U.S. Sens. Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va., voted Friday to advance the "Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act" that passed the House on Wednesday.
The 53-45 tally failed to garner a sufficient majority. It also followed a GOP-led push for an alternative measure addressing Iraq funding that fell short as well, 45-53.
Byrd and Rockefeller both voted against that alternative.
The Associated Press has the details. "(Sen. Majority Leader Harry) Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send President Bush a bill this year," AP reports.
"Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats' conflict with the White House on the war."
16 November 2007
They Voted For You: Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So 100 out of 100 U.S. Senators voted to fund the troops, but the troops will not be funded until next year because the Dem leaders want to make political points with the moveon.org crowd. That is true patriotism.
Clear Eyes, I think you missed the whole point of the vote. Dems wanted to fund the troops, but they also want some responsiblity by this Administration concerning that funding. We must start trying someway to get our troops home from this "war with no reason."
Someone in Washington had better be responsible. I am not a "Move-On" person, but rather I am a patriot who believes that we must do what is right. I am glad someone is trying to be responsible with funding for a change. A true "patriot" looks for the good of all, not just the good of a few.
Ron, the Dems version requires troops to begin withdrawing as already planned by the administration as the surge draws down. The point of that requirement is just to take credit for the draw-down.
Their version also calls for all troops to be out by the end of 2008, but even the two Dem presidiential frontrunners agree that we'll need to have troops there through 2012. The only point here is to win points with the extremists.
Both Reid and Pelosi had said earlier that they realized the futility of including these provisions (since they've now tried over 40 times without success), but went ahead and included them again this time due to pressure from those same extremists.
The end result is that the troops don't get funded while the Dems hope that something bad happens in Iraq over the holidays so they can insist on immediate surrender again at the beginning of the new year.
Let's face it. If we win in Iraq, the Dems lose, since they declared defeat and demanded surrender a long time back. How patriotic is it to put yourself in that position?
Post a Comment