LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 24, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour

Three Questions Left Unanswered by Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Colbert Slams PBS for Appeasing Koch Brothers

Obama Heckled During Speech, Warren Lands a Book Deal, and More

A Call to Action

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * New York City’s Summers May Heat Up

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
A Call to Action
Act of Congress

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Let the Showdown Begin

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 29, 2007

The president has threatened to veto a war spending bill that includes a timetable for the withdrawal of troops, but that didn’t stop the Senate on Thursday from passing one. The next step is for the House and Senate to work out the differences between their competing withdrawal plans, and then it’s off to the White House.


Washington Post:

The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines, with two Republicans—Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.)—joining Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats also attached language that would start troop withdrawals within 120 days of passage, with a March 31, 2008, goal for completing combat operations in Iraq. Some troops could remain in Iraq after that deadline in order to conduct counterterrorism training and security operations.

The House approved stricter withdrawal terms in its spending package, approved last week. That bill would set a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for the removal of U.S. combat forces.

President Bush has strongly protested the withdrawal language in both the House and Senate bills, along with $20 billion in emergency domestic spending in the Senate measure, and has repeatedly warned that he intends to veto the package if the offending provisions aren’t dropped.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Kol Klink, March 30, 2007 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Congress is not required to send any bill to Bush if they choose not to. If Bush vetoes the bill that they sent him, they should not send him another bill. Force Bush to use the money that is already funded to withdraw the troops.

I think that Rove is aware that the party is over. I saw him on Democracy Now making a total fool of himself. He was attempting to sing rap music and dance but he came off looking like a highly medicated clown. Perhaps he was practicing taking the fifth?

Report this

By Joe, March 30, 2007 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can hardly believe that Bush got trapped. I don’t know if the democrats planned it this way (I doubt it), but he is snookered. If he vetoes the bill that includes funding as well as a deadline for troop withdrawal he will in effect be defunding the troops. If he doesn’t veto the bill he will be abandoning his own divinely inspired plan. Wonder how Rove will handle this one? Maybe Gonzo can figure it out!

Report this

By Hank Van den Berg, March 30, 2007 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

On the one had, it seems puzzling why President Bush would be so worried about a bill that sets a soft deadline for withdrawing only “combat regiments,” which are just a part of the (now surging) overall military and mercenary presence on Iraq.  On the other hand, I would suggest that it is precisely the cutting off of funds for only the combat brigades that worries him because it would finally focus attention on the huge permanant military presence we are building in Iraq.  Perhaps this showdown will end up in a stalemate and the Democrats inadvertently end up doing what they need to do, which is to cut off all funding for all of the U.S. presence in Iraq (and soon Iran?).  I am concerned that in the end, Bush goes along with some rewording, and he continues to build up our stealth but very permanent occupation of Iraq.

Report this

By Quy Tran, March 29, 2007 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush should veto himself at this damned throne over 6 years ago. We all hope that. Bow down to Congress or impeach, pick one !

Report this

By Lee, March 29, 2007 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems to me the Republicans did not get the message in November. 

If you watch sound bites on the tube, they all say the exact same thing. “Congress should not miromanage the war”. Except for Hagle and Smith who make the Dems look like wimps. 

Lets start looking for the I word here!

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.