P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/2/151545.shtml?s=lh
House Fails to Override Bush on Iraq
NewsMax.com Wires Thursday, May 3, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled House failed Wednesday to override
President Bush's veto of an Iraqi war spending bill with timetables for
troop withdrawals. Lawmakers went directly to the White House to talk about
a new version.
"Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences," Bush said. "Today is the
day where we can work together to find common ground."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on
either side of the president. The Democratic leaders were stone-faced as
Bush made his brief statement. The White House meeting started late,
apparently delayed by the failed override attempt.
"I'm confident we can reach agreement," Bush said.
The 222-203 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a veto
override, occurred just ahead of a White House meeting that Bush called to
begin compromise talks with congressional leaders of both parties on new
legislation to finance the war, now in its fifth year.
Voting to override Bush's veto were 220 Democrats and two Republicans.
Voting to sustain the veto were 196 Republicans and seven Democrats.
"The president has turned a tin ear to the wishes of the American people,"
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said during the hour-long debate before the
vote. "The president wants a blank check. The Congress will not give it to
him."
But Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., urged his colleagues to sustain the veto,
saying politicians should not make military decisions.
"Now is not the time for the United States to back down in its war on
terror," Lewis said.
Negotiations for a new spending bill could prove difficult. Both parties
agree it should include benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but many Democrats
insist they be tied to timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals if they are
unmet. Bush and his congressional allies say such links are unacceptable.
Hours before the House vote sustained the veto, which Bush had issued
Tuesday, the president showed little appetite for compromise.
"I am confident that with goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond
political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and
flexibility to do the job that we asked them to do," he said in a speech in
Washington before The Associated General Contractors of America.
Of the original bill pushed through Congress by Democrats, Bush said: "It
didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the
recommendations of our military commanders in the field."
Pelosi had told reporters Wednesday: "Benchmarks are important, but they
have to have teeth in order to be effective."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said before the vote that he hopes to have
a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final measure sent to
the president before Memorial Day. "We're not going to leave our troops in
harms way . . . without the resources they need," said Hoyer, D-Md.
Hoyer would not speculate on exactly what the bill might look like, but said
he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He said the bill
should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt
that Democratic leaders will adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to
fund the war two or three months at a time.
As for bipartisan cooperation in Congress, neither side seemed in much of a
hurry Wednesday. "There have been discussions about talking," Hoyer said.
Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans weren't taking any
options off the table. But "what I want is a clean bill" without a timetable
on the war, he said
The situation has Democratic lawmakers in a difficult position. Because they
control the House and Senate, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill
that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance
troops in a time of war.
(AP) Army General David Petraeus on Capitol Hill after meeting with members
of Congress about the latest... Full Image The party's most liberal members,
especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the
war if there's no binding language on troop drawdowns. The bill Bush
rejected would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct.
1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
"I think the Democrats are in a box," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in an
interview. "We're pretty resolute on our side. We are not going to tie this
funding to any type of withdrawal deadline or any type of redeployment
deadline."
Some Democrats believe the GOP solidarity will crack over time, noting that
polls show heavy public support for a withdrawal plan.
Numerous possible compromises are being floated on Capitol Hill, all
involving some combination of benchmarks. Some would require Bush to certify
monthly that the Iraqi government is fully cooperating with U.S. efforts in
several areas, such as giving troops the authority to pursue extremists.
The key impasse in Congress is whether to require redeployments of U.S.
troops if the benchmarks are not met.
Under one proposal being floated, unmet benchmarks would cause some U.S.
troops to be removed from especially violent regions such as Baghdad. They
would redeploy to places in Iraq where they presumably could fight
terrorists but avoid the worst centers of Sunni-Shia conflict.
A new spending bill "has got to be tied to redeployment," said Rep. Rahm
Emanuel, D-Ill., the House's fourth-ranking Democratic leader. He conceded,
however, that Democrats have yet to figure out where they will find the
votes.
"Our members will not accept restraints on the military," House Minority
Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said. He suggested tying benchmarks to continued
U.S. nonmilitary aid to Iraq, an idea that many Democrats consider too weak.
Democrats won control of the House and Senate in elections that largely
focused on Iraq. They showed impressive solidarity in passing the bill that
Bush vetoed Tuesday, losing only 14 House Democrats while holding 216.
But top Democrats say they have no hope of replicating that showing once
they begin making even modest concessions to Bush. That makes them dependent
on Republican help.
House Fails to Override Bush on Iraq
NewsMax.com Wires Thursday, May 3, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled House failed Wednesday to override
President Bush's veto of an Iraqi war spending bill with timetables for
troop withdrawals. Lawmakers went directly to the White House to talk about
a new version.
"Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences," Bush said. "Today is the
day where we can work together to find common ground."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on
either side of the president. The Democratic leaders were stone-faced as
Bush made his brief statement. The White House meeting started late,
apparently delayed by the failed override attempt.
"I'm confident we can reach agreement," Bush said.
The 222-203 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a veto
override, occurred just ahead of a White House meeting that Bush called to
begin compromise talks with congressional leaders of both parties on new
legislation to finance the war, now in its fifth year.
Voting to override Bush's veto were 220 Democrats and two Republicans.
Voting to sustain the veto were 196 Republicans and seven Democrats.
"The president has turned a tin ear to the wishes of the American people,"
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said during the hour-long debate before the
vote. "The president wants a blank check. The Congress will not give it to
him."
But Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., urged his colleagues to sustain the veto,
saying politicians should not make military decisions.
"Now is not the time for the United States to back down in its war on
terror," Lewis said.
Negotiations for a new spending bill could prove difficult. Both parties
agree it should include benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but many Democrats
insist they be tied to timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals if they are
unmet. Bush and his congressional allies say such links are unacceptable.
Hours before the House vote sustained the veto, which Bush had issued
Tuesday, the president showed little appetite for compromise.
"I am confident that with goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond
political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and
flexibility to do the job that we asked them to do," he said in a speech in
Washington before The Associated General Contractors of America.
Of the original bill pushed through Congress by Democrats, Bush said: "It
didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the
recommendations of our military commanders in the field."
Pelosi had told reporters Wednesday: "Benchmarks are important, but they
have to have teeth in order to be effective."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said before the vote that he hopes to have
a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final measure sent to
the president before Memorial Day. "We're not going to leave our troops in
harms way . . . without the resources they need," said Hoyer, D-Md.
Hoyer would not speculate on exactly what the bill might look like, but said
he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He said the bill
should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt
that Democratic leaders will adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to
fund the war two or three months at a time.
As for bipartisan cooperation in Congress, neither side seemed in much of a
hurry Wednesday. "There have been discussions about talking," Hoyer said.
Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans weren't taking any
options off the table. But "what I want is a clean bill" without a timetable
on the war, he said
The situation has Democratic lawmakers in a difficult position. Because they
control the House and Senate, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill
that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance
troops in a time of war.
(AP) Army General David Petraeus on Capitol Hill after meeting with members
of Congress about the latest... Full Image The party's most liberal members,
especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the
war if there's no binding language on troop drawdowns. The bill Bush
rejected would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct.
1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
"I think the Democrats are in a box," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in an
interview. "We're pretty resolute on our side. We are not going to tie this
funding to any type of withdrawal deadline or any type of redeployment
deadline."
Some Democrats believe the GOP solidarity will crack over time, noting that
polls show heavy public support for a withdrawal plan.
Numerous possible compromises are being floated on Capitol Hill, all
involving some combination of benchmarks. Some would require Bush to certify
monthly that the Iraqi government is fully cooperating with U.S. efforts in
several areas, such as giving troops the authority to pursue extremists.
The key impasse in Congress is whether to require redeployments of U.S.
troops if the benchmarks are not met.
Under one proposal being floated, unmet benchmarks would cause some U.S.
troops to be removed from especially violent regions such as Baghdad. They
would redeploy to places in Iraq where they presumably could fight
terrorists but avoid the worst centers of Sunni-Shia conflict.
A new spending bill "has got to be tied to redeployment," said Rep. Rahm
Emanuel, D-Ill., the House's fourth-ranking Democratic leader. He conceded,
however, that Democrats have yet to figure out where they will find the
votes.
"Our members will not accept restraints on the military," House Minority
Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said. He suggested tying benchmarks to continued
U.S. nonmilitary aid to Iraq, an idea that many Democrats consider too weak.
Democrats won control of the House and Senate in elections that largely
focused on Iraq. They showed impressive solidarity in passing the bill that
Bush vetoed Tuesday, losing only 14 House Democrats while holding 216.
But top Democrats say they have no hope of replicating that showing once
they begin making even modest concessions to Bush. That makes them dependent
on Republican help.
