Weblog Archives

Personal Home Page

My FM Home Page

Listen to Hober

 

Now, before you get as excited by the headlines as I did, know that this is still a great achievement. LANGUAGE is hugely important; allowing the "withdrawal date" to stay IN the bill was the big coup.

There is power in words, both oral and written. There is an energy one can'd deny. So this is truly wonderful. It's a change from what has been for these many years, a new perspective is being heard and given voice. Huzzah!

..AND, of course, if Bush says that he's going to veto this bill because the withdrawal time-table is included within it, then, well the shoe's on the other foot, eh? and the Prez is the guilty party, nay, guiltier one, of playing politics with the soldier's lives by refusing to accept this bill as is and not supporting our men and women with the money allocated to them.

[now why do I think he won't think that he's hurting our military if he vetoes it and doesn't give the much need resources to our troops as quickly as possible, but, when the foo was on the other shit, well, bizness as usual, when he does something, it's not wrong, but when the dems do something, it's horrible from it's his POV]

This was posted at NYT online 44 minutes ago:
Enjoy!

The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 27 — The Senate defeated an attempt to erase an American troop withdrawal date from an Iraq spending bill this afternoon after an emotional debate about the powers of the presidency and Congress and the well-being of front-line soldiers.

By a vote of 50 to 48, the Senate allowed a withdrawal date of March 31, 2008, to remain in the $122 billion bill, which has yet to be acted upon. The majority defeated an amendment offered by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, that would have removed the date.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, talked to reporters today on Capitol Hill. Later the Senate voted to keep a troop withdrawal date in an Iraq spending bill

The March 31, 2008, date is nonbinding, so the spending bill emerging from the Senate differs markedly from the version narrowly passed by the House last week that demanded a withdrawal by Sept. 1, 2008. Moreover, the margins in both chambers were far too narrow to override a veto promised by President Bush.

But this afternoon’s vote, like the one last week in the House, reflect the power of the new Democratic majority in Congress, and the Democrats’ determination to press their case against Mr. Bush’s conduct of the Iraq war.

The vote was preceded by passionate arguments on both sides.

“What are our commanders in the field supposed to think?” Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said in arguing that a withdrawal date would be self-destructive and urging passage of the Cochran measure.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, offered a similar argument. “This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act,” Mr. McCain said. “A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it’s a recipe for defeat.”

But Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska broke with most of his Republican colleagues in endorsing a timetable and opposing the Cochran amendment. “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq,” Mr. Hagel said. “There will not be a military solution to Iraq.”

“Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there,” Mr. Hagel said. “It doesn’t belong to the United States.”

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, disputed any suggestion that a timetable was a prescription for defeat. Rather, he said, it is “a signal to the Iraqi leaders that we cannot save them from themselves.”
[snip] click here to read the entire article

.
.
.
Several Republicans spoke on the Senate floor during the opening hours of debate on Monday, suggesting Democrats were abandoning the troops. As he explained the bill, Mr. Byrd, the longest-serving member of the Senate, offered a full-throated defense.

“The bill before the Senate includes a provision that would give the war a new direction, and points the way out of the civil war in Iraq,” Mr. Byrd said. “There is no restriction on funding for the troops.”

ADDENDUM:
For a roll call of who voted which way, look here.
##