Senate approves bill forcing Iraq troop withdrawal 51-47

Damn straight.

I'd like to remind Republicans who are here that it is Bush's fault that the troops don't get funding, if he vetoes the bill, and even more so, because he didn't include this money - that they knew they would need - in the regular budget request, so they could claim to have cut the deficit by more money. THis is the result of the president trying to look good, nothing more.

Cycloptichorn

Bit by bit, the momentum for withdrawal builds....

FOCUS | Report: Funding for War Not as Urgent as Bush Claims
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033107Y.shtml
The US Army has enough money on hand to finance the Iraq War through most of July, according to a congressional study that challenges President George W. Bush's assertions that an infusion of funds is needed more urgently.

Re: Senate approves bill forcing Iraq troop withdrawal 51-47


Ummmm, where are all these analysts on TV who were telling us with total certainty that this bill didn't have a CHANCE of passing the Senate?

When the bill passed the House, that's all we heard from them: You'll never get it through the Senate, you'll never get it through the Senate.....

This should be interesting. I want to see if the President is going to veto the bill.

Getting close to the date. It will be interesting to see what the President does. I hope he does exactly what he said and vetoes that bill. Imagine that, a politician doing exactly what they said they would do.

Congress, the democrats that is, made it's statement to satisfy it's constituency and now since there is no other choice, Bush holds all the cards. It is time to forge legislation that Dumbo will sign and fund the troops. Like it or not short of impeachment we are stuck with that catastrophe in the White House for almost 2 more years.

It will run the troops out of money if he does.

Which is fine with me.

Cycloptichorn

The President does not hold all the cards. The Congress and the President have equal power when it comes to not funding the troops. Either side can block funding and it is a battle to see what the them will back down and how much.

The big battle is who the American people will blame, which is why you are seeing increasing PR efforts from all sides. Who get's the scorn of the American people is the all important question.

But, I don't think it will come down to a game of chicken with the troops.

The Democrats have an option that I am pretty sure they will take... and it gives them the upper hand.

After Bush vetos the bill (and is forced to face the anger of many Americans with this issue being plastered on everyones TV screens for another week). And, after Republican Congressmen are forced to attach their careers to the war in a national spectacle again...

The Congress going to come back with a new bill, that has no strings... but only has money for 2 or 3 months.

This keeps the issue on the front burner and in 2 or 3 months there will be more pressure on Republican Congressmen... a couple of whom will be forced to change their minds. Then we will go through the excersize again which will result in another 2 or 3 months of funding.

Again the key here is pressure. The Republicans don't want to go into 2008 with the country focussed on the struggle to end this increasingly unpopular war.

The Democrats will bend... but will keep on the pressure until there are enough Republicans who are compelled (by reason or by political survival) to break a veto.

This is my prediction of what will happen. This is also what I think is the best course of action for a Democratic controlled Congress facing an ever stubborn Bush administration.

Most Americans (including Democrats and Independents) trust our military commanders more than members of Congress to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq.

Most also support fully funding the troops.

Are you just saying this... or do you have some reason for believing that the polls, and the results of last November's election are wrong.

I wonder if most Americans know that our military commanders, including the Joint Chiefs of staff and the Generals who were in Iraq, opposed this so-called 'surge' from the beginning; and so Bush replaced the ones who wouldn't change their minds. The whole 'trust the military commanders' angle is BS when the politicos just put in whatever military commander agrees with them.

I want the troops to leave, but I also support fully funding them. The two are not a mutually exclusive position. If Bush won't see reason, and cutting funding is the only choice, so be it.

Cycloptichorn

Most Americans support fully funding the withdrawal of the troops.

I agree

Well, I count 2.

To make "most Americans", you will need about 150,000,000 more

I just checked the latest polls... one result I found a bit surprising. But here they are.

64% of Americans (that is most Americans) think that the US should set a timetable for withdrawal sometime in 2008. 34% think the US should not set a timetable (the rest aren't sure or didn't answer).

57% of Americans (that is most Americans) think that Congress should have the final say on troop levels (as opposed to the president). 35% say the president should have the final say, and 8% said both should have the final say.

56% of Americans don't want Congress to withhold funding if Bush refuses to accept a timetable. 36% of Americans want Congress to withhold funding.

That last result did surprise me a little bit (I thought it would be less than 50%). But with the first two results... This means that most Americans don't want a standoff between Congress and the Whitehouse... even though they think Congress should have the final say, and they do want a timetable for withdrawal next year.

This is why I think the 2 or three month funding bill that will come after the Bush veto is the correct strategy. Keep the pressure on the Republicans who support this war that more and more Americans don't support-- and keep it on the front pages until 2008, when most Americans get the real chance to express their opinions in a way that really matters.

I agree that the military commanders should be trusted and I never said we should not leave. I think telling the enemy "when" we are leaving is not a smart move.

Bush is the Commander in Chief which means he is the boss of the military commanders. The commanders who disagree with Bush are "reassigned".

Saying that you trust the military commanders is exactly the same as saying you trust Bush.

The majority of Americans clearly do not trust Bush.

Brown



There is your answer to why Bush holds the winning hand. No matter how they feel and what they believe the American public under no circumstance will stand for the shortchanging of our troops. And I would place that percentage at 90%