Tuesday, March 27, 2007

First Shoe Drops

The Politico reports that the Senate will vote today on whether to strip the timetable from the Senate Iraq legislation:

The Senate is expected to vote Tuesday afternoon on an amendment to strike the withdrawal timetable from legislation to fund the war in Iraq, a senior Senate aide told Politico's John Bresnahan.

Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi offered an amendment to remove the withdrawal language from the emergency spending bill to fund the war.

The House approved a measure last week that would force U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the fall of 2008 as well as other benchmarks that could speed that withdrawal.

Now we all remember about I'm just a bill. If the Senate strips this provision and passes the bill without it, then the Senate version (without timetable) has to be merged with the House version (with timetable) in conference. On a huge issue like this one, the conference outcome will likely be dictated by the leadership. Thus, Pelosi, Reid, and their leadership teams will decide whether the timetable is included in the conference report or stripped.

In a penny, in a dollar: the language will likely be included. Then the question will be whether Reid can get enough votes to send the bill to the President. Watch the vote today. If he only needs to sway one Senator, he probably ought to be able to send it to the President for a veto. More than that I would not bet on. Then whether the supplemental is vetoed or dies in the Senate, Congress will go back to work on a cleaner bill (but count on it still including the pork, and some of the procedural hurdles).

Why retain the forced-surrender language when it's clear the President will veto it? Because when the anti-war left says 'jump,' the Congressional Democrats know that the proper response is 'how high?'

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Why retain the forced-surrender language when it's clear the President will veto it? Because when the anti-war left says 'jump,' the Congressional Democrats know that the proper response is 'how high?'"

No, because they want a vote on the bill to run on in 2008. Very smart politics considering about 30% of the country supports the war now.

The Editor at IP said...

Do you really think it's for any reason other than that they fear retribution from the Left? I think you need to read DailyKos more often.

Apart from that, this isn't good politics for them. Do you think this vote is what's separating them from convincing voters that they're really, REALLY against the war? Of course not. They've gotten all the benefit they can from being anti-war. To the contrary, at this point they're only hurting themselves. They're treating this conflict as Vietnam Part II. And once it's over, the voters will no longer regard them as credible on national security and terrorism.

Among other things, the Republican candidate next year will be someone not remotely associated with this administration and this war. He won't be tagged with Iraq - which, by the way, will be over. The only lasting effect will be the impression in the minds of the voters that 'boy, those Democrats sure do hate sending troops into combat. And Giuliani/Thompson/McCain seems more willing to do what it takes...'

No. This is a mistake. The Democrats will minimize the damage by ending this charade as quickly as possible.

The Editor

Anonymous said...

Short answer, Yes.
There is no downside. The bill has no hope of passing so you cannot blame Iraqi failure on the Dems and it puts officals on record supporting an unpopular president and war. This kind of political insight is uncanny considering we are talking about Democrats.

11B said...

"cannot blame Iraqi failure on the Dems"

Why not?!? The proposing of this bill is encouraging people to KILL American troops.

In their minds they know one more dead American means a better chance this bill will gather support to override a veto.

They know they only need hold out a little longer because Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are running to save them.

This bill and the Democrats polticizing the war by voting against body armor for the troops, arguing that American Troops are like Nazi Stormtroopers and other blatant attempts to get on the front page is sick. It is putting the Democratic Party ahead of the long term well being of the United States.

Anonymous said...

Blah, blah blah...silly hyperbole. "Dems are gleeful with soldiers deaths" "Repubs are grateful for 911". These kind of silly comments have no place in intelligent discourse.