Republican Sees Iraq Pullout Passing then Vetoed
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush is likely to lose a first-round fight with Democrats over a critical funding bill that sets a date for American troops to withdraw from Iraq, the U.S. Senate’s Republican leader said on Monday.
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky predicted legislation similar to that already passed by the House of Representatives would eventually get through the Senate, which is more narrowly controlled by Democrats.
“The final bill is likely to have the offending language in it,” the Senate minority leader said as the Senate prepared to begin debating the war-funding bill, which sets March 31, 2008, as a goal for removing combat troops from Iraq.
At that point, he said, Bush would have to veto the legislation and lawmakers would have to get to work again. Democrats do not appear to have enough votes to overturn a veto, which requires a two-thirds majority.
Since taking control of Congress in January, Democrats have headed toward a confrontation with Bush over Iraq.
Bush, who is sending nearly 30,000 more troops to Iraq in an attempt to regain control of security, has vowed to veto the funding bill if it includes a timetable for withdrawal.
On Friday, the House narrowly passed a tougher Democratic-written bill mandating the end of U.S. combat in Iraq by September 1, 2008, at the latest. The Senate bill says the withdrawal date is only a goal rather than a requirement.
House and Senate negotiations, managed by Democrats, likely would result in a compromise bill with a “surrender date,” McConnell said. Urging Democrats to promptly finish this first legislative round, McConnell said, “We need to have time to repass the bill without the offending language” after a veto.
The Pentagon says it will run out of money to wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next month unless Congress provides about $100 billion in emergency funds.
Some lawmakers say the Defense Department could probably continue current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for several more weeks while Congress hashes out the legislation.
RESETTLING IRAQIS
On the other side of the Capitol, a House subcommittee chairman exploded in anger when he was told U.S. officials were recommending that Iraqis who want to resettle in the United States go first to a nearby country such as Syria — a country Washington accuses of sponsoring terrorism.
“My God, if we’re telling people to go to Syria for some humane help, who are we? Who have we become?” demanded Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, at a House foreign affairs subcommittee hearing.
The official who testified, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, said the United States had accepted 692 Iraqis for resettlement since April 2003, but noted U.S. officials have pledged to interview thousands more. Ackerman said the numbers accepted were “paltry” and he would write a bill requiring the Bush administration to bring to safety Iraqis in danger because they worked for Americans.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, rebutted McConnell’s portrayal of the war-funding bill as establishing a “surrender date” for the enemy.
“After four years of war, our troops deserve a strategy that will help them complete the mission so they can come home,” Reid said during a Senate speech.
The Senate is trying to pass its version of the war-funding bill this week. McConnell did not rule out voting in favor of a bill, even if it has a troop withdrawal deadline.
“We need to get the bill on down to the president; get the veto out of the way and get serious on getting funding for the troops,” he said.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)
© Reuters Ltd 2007.
Republicans, Democrats and everyone else in Washington, Hear me loud and clear: in 2008, “It’s Al-Queda, Stupid!”
It’s not about Iraq, Iran, or about political parties; it’s about us having been attacked in 9/11 and YOU have done nothing to protect us.
Do we feel safer? No! But we feel poorer, taxes going to corrupt corporation coffers. Thousands killed and thousands more wounded. In 2008, “It’s Al-Queda, Stupid!”
My response to Coyotita:
What makes you say ‘It’s Al Qaida, stupid’ ? I bet you watched too much Faux (Fox) News. I do want a complete pull out regardless of whatever the ranting rightwingers think of.
I have had enough of Bushies lying all the time about why we should go to the war in Iraq…it is fought for OIL, and more OIL!!! The 9/11 was used as an excuse for the war in Iraq-despite the evidence there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda-and NO WMDs were found there either.
We voted to throw the Repubs OUT and we want a pullout FROM Iraq, period.
What justifies “it’s al-Qaeda, stupid?’ Is this a shout copied from Fox News? Can you explain the reasons why we are not safer anymore? The war was based on falsehoods made by the Bushies.
If you still believe that 9/11 had ANYthing to do with Iraq (other than the lies Bush used to connect the two) you are in no position to be tossing around words like stupid
I have to agree with markie here. al-Qaeda al-Schmaeda, this war is a neocon ploy from the start.
Coyotita, it really does sound like you’ve been watching too much Faux News.
Here’s a talking point. When discussing whether we should stay or go, the ONLY relevant fact that should be discussed:
83% of Shiites and 97% of Sunni Arabs oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Iraqis say the presence of U.S. forces is making the security situation worse.
And the only possible conclusion from that is that we must pull out now.
If people argue that “our troops need us to fully fund them or they’ll get hurt”, the above statistic should just be plainly quoted again. If they say “I will not cause our troops to fail”, the above statistic should just be plainly quoted again. If they say “we can’t abandon the iraqi people”, the above statistic should just be plainly quoted again. Don’t let the Repugs move the ball onto their playing field. Repeat, repeat, repeat, until you are blue in the face. Find that nerve and keep stepping on it.
The Democrats are going to do nothing real to get us out of Iraq- they are profiting almost as much as Republicans. We need a third party.
Though I see nothing as repugnant as the Powers that be, I’m even more upset with the impotency of the Dems who should be trying to bring all of our troops home from the invasion, not just those designated as “combat”, which by the way make up about half of them.
However based on the Pelosi’s bill most Dems (not Lynn Woolsey or Dennis Kucinich and a few other REAL Democrats) seem to be cheering Bush on. I’ve never seen so many loopholes in a bill as those in this one, outside of the tax code of course. Yeah, there’s no reason for Bush to veto it. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that the whole bill thing is a farce. Bush could say see I’m cooperating by not vetoing the bill that gives me almost everything I wanted in the first place, including waivers.
Just take a look at what the wonderful Anti Anti-War Bill that passed includes:
Why the Progressive Caucus Should Vote No on War Money by David Swanson
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/776
I don’t see why you people jumped on coyotita for the “Al-Qaida stupid” statement. I read that as saying going to Iraq was a distraction (please correct me if I’m wrong, coyotita). After all, our elite forces had Osama Bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan when Bush pulled them off and sent them to Iraq, replacing them with inexperienced troops, and Osama got away.
As far as this bill, what did you expect? The DLC managed to spend enough money in the primaries to shut out many antiwar candidates, the Republicans have gerrymandered the districts to maximize Republican votes. When the Republicans were in power they used terror tactics to keep their caucus in line, the Democrats aren’t quite so sophisticated, being the anti-torture party. Pelosi may be a strong woman, but she’s no Lyndon Johnson.
“I read that as saying going to Iraq was a distraction (please correct me if I’m wrong, coyotita). After all, our elite forces had Osama Bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan when Bush pulled them off and sent them to Iraq, replacing them with inexperienced troops, and Osama got away.”
Yes, Kathyodat, that’s exactly what I meant, and seeing the other responses, it confirms that the distraction worked on some. Let us not forget that those votes which gave Bush so much power were given to protect us. That there has not been an attach here at home, denies the thousands that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here or there, what’s the difference when you are talking about the loss of human life?
As far as the candidates, and candidate wannabees, as long as we continue to discuss Bush’s blunders, we will never get to the heart of making this country and the world safe from the terrorist Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaida.
When we get back to what happened at ground zero we come to the reality that our troops must be withdrawn from Iraq and we must resume the important role that the U.S. people want the U.S. Government to take and that is as a promoter of peace.
sorry about the typo.