Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Senate voted for defeat today

I am the worst at predicting, so never go by what I think will happen. I get it wrong just about every time! I actually thought that the Senate would not have enough votes to pass this cut and run, pork laden spending bill. But I was seriously wrong. I didn't count on Hagel (though I was thinking Smith might vote for it) and I thought Nelson would listen to his inner conservative (or at least his inner moderate) but I guess not.

So, the Democrats (that includes some Democrats up for re-election in red states) and Hagel have gone on record as letting the enemy know the date we will be pulling our troops, they have voted to micromanage the war in an unconstitutional manner and to put our military at risk by not getting the funds they need on time. They have signaled to the Iraqi people that Congress could care less what the situation looks like in a year, the troops come home no matter what and they can fend for yourselves the way the Democrats made the Vietnamese fend for themselves.

But fortunately Bush has said he will veto this dog:

Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

[...]

But Republicans — and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat — argued otherwise.

[...]

The effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq," agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent.

[...]

Bush had previously said he would veto any bill containing the timeline, and the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote on Tuesday. "This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration's plan to develop the Iraqi economy," it said in a statement.

Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders made a change that persuaded Nebraska's Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) to swing behind the measure.

Additionally, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a vocal critic of the war, sided with the Democrats, assuring them of the majority they needed to turn back a challenge led by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.