Posted on 03/27/2007 2:29:36 PM PDT by mdittmar
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats struggled Tuesday to line up support for a non-binding timeline for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, confronting strong opposition from Republican lawmakers and a renewed veto threat from the Bush administration.
"This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration's plan to develop the Iraqi economy," the White House said in a statement shortly before the scheduled vote.
Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., led the drive to scuttle the provision.
Some Democrats said they would support the non-binding timetable even though they wanted more. "I want a deadline not only for commencing the withdrawal of our forces but also completing it rather than a target date," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
"This provision represents a 90-degree change of course from the president's policy of escalation in the middle of a civil war," he said, "I'm confident once the withdrawal of our troops begins, there will be no turning back."
But Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential hopeful, said war critics were proposing a withdrawal "just at the moment we're starting to turn things around in Iraq."
He gave an upbeat assessment of events in Iraq since Bush announced an increase in troops last January, and said, "If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it would be the terrorists' greatest triumph."
The debate came on legislation that provides $122 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as domestic priorities such relief to hurricane victims and payments to farmers.
Separately, supporters of an increase in the minimum wage readied an effort to attach the measure to the spending bill, along with companion tax cuts that Republicans have demanded. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the bill but have yet to reach a compromise.
The House has already passed legislation requiring troops to be withdrawn by Sept. 1, 2008. Regardless of the outcome of the Senate vote, the likelihood was that the Democratic-controlled Congress would send Bush legislation later this spring that calls for a change in war policy, and he would veto it.
That would put the onus back on the Democrats, who would have to decide how long they wanted to extend the test of wills in the face of what are likely to be increasingly urgent statements from the administration that the money is needed for troops in the war zone.
"Frankly, I think we'd like to reach out to the president ... and say, 'Mr. President, this is not a unilateral government. It is a separation of powers, and the Congress of the United States is assuming review,'" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters as the Senate debated the war.
Reid also referred to the president at a news conference. "I would hope that he would be willing to work with us in coming up with some language that both (houses of Congress) could accept. At this stage, he has been very non-negotiable. So we'll see what happens," he said.
As drafted, the legislation called for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a non-binding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year.
The measure also includes a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly _ provisions designed to attract support from Nelson and Pryor.
The vote was a critical test for Reid and the new Democratic majority in the Senate nearly three months after they took power. Despite several attempts, they had yet to win approval for any legislation challenging Bush's policies in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops and cost in excess of $300 billion.
Republicans prevented debate over the winter on non-binding measures critical of Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops. That led to the 50-48 vote derailing a bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days but set only a non-binding target of March 31, 2008, for the departure of the final combat forces.
Leahy, who voted in 2002 against authorizing military action to topple Saddam Hussein, said the current legislation was "our best chance of extricating ourselves from the quagmire of Iraq."
Republicans disagreed, strongly. "Wars cannot be run from these hallowed and comfortable and sanctified chambers 10,000 miles away from the war zone," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. "How about allowing the officers, the men and the commanders in the field who are engaged daily, risking their lives to bring peace and security to Iraq, determine when and how we can best turn over to the Iraqi security forces the critical job, the critical job of assuring security."
Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders hoped that changes made since then would be enough to persuade holdout Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas to swing behind the proposal and ensure its survival.
Alternatively, they courted Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a vocal critic of the war, hoping he would cast a decisive vote.
Treasonous Bastards is all this congress is made of!
Go on record you weanies, I dare ya!
They just did.
"they Courted Chuck Hagel"
This ISN'T THE DATING GAME!
Breaking news on MSNBC.
What's the vote?
48-50 - Democraps win.
It's time for a Veto Party!
Man today could be the beginning of the end for us in Iraq.
The 48-50 vote was a reversal of a 50-48 vote earlier this month rejecting a similar timetable. Democrats were able to win the support of both Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, who previously had voted against timetables. Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas also opposed the earlier version.
With a 50-49-1 Senate breakdown, minority Republicans had trouble finding one Democrat to pick up the loss of Hagel and Nelson and force a tie vote.
Before the tally, Nelson said he would reject the amendment put up by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., to scuttle the provision because it strikes several other "critical provisions, including language acknowledging that the situation in Iraq has become a civil war" as well as a call for diplomatic and political engagement by the Iraqi and American governments. The measure also calls for suggested goals for the Iraqi government to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly.
And we should throw Hagel out of the party, any pundit who speaks of this trash as a GOP candidate should be fired on the spot.
Is that on the amendment to withdraw language for a timetable,or is that the vote on the bill?
Thanks,so they still have to vote on the bill,correct?
A question should be put to the Congress of the United States. "If mass murders occur in Iraq due to our pull out, will you resign?" There should be consiquences for their actions and they should be held accountable.
So if the weasel RINO Chuck Hagel had held firm it would have been 49-49 and VP Cheney would have been the tie-breaker!!
Hagel is so tiresome, why do his constituents send such a fool back to DC?
Yep, but it is now a formality.
I thought they needed 60 ?
Probably because, like Tiny Tim Dashole before him, Cut-and-Hagel lies to his constituents about his liberalism.
CSPAN said there are 100 amendments to the bill, and the idiot majority leader and the principled minority leader are meeting to determine how to move forward.
HAGEL NEEDS TO RESIGN
The language stays in.
Now they will vote on the bill itself.
McConnell pulled a Cave-A-Lott on filibustering.
Why are we not using a fillibuster ?.....come on ....we need to stand up for our troops!...are these guys (our side) that gutless.
Lets see if the treasonous b@#tards have any guts.
Good point, so there's still hope that at least 1 vote might switch to defeat the bill itself? But if Hagel and Nelson caved on removing the withdrawal timetable from the bill itself, is there any reason to believe they (or others voting to keep that language in the bill) would turn around and vote against the bill? I know such vote reversals occur on some kinds of bills, but I'd be surprised if there were any changes in the final vote on this bill.........
In a word, yes.
In more words, McConnell is trying to send the whole thing back to the drawing board as fast as possible by passing it up to the Oval Office to be vetoed. A filibuster doesn't drive a stake through the heart of this until the next Congress is seated.
Of course, it first has to go through committee so the final date of retreat and defeat can be set in stone (my guess is they'll go with both the start in 180 days and finish in May 2008) and all the pork necessary to hit 218 votes in the House and 50 in the Senate can be combined, then back through Congress, then to President Bush's red pen, then back to Congress for a futile 10-business-day attempt to override, so it is likely that the money to fund the war will run out.
Only need 1,Cheney is the tie breaker.
If I was in the United States senate ,I would not only fillibuster ...I.would fillibuster the old fashioned way. I am not saying I would drop the F BOMB. But I would and question their hearts and their guts. I would stand up and go off all night long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.