Reply
Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:52 am
Quote:
House passes spending bill with Iraq deadline
POSTED: 12:47 p.m. EDT, March 23, 2007
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.
But some of the war's most liberal critics still weren't buying it.
"Four years ago we were told we had no alternative but to go to war. Now we're told we have no alternative but to continue to war for another year or two," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said. "The fact of the matter is we do have alternatives."
Kucinich said, "Congress has the power to stop funding the war. That's what we should do. That's what we should have done and that's what I'm going to continue to work toward. We have to get out of Iraq, period."
However, Rep. James McGovern, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts who had been on the fence, has agreed to vote yes.
"I have come to the conclusion that defeating the supplemental bill before us today would send a message to George Bush and Dick Cheney that they will continue to have a free pass from this Congress to do whatever the hell they want to do," McGovern said during Thursday's floor debate on the measure.
McGovern's not the only one. Rep. Elijah Cummings, an anti-war Democrat from Maryland who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said he's been getting mixed signals from constituents.
But Cummings said he was ready to vote yes, insisting that Democratic leaders have not twisted his arm.
"A vote against the supplemental would cause us to have a stripped-down bill, and there would be no voice saying, 'Mr. Bush, stop this war immediately.' "
To help get reluctant lawmakers on board, Democrats added "sweeteners" to the $124 billion emergency supplemental spending bill.
The legislation includes some $21 billion to pay for items not in Bush's original request to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $25 million to bail out spinach growers in California hurt by last year's E. coli outbreak. (Watch critics decry "emergencies" added to the bill Video)
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday the House bill "has zero chance of being enacted into law."
"It's bad legislation; the president's going to veto it, and Congress will sustain that veto," he said.
On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a version of the supplemental bill that calls for combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. Republicans say they'll fight to strip out the deadline provisions when the bill reaches the floor next week. (Full story)
Last week, Senate Democrats fell short, on a 50-48 vote, in another attempt to impose a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
Once both the House and Senate versions are approved by their respective bodies, a conference committee will hammer out the differences.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for Congress to pass the bill quickly, or the military would be forced to take severe stopgap measures because of a lack of funding.
Among those measures, Gates said, would be slowing deployment of replacement troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and extending the tours of units already there.
"This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families," Gates said. "I urge the Congress to pass the supplemental as soon as possible."
Snow also called for quick action.
"The clock is ticking," he said. "Money is going to run out for our forces in Iraq sometime next month."
CNN's Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.
Bush is in a real bind now.
Does he veto and cut off funds for his troops?
Does he not veto and accept the deadlines?
Cycloptichorn
Bush is blathering on TV now.
But he's got nothing.
If the soldiers need the money so bad, then he can pass the bill.
Cycloptichorn
This will ensure at least a couple thousand more dead American troops before we bring em home. But I guess unfortunately it's the best the Dems could do.
Anti-war protesters arrested at Pelosi's office
Chris Good
The Hill
Friday, March 23, 2007
Four members of the anti-war group Code Pink were arrested outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Thursday afternoon, following an announcement that they would seek to take over the office.
The group's members had planned to hold a symbolic "Pin the war on the Donkey" demonstration at Pelosi's office to show their frustration with the Democratic leadership's inaction on ending the war in Iraq.
However, Capitol Police prevented the taping of a drawn donkey to the wall.
Code Pink members were crying outside Pelosi's office. When asked why, Rae Abileah, 24, said she was crying out of "outrage that this is all we can get from the Democrats," referring to the Iraq supplemental funding bill, scheduled for a vote Friday.
"We're just heartbroken that Nancy Pelosi has decided to keep funding George Bush's war, and now the war belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans," said Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin. "We thought we were going to get a change when they came into power."
It has to pass the Senate first and as it stands, that is doubtful.
blueflame1 wrote:This will ensure at least a couple thousand more dead American troops before we bring em home. But I guess unfortunately it's the best the Dems could do.
Couple thousand? Whats with the drama?
Baldimo, yeah what's with the drama. If we stay till fall of 2008 it will mean a couple thousand more dead Americans at a minimum. And no good will be accomplished in the meanwhile.
McGentrix wrote:It has to pass the Senate first and as it stands, that is doubtful.
It won't pass the senate without timetables.
So it's either pass with timetables, or not pass at all. Either way it's a win for the anti-war crowd.
Cycloptichorn
blueflame1 wrote:Baldimo, yeah what's with the drama. If we stay till fall of 2008 it will mean a couple thousand more dead Americans at a minimum. And no good will be accomplished in the meanwhile.
What is the total amount of fallen soldiers since the war started? 3300 or less? In a year and a half I doubt that # will rise over 4000. Your thousands of soldiers killed is absurd as your claiming 500,000 or a million Iraqis killed.
Baldimo, Bushie's surge is bound to change things. Our people wont be sleeping behind the Green Zone but in police stations in neighborhoods where they're most hated. They'll be sleeping with Iraqis they've trained, some of whom would gladly blow themselves up to kill some Americans. It's the worst battle plan since the Little Big Horn. Police stations in Iraq gotta be the most dangerous places on earth to sleep. Sharing a foxhole with a suicide bomber?
Bush on Iraq bill: 'Act of political theater' Michael Roston
Published: Friday March 23, 2007
President George W. Bush this afternoon dismissed the narrowly-passed House supplemental appropriations legislation as an 'act of political theater.'
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding," the President said just after the vote in the White House. "Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."
Warning that the bill "set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret," he promised to veto it.
"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained," he explained.
He also warned of consequences if he doesn't get his way.
"The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families," he argued. "Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay."
This will never
This will never get through the Senate. And BTW I like how Pelosi had to fill the bill with pork just to get some of the "BLUE DOGS" on board with this bill. Congressmen are basically just whores for pork.
Howard Zinn | Are We Politicians or Citizens?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032607J.shtml
Howard Zinn writes, "Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration's 'surge' of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.... Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act."
Re: This will never
I Punch Cats wrote:This will never get through the Senate. And BTW I like how Pelosi had to fill the bill with pork just to get some of the "BLUE DOGS" on board with this bill. Congressmen are basically just whores for pork.
well now that's a non partisan statement I can agree with.... ypu know occasionally though, nothing beats a roll in the hay with a good experienced whore.
blueflame1 wrote:Baldimo, Bushie's surge is bound to change things. Our people wont be sleeping behind the Green Zone but in police stations in neighborhoods where they're most hated. They'll be sleeping with Iraqis they've trained, some of whom would gladly blow themselves up to kill some Americans. It's the worst battle plan since the Little Big Horn. Police stations in Iraq gotta be the most dangerous places on earth to sleep. Sharing a foxhole with a suicide bomber?
The point of the surge is to bring the violence under control and it seems to be working even though we don't yet have all the required troops on the ground. Bombings have dropped as well as the reg violence we always hear about on the news.
Have you ever been in the military? Just asking how you can pass a judgement on a war plan if you have no experience with the military?
If they had advisors we wouldn't find ourselves where we are. bush insists on rubber stamps. Big difference.
As for deployments my present duties keep me right where I like it..... in the rear with the gear....
(ducks, covers and waits for inevitable sophmoric sexual innuendo)
Baldimo, actually I did serve 6 years in the military. But that is not relevent to understanding how stupid it is to tell a soldier to share a foxhole with a suicide bomber. Your contention that Bushies surge seems to be working is a sick soundbite worthy of Cheney or Bolton. Seems every day lately we're losing 5 soldiers with a bunch of wounded thrown in. How many are you willing to lose? In the end we'll leave a situation no better than it is today and we'll have lost who how many more. Unless of course Bushie and the Crapturites manage to escalate into Iran.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell73.html
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace