LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Holiday Scheer! Exclusive Truthdig Gifts for the Holidays
December 1, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Addicted to Nonsense

Michael Moore to Obama: 'Say It Isn't So'

Goodman on Goodman

Do the 'Brad Pitt Houses' Help New Orleans?

Lab-Grown Pig Even Vegetarians Can Eat

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * The Copenhagen Conundrum
 * NEW! * Addicted to Nonsense

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
Beyond Bogotá

Beyond Bogotá

By Garry Leech
$17.13

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Let the Showdown Begin

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
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


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Kol Klink, March 31, 2007 at 12:31 am #
(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 11:56 am #
(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 10:46 am #
(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 10:27 pm #
(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 9:53 pm #
(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

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.