By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; Page A08
Senate Republicans yesterday blocked Democrats' latest effort
to end the Iraq war, rejecting a $50 billion military funding
package that would have required President Bush to begin
withdrawing U.S. troops.
The 53 to 45 vote in favor of the bill fell seven short of
the 60 votes needed and signaled that the contours of the war
debate, now nearing its first anniversary, have barely changed.
An alternative GOP proposal, which would have provided $70
billion with no strings attached, was rejected outright, 53
to 45.
Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include
profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments
or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries
that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone
other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will
take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards,
terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing
this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries
and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content
that you post.
The Democratic version was approved by the House earlier this
week. It would have required President Bush to start a phased
redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, while
shifting the military role in Iraq to specific missions. Those
include protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities, assisting Iraqi
security forces and engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations.
It set a goal of Dec. 15, 2008, for completing the process.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said he may bring
the Democratic bill back to the floor in December. He and House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have decided that Bush will
not receive more war funding this year unless he accepts Democratic
withdrawal terms.
That is out of the question, said White House spokesman Tony
Fratto, who dismissed the Democratic vote as a political stunt.
"Once again, they tried to pass a bill that provides
incremental funding, tries to micromanage the war from the
halls of Congress," Fratto said. Democrats "know
that such a bill will be vetoed, should it ever come to the
president's desk," he said. "They know this because
we've been through this dozens of times now."
In May, Bush vetoed a war spending bill for Iraq that contained
Democratic withdrawal conditions, and Congress backed off.
Reid and Pelosi said they will not consider a new approach
to the funding request until January. In the meantime, they
said, the Pentagon could draw from its $471 billion annual
budget to cover war expenses.
Fratto said the funding crunch could hurt military efforts,
including the training of Iraqi forces, which is crucial to
eventually ending the U.S. military role in the country.
But Reid refused to yield. "Our troops continue to fight
and die and our Treasury continues to be depleted for a peace
that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own
political leaders," he said. "Our bill sets a reasonable
goal for the end of combat operations."
Republicans said they expect to win the funding showdown eventually
just as they did this summer, owing to the Democrats' tiny
51 to 49 majority in the Senate.
"The Democrat leaders are going to have to finally swallow
their political pride here, I guess, and provide funding for
the troops," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
Although GOP lawmakers concede that the public has turned
against the Iraq conflict, they have proved unwilling to use
their legislative powers to tie Bush's hands.
The Democratic terms that did not win enough support yesterday
are less stringent than the ones in previous measures. For
example, the current bill would have set a goal, instead of
a deadline, for withdrawal. But, with a veto threat looming,
the bill did not attract any new Republican supporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
