It’s Still Alive: Senate Supports Non-Binding Timeline
| March 27th, 2007A few days ago I posted about the House of Representatives vote for an Iraq withdrawal timetable. I asked how far this would go. Well now the Senate has also voted for a timetable, a nonbinding timetable, which is better than nothing but not too courageous if you ask me. Here is a quote:
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 Sen. Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record) of Arkansas. Despite the change, Pryor voted to delete the timeline. 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. 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.
What do you think? (Ah-hem Robert.)
March 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
As far as I’m concerned a non-binding anything is a complete waste of time. If the senators wanted to make a statement they could have easily went out on the capitol steps and called a press conference to say whatever it was they wanted to say.
I can’t believe we pay these people to sit around and argue for hours on end about non-binding resolutions.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Better that, than that they start actually doing stuff.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Even a “binding” timetable would have been non-binding because the bill wouldn’t have passed with veto proof majorities (and probably wouldn’t have passed the senate at all). Bush has said he will veto *anything* with any kind of timetable at all so we know it’s going to be vetoed anyway.
Given that Bush is going to veto this, I think it makes him look like even more of a tone-deaf, obstinate, psycho to veto something he doesn’t even have to obey than vetoing a binding timetable would.
This comment was written by Morph.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I heard on the radio that this was going to reach a final vote next week; that would indicate to me that there were differences between the House bill and the Senate bill that will have to be worked out in committee.
What I’d love to see is for the committee to toss out all the bribes - whoops, I mean, domestic spending, and see what happens when our elected representatives vote the actual issue. Until they do that, this can’t be viewed as an actually representative vote. And since it’s non-binding, if it’s not representative then it’s doubly worthless. Mind you, I understand politics, but a thinking person will realize what’s going on here.
Interesting that Lieberman, who cacuses with the Democrats IIRC, voted against the bill. They had to have a Republican cross over to get it to pass.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 7:23 am
As far as I’m concerned a non-binding anything is a complete waste of time.
Perhaps - unless they attach the non-binding statement to a FULLY BINDING funding authorization. At some point Bush will need to choose between signing a bill that contains a deadline for drawing down US deployments (even if non-binding), or de-funding his own war. If he signs it, he gives cover to war opponents both during the next authorization bill and in the next election cycle. If he vetos it, he ends his war and forces Bush to bear primary responsibility for its ending.
There’s nothing hypothetical about this bill. Which is precisely why Bush is making such a fuss over it.
Yes, I would prefer to see the pork stripped out of the bill, just as I’d prefer to see pork stripped out of most bills. Yet it’s amusing to see the White House complaining about the pork when Bush has never declined a morsel of pork in the past six pork-laden years.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Yet it’s amusing to see the White House complaining about the pork when Bush has never declined a morsel of pork in the past six pork-laden years.
Which I think is one reason why the Republicans had such trouble in this recent election. Certainly the war was a huge factor, but the Republicans are supposed to be the limited-government party. Yet when they came into power, they didn’t make any fundamental changes in the process. They just started grabbing money for their own pet projects instead. They lost a chunk of their base over that, a base that they could have used in this last cycle.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 11:34 am
talk about ‘do as i say, not as i do’ policies. no wonder they hate us.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
That’s something I don’t think the Dems have the guts to do.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Apparently the major difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is the that the House bill sets a deadline for withdrawal (3/2008) whereas the Senate bill has no such thing but instead says that there can be no increase in troop levels after 120 days from passage (which allows sending new troops as long as there are matching numbers that come home). If the 3/2008 deadline is put into the committee bill, it apparently won’t pass the Senate.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Senate Passes Deadline, Bush to Veto, Saudi King Blasts Occupation, Murtha, Murphy, McCain is Nuts, More [IMG ]The Senate passed a non-binding call for troops to begin leaving Iraq in 120-days. Bush immediately burned rubber over to a podium at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association where he vowed to eat the yellow-liver of every Democrat in Congress. Seriously, this speech sucked. We need an intervention.
This comment was written by Les Enragés.org.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
It’s Still Alive: Senate Supports Non-Binding Timeline - Mar 27, 2007 - Rachel S. Into The Fifth: Stories From Iraq - Mar 27, 2007 - Ampersand Review: The Long Way Home, Part 1 - Mar 27, 2007 - Maia Texas Contemplating Mass Releases Of Improperly Imprisoned
This comment was written by IST Control Center.Report this comment to the moderators