Senate backs troop withdrawal from Iraq

Reuters (excerpt) ^ | March 27, 2007

[HAL9000]

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday endorsed a March 31, 2008, target date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq, moving Congress a step closer to a showdown with President George W. Bush over the war.

By a vote of 50-48, the Senate defeated an amendment that would have stricken the withdrawal language from a $121.6 billion bill that mostly would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A final vote on the bill is expected later this week.

~ snip ~

[The Blitherer]

He wants to veto it ASAP so they can get started on passing the clean bill, and not be able to say Bush was the bad guy, vetoing a bill at the last minute.

Actually, not a bad strategy. I'm just worried that the terrorists don't understand our politics well enough to know that this ISN'T ultimately a win for them.

[VictoryGal]

Well, here we go.

[tobyhill]

and Gordon Smith

[CatoRenasci]

what's the roll call?

[clamper1797]

I just don't think that now is the time for the "roper dope"

[VictoryGal]

> Non-binding horsecrap, right?

No. This is the actual spending bill. This is the one with actual money for the war allocated in it.

[Yorlik803]

The democrats are the party of Islamic terrorists that want to kill everyone of us.
What really pisses me off is that they are going to Kill American soliders and Iqaqis citizen in a power grab. total disregard for the safety of the US and the world so they can make GWB look bad. What a bunch of Highbinders.
Hell is holding a very special place for these yellow dog scum sucking A Holes and the jerk wads who voted them into power.
the mindless morons who voted out the GOP are as much to blame as the Dems.

[processing please hold]

Just like staying home for the 2006 election .... to teach the RINOs a lesson

I'm so sick of hearing that bs line I could puke. Give it a rest.

[MaestroLC]

Not unexpected. Dems are the party of defeat. They keep proving it! GOP is doing the right thing. They knew it would pass. Bush will definitely veto this absurd bill. Bush is going to tell the American people why he is using his veto pen--I hope in prime-time. The onus is on the Dems to cut our troops off at the knees, or not. They didn't have the guts to vote to de-fund the war, so they know Americans will not tolerate that. Dems are in a huge mess. No way Pelosi can pork-bribe a second vote. This is Bush's issue. He OWNS the Dems now.

[steveegg]

Get your rope out for Cut-and-Hagel. He was the only RepubicRAT to join 48 of the 49 DemonRATs to vote against the no-timetable amendment.

[Ukiapah Heep]

I second that.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

There's that lie again...

Make sure you blame conservatives every chance you get.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Won't happen, it just gives the DemonRats something to bitch about when the President vetoes it.

Hey, liberal morons, Bush isn't running for re-election!

[soupcon]

Pryor (D) and the Oregon guy (R)

[steveegg]

The roll call

- 46 of 48 professed Pubbies voted for the amendment. Cut-and-Hagel voted against, Enzi didn't vote.
- Lieberman also voted for the amendment.
- 48 of 50 professed RATs voted against the amendment. Pryor (who wants a "double-secret retreat-and-defeat schedule) voted for, and Johnson didn't vote.

[tobyhill]

Gordon Smith voted with the Rats and it was his vote that blew it. We expect it from Hagel.

[processing please hold]

Thanks again, "protest voters."

You ain't seen protest voting till the GOP tries to run liberal rudy for president.

[clamper1797]

Thanks you ...

[MaestroLC]

STFU, Hegal. You JERK! #$@^&^%$%^&!!!!

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), another potential contender for the GOP presidential nomination, expressed strong opposition to the Cochran amendment, saying, "I will not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy in Iraq."

He lambasted the Bush administration for sending more and more U.S. combat troops to Iraq at a time when allies are pulling their forces out and for "taking us deeper and deeper into this quagmire with no exit strategy."

The bill does not cut off funding for U.S. troops and "does not impose a precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq, Hagel said.

"This idea that somehow you don't support the troops if you continue in a lemming-like way to accept whatever this administration's policy is -- that is what's wrong," he said, "and that is dangerous."