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, said, “While I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war.”

Waters said the leaders of the caucus had told their members, “We don’t want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy’s speakership.”

In the debate on the floor of the House, supposedly antiwar liberals denounced the war, and proceeded to call for a vote to fund it. Typical were the remarks of Jim McDermott of Washington State, who declared, “The Iraq war is a fraud... Perpetuating it is a tragedy,” and then announced he would vote for the war funding measure.

Virtually all of the Democratic speakers wrapped themselves in the flag and declared their unconditional “support for the troops.” According to one press report: “In the closing round of the debate, most Democrats focused on elements of the bill that they said would protect American troops by requiring better training and longer periods of rest between deployments.”

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who heads the Armed Services Committee, said the bill would strengthen the US military, which has been strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I’m deeply concerned about the readiness of our forces,” he said.

The legislative charade mounted by the Democratic Party has nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq. There are, in fact, no principled differences between the Democrats and Bush when it comes to the imperialist aims of the war. Both parties, the Democrats no less than the Republicans, serve the corporate interests—the oil conglomerates, the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a whole—that seek through military violence to establish US control of the resources and markets of the world.

The differences between those within the political establishment who favor continued escalation of the war and those who seek to continue the colonial occupation with reduced US troops are purely tactical. They have to do with the best means of salvaging the US debacle in Iraq by killing and brutalizing more Iraqis, in order to secure US control of the Middle East.

The real political purpose of the Democrats’ bill was indicated in an interview this week on the “Democracy Now” radio program with Robert Borosage, a long-time Democratic Party operative and contributing editor at the Nation magazine. Arguing in support of the war spending bill, he said, “The question is about, can you create a symbolic vote—because the president has vowed to veto it if it passes—a symbolic vote that unites the opponents of the war and shows that there’s a majority in the Congress now united about a date certain to get the troops out.”

In other words, a measure that will have no effect on the war, but will promote the fiction that the Democratic Party is in some way a vehicle for the antiwar sentiments of the people, and thereby keep social opposition within the bounds of the two-party system.

In this critical task for the American ruling elite, forces like the Out of Iraq Caucus and their “left” allies in the protest movement play a crucial role. They serve not to end the war, but to provide a right-wing, pro-war party with a left-wing, antiwar gloss, the better to block the emergence of an independent movement of working people against war, repression and social inequality.

Four-and-a-half months after the election, in which the people expressed their opposition to the war, the result is the opposite of their wishes. Tens of thousands more troops are being deployed, the carnage and death are increasing, and US military spokesmen like Gen. David Petraeus are speaking of an escalation unlimited in both size and duration.

Ending the catastrophe inflicted by American imperialism on Iraq, and preventing new wars in Iran and elsewhere, requires a complete political break with the Democratic Party and the two-party system. It requires the independent political mobilization of working people, both in the US and internationally, in a class-conscious socialist movement.

We urge all those who agree with this perspective to make preparations to attend the Emergency Conference Against War sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site, the Socialist Equality Party and the International Students for Social Equality on the weekend of March 31-April 1.
===

it's pathetic really

[LuckyTheDog]

46. Bush: Set aside your PRIDE, man!

If he vetoes funding for his OWN WAR merely because he could not get his way, then whatever happens next will be his fault.

[liberal N proud]

47. If bu$h vetoes, it is all on him, all on him.

[bvar22]

48. Bush* will SIGN this bill!

You heard it here first!
This bill gives Bush/Big Corpo everything they want.

The Democrats get to pretend like they are actually doing something to end the WAR.

The Republican Party gets to pretend that they are opposing a bush* administration.

The Global WAR Corporations get $Billions$ more of American Working Class money transfered to their already rich pockets.

* $100Billion$ Dollars to keep the money flowing into the profiteers' pockets courtesy of The Democratic Party

* 18 months to string out the WAR until his term expires. Bush* will have 18 uninterrupted months to keep the killing and looting going as long as he says he is making progress (and he really doesn't have to do that. RE: The Iraq War Resolution). Bush* can easily string out the WAR until he leaves office courtesy of The Democratic Party.

*This bill establishes the precedent for a PERMANENT PRESENCE of US MILITARY in Iraq. This provision codifies the PERMANENT Bases to protect Corporate Commercial interests for the future looting and privatizing of Iraqi national resources. Thank You Democratic Party

*There are NO changes in the actual mission for Military assets currently in Iraq. Wouldn't want to get in the way of the looting of Iraq, the REAL reason for the occupation. Cui Bono?

*Bush gets a great Video Op to pretend like he is listening to Congress without actually giving up ANYTHING.

There is a VERY REAL possibility (likely?) that bush* will sign this bill in spite of the political theater from the White House. It gives him everything he wants, and covers his ass until his term expires. The Democrats will look pretty stupid (like after the IWR) if bush* signs it.

This scenario is WIN/WIN for both Political Parties. The only losers are the American Public, The Iraqi Civilians, and our children who will have to pay the bill for this.

You heard it here first.
Feel free to Bookmark this thread, and make me eat this post if Bush* vetoes the bill.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Laurab]

50. How does the republic party get to look like they're opposing?

Only 2 voted with the dems, and Hagel has already been quite outspoken about * and his war prior to this. The republics are all supporting the administration, as far as I can tell.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. i thought the exact same thing. nt

[bvar22]

79. If Bush* signs the bill,

he will be opposing the will of the Republican Party (purely in a theatrical sense since this bill changes NOTHING).

If Bush* signs theis bill, the Democrats will OWN the Iraq War, and Republican congresscritters will get to BLAME the Democrats for the FAILURES in Iraq just in time for the 2008 elections. The 18 month extension is NO coincidence.

There is a good chance Bush* will sign. This is the ONLY scenario that will save the Republican Party.

[ProudDad]

56. I think you're right

I think the odds are 70/30 that he'll sign it.

I posted my speculation days ago though.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. I thought the permanent bases were prohibited in the House

version? did I hear that wrong?

[Vilis Veritas]

78. DEAD ON.

Bad taste Pun intended. This bill is nothing but a ruse to make it appear as if they are DOING Something...<- This is just my un-educated opinion. I write code, not study politics...;-)

All this talk about the funding bill seems to have backlotted the AGO scandal, at least for a couple days...You got to love this political atmosphere, so much theater, so little REALLY EVER CHANGES.

What a friggin' ruse. We eat virtual cake on a daily basis and scramble for the little crumbs and NOTHING EVER CHANGES. It just APPEARS to change.

The people get played like a million dollar violin...after thousands of years running the show, you think we really matter?

Some days...I just feel like never reading anything again, turning on my ipod and tuning all this crap out. Ka Sa Ra Sa Ra...whatever will be, will be...

[Spiffarino]

49. Dems.Kick.Ass.

:woohoo:

[ProudDad]

52. Who is this Mark Pryor clown

Dems who voted to remove the language: Mark Pryor <-- Who is this guy???

Independent: joe lieBerman (duh! That's to be expected from this shit)


Republicans who voted to end the war:
Chuck Hegel and Gordon Smith


The wording is interesting:

"Cochran Amd. No. 643; To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom."


I thought it was Operation Iraqi Liberation... O.I.L.... :shrug:

---------

On edit: Pryor voted for the Military Commissions Act (for THAT he should burn in hell forever and ever), for extending bush's tax cuts, for the bankruptcy bill (for big banks against people), voted for John Bolton (??!!),

[tofurkey]

60. What's this? It looks like a mmmmmmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmm MANDATE! (A Bush "mandate".) ;-)

[w4rma]

64. A big-time DLC idiot from Arkansas. (nt)

[whoneedstickets]

83. I thought I read Pryor say...

..that while he voted against this amendment (he wanted the termination date to be classified to prevent some kind of insurgent end-game -- Like they wouldn't be able to figure out when we were pulling out?!) he would vote in favor of the full bill on the floor.

I'm not sure why he felt he needed to be against the open time table (and favored the secret one) unless he's concerned about opinion back home.

[TankLV]

61. Umm - repuke asshole mcconnel: our "coalition" has already left US!

THere's only - what - a janitor and a hooker left to "fight" with us...

[Zhade]

62. Not a mistake, Durbin - a premeditated CRIME.

Stop letting it be called a mistake!

[Prophet 451]

66. Um, what friends?

The UK is already focusing on phased withdrawal. Are the Aussies likely to stay on their own? Because I can't think of anyone else supplying troops to this farce.

[rodeodance]

67. Republicans were stung by the defection Hagel of Nebraska,

March 28, 2007
Senate Backs a Pullout Date in Iraq War Bill
By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE


A few minutes after the vote on Tuesday in the Senate, the White House repeated its vow to veto any legislation containing a withdrawal date. The Senate action increases the likelihood that Congress and Mr. Bush will engage in a confrontation over the financing of the war.

The outcome of the Senate vote took both parties by surprise. Republicans were stung by the defection of Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has not supported a timetable for withdrawal before although he is his party’s most outspoken critic of the war in Congress.

“There will not be a military solution to Iraq,” Mr. Hagel declared. “Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It doesn’t belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.”

The Democrats also gained the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, who voted against a withdrawal date just two weeks ago.

[ProudDad]

68. Finally the handwriting's on the wall

It's just too freakin' bad that they didn't listen to us left-wing loonies back in '02 when it could have saved nearly a million lives!!!

God, I get so tired sometimes -- being right most of the time is wearing...

[TwilightGardener]

76. BWAH! They're "stung"! Hagel is totally off the rez now. Anybody

else see a veiled allusion to the PNAC crowd in his comments about how Iraq is not a prize and doesn't belong to us? I never realized it before, but he's the only person who seems to be referring to the oil/strategic foothold aspect of conquering Iraq.

[kryckis]

69. I seriously don't know what to think

about this shit anymore. On one hand I agree with people here that America needs to put a stop to this, on the other hand you destroyed Iraq and now you just want to leave them to deal with it? Obviously it's been 4 years and it's not getting better but I'm worried about the Iraqi people. And I keep hearing this about letting the Iraqis deal with their own problems and leaving them to it, but you started a civil war in that country. What I'm saying is it is not just their problem anymore and to just up and leave the mess you created seems wrong to me.

I guess the issue comes down to (for me atleast) if the Iraqis would be better off fighting it out amongst themselves, or if having foreign troops there is keeping things from falling apart entirely. Can it get worse than it currantly is? Who benefits from the Americans leaving?

I'm just not sure.

[johnlal]

70. McConnell is a jerk

When many Republicans are bending over backwards to distance themselves from Bush, McConnell has securely tied himself to the embattled president. McConnell has surprised many of us Kentuckians by his ability to survive term after term. Maybe this was a miscalculation.

[Rammy]

73. "Surrender Date"

Long time lurker here. The one thing that gets to me the most about his comments is the "surrender date". How are we surrendering in a war that we shouldn't even be involved in, in the first place. Dick Durbin hit the nail on the head with his comment. The whole if we pull out now we have failed mentality is what pisses me off the most.
How have we failed, when we took out the "problem" in Hussein?
What are we gaining by having more troops put in combat with sub par gear?

[anotherdrew]

99. typical rethug thinking

they want to let the 'enemy' control our nation, keeping us in the fight, when the time has long since come for 'our work to be done' and us to be gone.

[Deep13]

74. Veto that, asshole!

[Buns_of_Fire]

75. McConnell spews same tired rhetoric

"Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit and replan until the day we leave," he said.

Guess what, Mitchie-Poo -- they're going to do that whether we set a date or not! These guys have been fighting since God was a teenager. They're patient. They'll wait, whether it be for eighteen months or eighteen centuries.

[jmowreader]

81. Someone get a rolled-up newspaper and smack Durbin's nose with it

This is not the Iraqis' war, it is George Bush's war.

[George II]

86. Let the bastard veto it!

Then WE can claim that "he doesn't support the troops" and that "he refuses to give the troops the money they need"!!!

[anotherdrew]

87. Congress betrayed voters, the troops and extended the occupation By Cindy Sheehan

How the Democratic Congress betrayed American voters, the troops in Iraq and extended the occupation for at least another 18 months.
By Cindy Sheehan
Gold Star Families for Peace

03/24/07 "ICH" -- -- THE DEMOCRATS ARE FUNDING IRAQ ESCALATION: The Democratic leadership has proposed $100 billion of supplemental funding for an increased troop presence in Iraq. The leadership opted for the "slow bleed" policy over a month ago. This extends the occupation for at least another 18 months, and allows permanent placement of troops thereafter for “training” or “combating terrorism”. It also will permit the Bush Administration to initiate a war with Iran without Congressional oversight. The surge of 20,000 troops recently increased to 30,000 and will likely increase to 100,000 by year-end. Will the hapless Democrats then claim, “If only I knew then what I know now” as they have for the past year?

The “slow bleed” policy has some toothless requirements for presidential assertions of progress like those we’ve heard for the past four years from the Administration; these reporting requirements allow “slow bleed” proponents to make the preposterous claim they are “ending the war” by funding it. Amendments that would require withdrawal of US forces this year, the policy overwhelming favored by Americans, and the troops themselves, are not even being allowed for a vote by the leadership! The shameless short-term purpose of the Democratic policy is to embarrass Republicans with a Senate filibuster of the supplemental, or a presidential veto, and the longer-term aim is to help Democrats in the 2008 election by saddling the Republicans with intervention in an untenable civil war.

In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House. The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008. The prolongation of the occupation is now opposed by two-thirds of all Americans; we want our troops safely home by this Christmas, not political chicanery. As a consequence Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll. The Democrats failure to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections.

A year ago 72% of the troops in Iraq said all troops should come home in 2006 but politicians did not heed their message. How much better we would be if our support included listening to them. Not another drop of blood should be spilled to protect cowardice by both political parties.

AMERICANS WANT TROOP WITHDRAWAL: The Democratic leadership has disregarded national polls showing that 60% of all Americans and 80% of Democratic voters oppose the increase troop levels in Iraq. Grassroots progressive organizations overwhelmingly oppose the occupation of Iraq and the recent escalation. One group closely allied to the Democratic leadership, MoveOn, has used antiwar sentiment to triple both its membership and fundraising, but has been AWOL from antiwar activity; its members are prohibited from demonstrations, and only vigils for the war dead are posted as events on their website. A month ago I wrote that MoveOn began efforts to support "slow bleed" while antiwar forces actively opposed it. Recently MoveOn fabricated a biased push-poll in which “85%” of respondents supported “slow bleed”; however, the 96% of the MoveOn members who favor withdrawal, and who were not offered a vote on that option, refused to participate in a sham. Congressional sources report that the spurious MoveOn poll, together with intensive bullying and bribing, was used to erode the principled opposition of congressional progressives.

A reliable poll conducted by True Majority, another group with progressive membership, found that only 24% favored the “slow bleed” policy while 76% favored immediate or near-term withdrawal. A Zogby poll sponsored by CODEPINK found that 90% of progressives/liberals favored near-term withdrawal. 96% of progressives question the push-poll used by MoveOn that gave such contrary results. Antiwar groups that fought for withdrawal (United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, US Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com, Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, Veterans for Peace, the Green Party) are irate at the MoveOn duplicity.

MoveOn is now raising funds from antiwar supporters to attack Senate opposition to the supplemental., but the activist community is now aware that MoveOn is not the cathartic needed to address Democratic Party constipation. There is at least one Democratic senator, Russ Feingold, who could oppose the funding farce. MoveOn is an autocratic organization run by a small group of elitist wannabe power-brokers; it cannot be reformed, but you can let their politburo know your feelings [e-mail], [e-mail] , [e-mail], and you can unsubscribe! You also can refuse to lend them your name (their petitions are mainly for fund-raising), your efforts, and your money, and instead join with one of the many active progressive and antiwar organizations (check out United for Peace and Justice- UFPJ for a detailed listing of local and national groups, which incidentally does not include MoveOn). None of the MoveOn leadership has served their country in the armed forces; like Dick Cheney and 95% of Congress they had more important things to do, which did not and do not include supporting the troops that are in harms way.

The “slow bleed” strategy favored by the Democratic leadership and MoveOn is an immoral political calculation that will cause more heartache and disaster in Iraq. That leadership should understand that being perceived as “weak on principle” is much worse politically than being “weak on defense”. Democratic politicians need to vote their conscience on the supplemental. On November 7th we voted for an antiwar, anti-Bush policy; make that vote count for peace.

[19jet54]

92. With all due respect...

... we have to fund enough for transportation to get them out, and cover their backs enough to keep them safe?

[anotherdrew]

97. sure they need funding to leave, but they won't be going anywhere under this bill

it is an utterly toothless sham

I'm more hopeful that bush will be impeached soon than I am troops will come home based on this bill.

[Tarc]

96. News flash; no one cares

Sheehan seems to think Congress can and should snap its fingers and the troops will be on the next plane home. Reality just doesn't work that way, and no amount of opinion poll massaging/manipulating is going to change a thing. Just because griups like MoveOn don't believe 100% the same way as she does on methods to end the war, they get to be referred to as a "politburo" and other Red Scare talk? Jesus, she's like a mirror of Ann Coulter.

[anotherdrew]

98. news flash - YES people do care

that's why repugs lost the election, remember?

[mvd]

100. Way to go!

Actually, this bill doesn't differ much from my plan. I would start phased withdrawal next month and have all home by the end of the year. It's a pretty bold plan they have, and I'm also impressed by how they have Bush over a barrel with the funding.

:bounce: