Thursday, March 15, 2007

Senate rejects bid to micromanage the war

Finally! The Republicans did the right thing for a change, except for Gordon Smith who is up for re-election and probably fears he won't win. Good way to suppress the turnout of the base.

Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush's Iraq policy at both ends of the Capitol on Thursday, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate on a less sweeping plan to end U.S. participation in the war.


Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon was the only Republican to support the measure. Democrats Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska opposed it, as did Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent Democrat.

For their part, Republicans sought to create a political dilemma for Democrats, countering with an alternative measure that said "no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field" that would undermine their safety.

GOP leaders hoped the proposal, advanced by Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, would prove difficult for Democrats to oppose and complicate any future effort to reduce funds for the war.

Gregg's amendment passed 82-16.

Democrats tried still another proposal, this one saying that Congress would provide "necessary funds for training equipment and other support for troops in the field." It passed easily, 96-2.
I was surprised to see that Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson voted against it and I was happy to see that the Judd amendment finally passed but since the bill was defeated, it's it a moot point?

And then there's this:
"I want this war to end. I don't want to go to any more funerals," said New York Rep. Rep. Jose Serrano, one of several liberal Democrats who have pledged their support for the legislation despite preferring a faster end to the war.
Yeah, I guess you wouldn't be attending the funerals of the thousands of Iraqis who would be killed if we pulled out before Iraq was ready to defend itself.