[avaicavum]

US Senate votes for Iraq deadline
US soldiers in Baghdad
Some Democrats want US troops to be brought home now
The US Senate has endorsed a deadline of March next year for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

The Senate narrowly rejected a Republican amendment that would have removed the troop withdrawal clause from a bill on military funding.

The vote is a boost for the Democrats and a setback for US President George W Bush, who has vowed to veto any bill setting out a timetable for withdrawal.

The House of Representatives also backed withdrawal in a vote last week.

The House bill, which imposes a 31 August 2008 deadline for pulling troops out, was passed narrowly by 218 votes to 212 on Friday.

Both pieces of legislation are tied to more than $120bn (£60bn) in emergency funding for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A final Senate vote on the whole funding bill will take place later this week. It will need the support of a dozen Republicans to pass.

'Must change course'

Two weeks ago, Senate Democrats failed to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal, but two more senators sided with them this time, giving them a victory by 50 votes to 48.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the vote a significant step forward and a pointed message to Mr Bush.

"With this vote, the Senate is giving our troops the resources they need in combat - including a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices," he said.

"The president must change course, and this legislation gives him a chance to do that," he said.

But there were no concessions from the White House.

Mr Bush "is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law," his deputy press secretary, Dana Perino, said in a statement.

And a presidential hopeful, Republican John McCain, said that setting a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq would encourage insurgents.

[Quaganoca]

Basically Democrats, along with several Republicans, have said they'll gladly pass the President's emergency spending bill but they're going to put requirements on it. That name is more then a bit of a lie since it isn't an emergency and instead is just a routine spending bill which the President calls an emergency just so he doesn't have to include costs for his war in Iraq into the regular budget.

Even after Bush vetos the bill although there isn't enough votes to over ride the veto Bush will still have to eventually sign it if he wants the money. Bravo.

[inve.tment]

Err... since when has a non-binding vote ever been "unconstitutional", Kuci?

They were doing so simply to express their position on the issue (and to show they can get votes if needed on Iraq type stuff).

[Speareerfug]

To be fair, there was nothing in the article clarifying whether it was binding.

[actioliGalm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unconstitutional

You're a nut!

Congress routinely puts strings on money and has since the founding of the Republic including requirements to end foreign involvements. How do you think Vietnam came to an end?

[AliceFromHouston]

So the bribery worked?

[Lydiaswingert]

Unfortunately. I read the BBC article and it never said it was non-binding. I didn't find out it was non-binding until I read the MS/NBC report. MS/NBC really is one of the better news sources out there in terms of completeness and fairness.

[DrunkMans]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You're a nut!

Congress routinely puts strings on money and has since the founding of the Republic including requirements to end foreign involvements. How do you think Vietnam came to an end? Not by Congress ordering the President to leave.

If you think Congress can tell the President to withdraw the troops from somewhere, or cause it to happen in any way but actually cutting off funding completely, you're an idiot.

And if they add it as a condition, the President can sign it and ignore, because the condition would be unconstitutional.

[Wr8dIAUk]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
No one's mentioning that, if Bush vetos this bill, he'll be the one cutting off spending for the troops. Spinach farmers everywhere will curse him for vetoing their money.

[Kvkcgktl]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's pretty standard practice to put things in must pass legislation. Oh well that obviously makes it Ok to waste the taxpayers' money. So much for the fiscal responsibility pledge. Can you honestly tell me for even one second that you believe the bill would have passed by even the slim margins it did without the bribes Pelosi and Ried put into it?
I don't recall you ever whining like you are now over those bills. Why am I not suprised that you recall something wrongly?

[XKAgustin]

Rolleyes are indeed the best response to DinoDocs post.

[Finkevannon]

I choose to laugh mightily as I haven't quite reached the ignore completely stage.

Comedic value

BDS has its advantages for us sane folk after all.

[JakilSong]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Rolleyes are indeed the best response to DinoDocs post. This post is an example of why I don't usually bother treating you seriously.

[RobsShow]

Yet your hand is still attracted to the reply button like a moth to a flame.

[TainuibeFaimb]

No. Congress cannot command the military. Only the President has the authority to actually order troop movements, etc. However, Congress can simply cut funding.

But they cannot insert a clause in a funding that requires the President, to, say, withdraw all troops from Iraq.

[stoneeZef]

I think he gets to bomb people for 30 days before seeking permission.

[freeringtonesioo]

Relevant sections of the Constitution (for OB):

Article 1, Section 8:

Congress shall have the power...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

[Terinalo]

The War Powers Resolution, which binds the President to seek Congressional approval within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Every President since Nixon has held it as unconstitutional, and it has never been tested in court.

[Aqgkvwzm]

Unlike Oerdin, I know WTF I'm talking about.

[Peertantyb]

Why you keep parroting Fox News' latest partisan headlines but keep denying you watch? Either way you are certainly parroting the right wing propaganda so you must be getting it from some right wing source.