NYT: Republicans to Rely on President Bush’s Veto to Block Troop Withdrawal Plan

[babylonsister]

So I'm assuming the rethugs don't want to take responsibility for their vote, but the end result will be the same.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/washington/27cong.html?ex=1332648000&en=bad495c3ba8e44e2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Republicans to Rely on President Bush’s Veto to Block Troop Withdrawal Plan


By JEFF ZELENY
Published: March 27, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 26 — As the Senate opened debate Monday on a $122 billion Iraq spending bill, Republicans vowed not to allow Congress to impose a withdrawal date for American troops, but said they would rely on President Bush’s veto pen rather than procedural maneuvers to block it.

Mr. Bush has vowed to veto any legislation that establishes a specific timetable to remove combat troops from Iraq. The Democratic-led House has passed such a plan, and Senate Democratic leaders are seeking to advance a similar measure this week, but the party does not have enough votes in either chamber to override a veto.

For weeks, Republican leaders have used procedural maneuvers to delay a debate over Iraq. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said he did not want to hold up financing for the war by spending more time than necessary on a measure that will never become law.

Republicans signaled that they would not use procedural measures to block the bill, but would instead let the White House kill it and then urge Democrats to pass a bill that provides funding for the war without setting any dates for troop withdrawals.

“We need to get the bill on down to the president and get the veto out of the way,” Senator McConnell said.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, played down the veto threat. In a speech on the Senate floor on Monday, Mr. Reid said the president was on the wrong side of public opinion.

“He can swagger all he wants,” Mr. Reid said, “but we have 3,241 dead Americans.”

more...

[ananda]

1. Neither the plan nor the veto is..

.. much of anything.

Sameole sameole as far as the weak Dems and the war goes.

[gratuitous]

3. Sometimes you gotta crawl before you can walk

It wasn't so very long ago that the popular media were calling for last rites on the congressional Democrats because the Republicans along with the Blue Dogs were going to stop any bill at all from going forward. Instead, Pelosi worked the caucus and got a bill passed, against fairly long odds. And the media reports have, for once, not gotten bogged down in minutiae, but characterized this as a direct rebuke to the administration's prosecution of the war.

Now, you and I are pretty involved in that minutiae and the bill that the House passed is pretty small beer, as far as we're both concerned. But to the more casual observer (which comprises most of the U.S. voting public), it looks like a bold move. And when public opinion toward Congress doesn't suffer, and indeed is bolstered by passage of this bill, it will embolden some of those Blue Dogs to go with the caucus (after all, they can read polls, too) and press out a few more of those timid "moderate" Republicans to stand against the ruinous policies of Bush.

You can't turn a big ocean liner on a dime, and getting hidebound institutions like Congress to change doesn't happen all at once, either. I'm going to keep pressing my representatives for more and more aggressive opposition to this goddammed fucked-up lethal mistake of a war, and I'll point to passage of these bills as proof that Congress is carrying out the will of the people they're elected to represent by opposing the Bush administration.

[OHdem10]

2. I find it interesting that no Media Person

has pointed out that if GWB vetoes the bill, he is
denying the troops funding. How can it only be Dems
fault.

[Rusty MacHenry]

4. Because there the ones controlling congress

There the ones coming up the bills to end the war, that's probally why.

But at the same time Bush is responsible for signing it into the law so really it's dual responsbility on this matter.

[Vincardog]

5. Exactly If jr vetos the money he can withdraw the troops.

[pscot]

6. Call his bluff

He's bluffing. If he vetoes, which he may not, send him the same legislation again. Let him be the one who holds up money for the troops just to get his own way. He'll cave. Nobody has ever pulled the bastards nose before now. It's time somebody did.

[babylonsister]

7. We're well on the way with today's vote; we shall see. He's such

a stubborn, arrogrant little prick he'd veto just for spite.