• Senate vote expected Thursday on bill to fund war, withdraw troops
• House of Representatives passed bill Wednesday 218-208
• House vote suggests Democrats well short of votes to override threatened veto
• Bill calls for April 1, 2008, withdrawal; White House criticizes "surrender date"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate is expected Thursday to follow the lead of its defiant counterparts in the House, who in the face of a threatened presidential veto, passed a bill calling for U.S. combat forces in Iraq to be withdrawn next year.

Senate passage would set the stage for a showdown between President Bush and congressional Democrats, who do not appear to have the necessary two-thirds support to override a veto.

The House of Representatives late Wednesday approved a $124 billion funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timetable for withdrawing troops. The bill requires the "redeployment" of troops to begin October 1 and be complete by April 1, 2008.

The 218-208 vote, largely along party lines, was well short of the 290 yeas needed to trump Bush. Two Republicans voted for the bill, while 13 Democrats voted it down.

"Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq, and the president will veto its bill," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement after the vote.

She further called the bill "disappointing legislation that insists on a surrender date, handcuffs our generals and contains billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the war."

The Senate is scheduled to begin considering the bill at 10 a.m. ET Thursday. While passage is almost certain, the Senate will need the support of 67 of its members to override a veto.

Bush repeatedly has vowed to veto any appropriations measure that contains a timetable for withdrawing troops.

However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has called the deadline for withdrawing troops "fair and reasonable."

"If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative," Reid said earlier this week. "Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship."

Democrats not swayed by general

Before Wednesday's vote, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, came to Capitol Hill for a series of private briefings, during which he argued against setting a timetable, according to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers who attended.

Democratic leaders critical of Bush's Iraq policy were unmoved.

"Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, told reporters after the meeting.

"President Bush wants this Congress to simply give the stamp of approval of the request he has made. The American public, however, expects this Congress to make policy and to articulate its views."

Anticipating a close vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, skipped Wednesday's briefing with Petraeus to lobby for passage, said a Democratic aide with knowledge of her schedule. She reportedly had a phone conversation with the general Tuesday night.

The House originally had called for a binding deadline of removing combat troops by August 2008, but the Senate passed a nonbinding bill setting out a goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq no later than March 2008.

House leaders agreed to adopt the Senate's language to get the bill through Congress and to Bush's desk.

The 13 Democrats who broke ranks were a nearly equal mix of antiwar members, such as Reps. John Lewis of Georgia and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and so-called Blue Dog Democrats, such as Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Jim Matheson of Utah.

The two Republicans who supported the bill were Reps. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina.

The Pentagon has said it can fund the war through June. Without the additional appropriations, the Pentagon will have to begin shifting money and deferring projects to find the funds to continue the wars.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/26/ ... index.html

Surrender??? First, you must ask yourself a simple question: What is the definition victory in Iraq? Since there is NO definition, there is no basis of victory or surrender. The only statement I've heard Bush state is this: "The ultimate goal still has to be an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself" Guess what? That could be a government lead by a tyrannical dictator, kind of like Saddam Hussein.

And ... it's through the Senate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_ ... kxWzhI2ocA

all set for a BIG FAT VETO.

Democratic talking point of the day:

"We're one signature away from ending the war in Iraq."

hows this related to boys vs girls?

the boys are the reps, the girls are the dems.

forgive my ignorance of this area of US politics, but when bush signs the veto, what are the options for the dems, given they don't have enough votes to overturn the veto?
i realise what i'm about to suggest is far fetched, what about a referendum?

would it even pass?

Referendums apply to the state and local level, so that wouldn't be an option for the Democrats. As you said, they don't have enough votes to override the veto, so they will have to compromise with the executive branch in order to get legislation passed (seeing how far apart the two entities are on the issue).

As I see it, the Democrats have two options...fund the war right now or stop the funding (there's enough in the Pentagon's coffers to begin an immediate withdrawal). They are going to have to go through this process again in September (the funding lasts up to the end of September, I believe), and this is when General Petraeus has said that he will be able to give an accurate assessment as to whether the "surge" is going to work or not. If I were the Democrats, I would give him that time and if he has a dour outlook on the strategy then they can push legislation through with timelines for withdrawal. By that time I would think it fair to assume that they will have a bunch of Republican defectors who will be looking forward to the 2008 elections and their own jobs.
That being said, I don't see how we can just leave Iraq altogether....even if the surge proves to be a bust, then leaving will open the door to a failed state and the real possibility of a regional war. In the event that the surge is a thumbs-down according to Petraeus, then we should pull our troops back to at least contain the sectarian violence and keep other nations out of it. Then again, would we be alright with pulling back to the fringes and watching a horrible bloodletting take place? I don't know.

For now, the Democrats are not really unified in the legislation that was passed....there is a fairly large contingency that doesn't think it goes far enough (meaning they want all troops out a.s.a.p.). When the veto comes down it's hard to imagine that their position will moderate with much success.

Senator Reid And Speaker Pelosi: If You Believe In What You Passed, Send It Back

All of this post-veto strategy talk is giving me angst, for a couple of simple reasons. The first is that I worry the Democratic Leadership in Washington thinks they somehow have proven a point, or made a valid argument and won some sort of squabble with the White House.

The American people don't pay that close attention and it's hogwash to think we are going to win the press battle on this with a single shot, so I have a simple solution (and one advocated I might add by John Edwards.)

Send the bill back.

If he vetoes it again, send it back again. About the fourth or fifth time, folks will start catching on that President Bush is the one who is stopping the money from getting to the troops not the Democrats.

People will get that President Bush doesn't want to commit to an end to the war.

But trust me, one veto is not enough. And what I worry about is that the Democrats are going to say stuff, like we need to compromise,

we don't.

Democrats will say we need to reach across the aisle,

we don't.

Right is right, wrong is wrong and we are right. You don't have to compromise, adjust, or do anything, you just need the simplicity of your convictions.

Send it back with a clear message:

Sign it or veto it again,

we win.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boy ... 47386.html

So...just keep on trying to pass the same bill instead of working on other bills. Hmmm....of course, I don't really have a huge problem with that in a perverse sense.

realistically, would it really that that much effort to continue passing it? i'm sure there'd be time for both. it would make a good statement.

I doubt it--I'm being somewhat facetious there.

However, I'd be curious as to what the reaction would be if a Republican Congress kept passing the same bill that a Democratic President keeps vetoing.

the republicans don't care much for statements of principles, since they have none

One thing that Bill Clinton understood once the Republicans gained control of congress was that he would have to meet the new majority half-way if he wanted to get anything accomplished....and the congress knew that as well.
Sending the bill back to the President over and over is childish and, at the least, not keeping with the promise to put the "do-nothing" congress behind them. Negotiation will be required.

While a strongly disagree with fixed timetables, I think the best course of action in regards to the legislation at this point (and probably the best for both points-of-view) would be to set reasonable, specific benchmarks to be reached by the Iraqi government. Tie in the funding with political progress - but keep it reasonable. This would send a clear message to the Iraqis that the time to step up is NOW and we will continue to help them as long as they are willing to help themselves. I don't see how either side could see this as disagreeable.

the time for W. to be able to negotiate and work with congress was when the war started. 5 years later with the whole thing a gigantic mess by his doing. Not staffing the army properly, not listening to the CIA on how to establish the peace, debaathification, and simply not knowing the enemy has given him no reason to have any input on the war. At this point, the dems put together a bill that was as pig headed as he has been his entire term. Perhaps now he can see that it needs to be worked on with people outside of his administration and that he needs to take a back seat while people who actually have the interest of the troops and this country in their hearts.

Can you justify this statement?

The legislation is bullshit because it mandates that the troops are withdrawan by a date certain regardless of the conditions on the ground. The only caveat is that "some troops" (whatever that means) can stay to perform specific tasks - such as protecting diplomats, training Iraqi troops and going after Al Qaeda. So what happens if the Shiite militias go ballistic and start an ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.....we can't put a stop to that?

I'm all for getting the troops out a.s.a.p, but the Democrats are not doing it in a realistic fashion. It's easy to play the "another troop died" tug at the heartstrings card, but they still have an important job there. A failed state in Iraq could lead to a regional war and we would have to go back and intervene. If Al Qaeda sets up training camps in Al-Anbar province we'll have to go back. If the Mahdi Army becomes another Hezbollah and threatens the Iraqi government we'll have to go back. The point being - there is still a very good reason to keep our troops there at the present time....starting the pullout in October is pointess.
I'd love to hear a good reason (other than getting the troops out of harms way) for this legislation to go through.