Recent Appearances...

Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances...

Home Front: Culture Wars

Kerry-Smith Riders Would Permit HIV Immigration To US

2008-07-16

A two-decade ban on people with HIV visiting or immigrating to the United States may end soon through a Senate bill aimed at fighting AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas of the world.

The U.S. is one of a dozen countries including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Russia that ban travel and immigration for HIV-positive people.

Even China, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., recently changed that policy, deciding it was "time to move beyond an antiquated, knee-jerk reaction" to people with HIV.

"There's no excuse for a law that stigmatizes a particular disease," Kerry said Tuesday at a speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies HIV/AIDS Task Force. Even people with avian flu or the Ebola virus have an easier time than those with HIV when it come to applying for visas, he said.

Kerry and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., are trying to repeal the ban, first implemented in 1987 and confirmed by Congress in 1993. The two have attached their measure to legislation which the Senate may pass this week that would provide $50 billion over the next five years to fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas...

Link

International-UN-NGOs

North American Union Not Enough. Now Conspiring For North Atlantic Union

2008-01-16

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel the current president of the European Council and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April.

Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal "Freedom and Union," Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa said the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. The infrastructure would not require congressional approval, like a new free-trade agreement would.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the "Merkel initiative" would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU "in a very quiet way," without introducing a new free trade agreement to Congress.

No document on the TEC website suggests that any of the regulatory changes resulting from the process of integrating with the EU will be posted in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress as new free-trade agreements or as modifications to existing trade agreements.

In addition to Bennett, the advisers to the Transatlantic Policy Network includes the following senators: Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

Among the 49 U.S. congressmen on the TPN's Congressional Group are John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Dingell, D-Mich.; Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Senate OKs $70B for Iraq, Afghanistan

2007-12-19

The Senate voted Tuesday to provide $70 billion for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing a victory to President Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill. The 70-25 roll call paved the way for the Senate to pass a $555 billion omnibus appropriations bill combining the war funding with the budgets for 14 Cabinet agencies.

Bush was ready to sign the bill, assuming the war funding clears the House on Wednesday. Democrats again failed to win votes to force removal of U.S. troops or set a nonbinding target to remove most troops by the end of next year. "Even those of us who have disagreed on this war have always agreed on one thing: Troops in the field will not be left without the resources they need," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Twenty-one Democrats and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman who stood with Republicans at a post-vote news conference voted with every Republican present except Gordon Smith of Oregon to approve the Iraq funding.

The year-end budget deal between the Democratic-controlled Congress and Bush ended months of battling and disappointed GOP purists who complained the bill spends too much money and contains about 9,000 pet projects sought by members of Congress. "Congress refuses to rein in its wasteful spending or curb its corruption," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. Conservatives estimated the measure contained at least $28 billion in domestic spending above Bush's budget, funded by a combination of "emergency" spending, transfers from the defense budget, budget gimmicks and phantom savings.

Unfortunately that's the price you pay -- literally -- for divided government. Bush got the more important win on Iraq/Afghanistan funding, but it cost an extra $28 billion.

With Bush winning the $70 billion infusion of troop funding, other Republicans muted their criticism. "I do think the president has a victory here," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. But the win was hardly clear-cut for Republicans hoping the president would emerge from the monthslong battle with Democrats over the budget with a result that would more clearly demonstrate to core GOP voters the party's commitment to fiscal discipline.

While disappointed by ceding Iraq funding to Bush, Democrats hailed the pending appropriations bill for smoothing the rough edges of Bush's February budget plan, which sought below-inflation increases for most domestic programs and contained numerous cutbacks and program eliminations. "The omnibus bill largely yields to the President's top-line budget numbers, but it also addresses some of the bottom-line priorities of the American people," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "The Grinch tried to steal Christmas, but we didn't let him get all of it."

Democrats were able to fill in most of the cuts by using the very budgetary sleight of hand lambasted by conservative groups such as the Club for Growth and Citizens Against Government Waste.

The White House, which maintained a hard line for months, has been far more forgiving in recent days, accepting $11 billion in "emergency" spending for veterans, drought relief, border security and firefighting accounts, among others. Other budget moves added billions more. "Congress did come down to the president's overall top line," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "And in regards of the emergency spending, most of that spending would have passed on an emergency basis anyway. It's not added into the baseline of the budget."

The bill passed the House late Monday. Under an unusual legislative two-step, the Iraq portion of the bill would be returned to the House on Wednesday, with Republicans supplying the winning margin. That vote, if successful, would send the entire omnibus bill to Bush for his signature.

Democrats succeeded in reversing cuts sought by Bush to heating subsidies, local law enforcement, Amtrak and housing as well as Bush's plan to eliminate the $654 million budget for grants to community action agencies that help the poor. Democrats also added funding for food programs, subsidies to community development banks and Homeland Security Department grants to first responders.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Reed-Levin troop-pullout plan fails in U.S. Senate

2007-09-22

Sen. Jack Reeds measure to set a deadline for troop withdrawals from Iraq failed to win a majority yesterday, capping a week of defeats for antiwar forces in the Senate and dimming Democratic hopes of imposing a strategic shift on President Bush.

On a 47-to-47 vote, the Senate blocked an amendment by Reed and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would pull most American troops out of Iraq within nine months. The proposal lost ground on both sides of the aisle since it won 52 votes in its last Senate floor test about two months ago.

Reed said the defeat of his troop-withdrawal plan showed that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, has managed to buy some time for Mr. Bush to continue his strategy. I dont think he made a huge impression on the public at large, Reed said of Petraeus, who last week warned Congress against an early reversal of the surge of U.S. troops that the Army general credited with significant security gains in Iraq this year.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the purpose of the surge is to have the Iraqi military take over more and more of the responsibilities as U.S. troops begin to leave. You have to establish the military security environment in order for the political process of move forward in Iraq, McCain said.

Reed, a graduate of West Point, has long maintained that the surge cannot continue beyond next spring because maintaining it would disrupt the Pentagons system of troop rotations.

Reed said that Petraeus and Mr. Bush have effectively bowed to Democratic pressure by announcing plans for some troop reductions later this year. The president last week said he would reduce U.S. forces to roughly the level about 130,000 troops where they stood early this year when he ordered a surge of new troops to reduce violence, particularly in Baghdad. Reed, a graduate of West Point, has long maintained that the surge cannot continue beyond next spring because maintaining it would disrupt the Pentagons system of troop rotations.

Still, this weeks Senate votes on Iraq were a letdown for Democrats, who only last month appeared to have made inroads in Republican support for Mr. Bushs policy.

Only three Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine supported the measure. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who voted for Levin-Reed in July, criticized Democratic leadership for refusing to seek compromise language to draw GOP moderates.

Three Democrats also defected: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and David Pryor of Arkansas, both moderates, and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, a liberal candidate for president, who made clear that he does not think the Levin-Reed measure goes far enough.

Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman voted against the Levin-Reed measure, as he has in the past.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Senate condemns "General Betray Us" ad

2007-09-21

The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal. The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times last week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill. The ad was headlined: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House."

The ad became a life raft for the Republican party as the war debate kicked into high gear. With several Republicans opposed to President Bush's war strategy, GOP members were able to put aside their differences and rally around their disapproval of the ad. Sen. Gordon Smith, one of the few Republican senators who supports legislation ordering troop withdrawals, told reporters Thursday he thought Petraeus' testimony and the MoveOn.org ad were the two biggest factors in keeping Republicans from breaking ranks with the president: Petraeus' testimony because it was persuasive and the MoveOn add because it went too far by attacking a popular uniformed officer. "It was stupid on their part and disgraceful," said Smith, R-Ore.

The resolution condemning the ad was sponsored by conservative Republican John Cornyn of Texas. Voting against it were Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another contender for the Democratic nomination, ~~wimped out~~ did not vote, although he voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned the MoveOn ad as an "unwarranted personal attack," but also condemned political attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnam veterans.

In a news conference, President Bush denounced the ad as "disgusting" and criticized Democrats for not immediately condemning it. "And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush said Thursday.

Eli Pariser, executive director of the liberal group, responded: "What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war."

Link

Home Front: WoT

Senate blocks bill on Iraq combat tours

2007-09-20

WASHINGTON - Democrats' efforts to challenge President Bush's Iraq policies were dealt a demoralizing blow Wednesday in the Senate after they failed to scrape together enough support to guarantee troops more time at home. The 56-44 vote four short of reaching the 60 needed to advance all but assured that Democrats would be unable to muster the support needed to pass tough anti-war legislation by year's end. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., was seen as the Democrats' best shot because of its pro-military premise.

"The idea of winning the war in Iraq is beginning to get a second look," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who led opposition to the bill alongside Sen. John McCain.

Webb's legislation would have required that troops spend as much time at home training with their units as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Members of the National Guard or Reserve would be guaranteed three years at home before being sent back. Most Army soldiers now spend about 15 months in combat with 12 months home.

"In blocking this bipartisan bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated that they are more committed to protecting the president than protecting our troops," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Wednesday's vote was the second time in as many months that Webb's bill was sidetracked. In July, a similar measure also fell four votes short of advancing.

Democrats said they were hopeful additional Republicans, wary of the politically unpopular war, would agree this time around to break party ranks. It had already attracted three dozen co-sponsors including Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

But momentum behind the bill stalled Wednesday after Sen. John Warner, R-Va., announced he decided the consequences would be disastrous. Warner, a former longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had voted in favor of the measure in July but said he changed his mind after talking to senior military officials. Webb later told reporters there was no doubt Warner's opposition threw cold water on the bill.

Hagel, R-Neb., said the White House also "has been very effective at making this a loyalty test for the Republican Party."

Of the 56 senators voting to advance the measure were 49 Democrats, six Republicans and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders. Voting against it were 43 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. The vote "means Congress will not intervene in the foreseeable future" in the war's execution, Lieberman told reporters.

In coming days, the Senate plans to vote on legislation by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would order combat troops home in nine months. Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said his bill would allow some troops to remain behind to conduct such missions as counterterrorism and training the Iraqis; he estimated the legislation, if enacted, would cut troop levels in Iraq by more than half. The Senate also planned to vote on legislation by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Reid, D-Nev., that would cut off funding for combat next year.

The firm deadlines reflect a shift in strategy for Democrats, who had been pursuing a bipartisan compromise on war legislation. But after last week's testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, Democrats calculated not enough Republicans were willing to break party ranks and support more tempered legislation calling for combat to end next summer.

McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a Vietnam veteran, said Webb's bill was a "backdoor method" by Democrats to force troop withdrawals. "We have a new strategy. We have success on the ground," said McCain. Pulling out troops would spark "chaos and genocide in the region, and we will be back," he said.

McCain offered an alternative resolution that would identify equal deployment and training times as a goal, but would not mandate deployment restrictions. The resolution was aimed at peeling off Republican support and lessening the prospects of passage for Webb's bill. That resolution fell five votes shy of advancing, in a 55-45 vote.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would have recommended that President Bush veto Webb's legislation if it is passed. The bill could force the military to extend tours, rely more heavily on reservists, or not replace units right away, even if they are needed, Gates said.

Webb and his supporters say the bill provides flexibility to avoid those pitfalls, including a presidential waiver if Bush can certify to Congress that ignoring the limitation was necessary to national security.

The goal there was to pin the tail on Bush.

Webb amended the bill, after consultation with Gates, to exempt special operations forces and give the military 120 days to comply.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Dems Drop W'drawal Dates from Iraq Funding Bill

2007-05-23

Democrats reluctantly gave up their demand for troops withdrawal dates in an Iraq war spending package today, conceding to President Bush on their number one goal in a debate that has roiled Congress for months. The confrontation sparked bitter exchanges between liberals and conservatives, yielding no middle ground where party leaders and Bush could compromise. In the end, Republicans had the ticking clock of troop funding and the presidential veto pen on their side, and Democrats were forced to blink.

War opponents had hoped that Democratic control of Congress would force a swift end to the Iraq conflict. But the package requires Bush to surrender virtually none of his war authority. Instead of withdrawal dates, Democrats accepted a GOP plan to establish 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government and to require Bush to report on progress starting in late July. If the Iraqis fall short, they could forfeit U.S. reconstruction aid.

The final agreement was hammered out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and followed extensive consultations with GOP leaders and the White House. Party leaders did secure two other priorities, a long-sought minimum wage increase and $20 billion for domestic projects, both of which Bush had initially resisted. Reid called the benchmark language "extremely weak," but noted that Bush had initially demanded a bill with no strings attached. "For heaven's sake, look where we've come," Reid said. "It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

Republicans remained unifed throughout the debate, despite strong public opposition to the war and growing doubts within the party that a military victory in Iraq can be achieved. But GOP reaction was restrained when details of the deal circulated this afternoon. Early in the year, Republicans refused to allow an Iraq debate from even starting, when GOP senators blocked a non-binding resolution opposing Bush's troop escalation plan from coming to the floor. Today, many Republicans are prepared to reassess the entire war effort once the current funding bill expires on Sept. 30.

From the beginning, Democratic leaders knew their options would be limited by the party's slim governing majorities in both chambers. In the 51-49 Senate, Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) was absent following a brain hemorrhage, and independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), a member of the Democratic caucus, backed Bush on the war. Passage of the first spending bill was secured by two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.).

"Both sides are in a position where neither can do something without the other. That's the reality," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Link

Home Front: Politix

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable

2007-05-04

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

Bush said he is "confident that we can reach agreement," and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties. But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, "The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk."

While deadlines for troop withdrawals had to be dropped from the spending bill, such language is likely to appear in a defense policy measure that is expected to reach the House floor in two weeks, just when a second war funding bill could be ready for a House vote. Democrats want the next spending measure to pass before Congress recesses on May 25 for Memorial Day weekend.

Beyond that, Democrats remain deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.

Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday's White House meeting, participants said. "I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks," said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. "We didn't go into any kind of detail," Durbin said.

Just four Republicans supported the first version of the spending bill: Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.). But a growing number of GOP lawmakers want language that would hold the administration and the Iraqi government more accountable. "The general sense is that the benchmarks are critical," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a moderate who opposed the original bill but supports some constraints. White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Senate Votes to Require Iraq Withdrawals

2007-04-26

WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war. The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto.

So now the real fun begins.

Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats. "The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska sided with 48 Democrats and Independent Bernard Sanders in supporting the bill. No Democrats joined the 45 Republicans in voting against it. Missing from the vote were GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both staunch advocates of the president's Iraq policy.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill. "We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism or sectarian violence. Or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving," Lieberman said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. Bush since has acknowledged that the war has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, he announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that if Democratic lawmakers timed the sending of the bill to the anniversary of Bush's speech, it would be "a ridiculous P.R. stunt." "That is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate," she said Thursday morning.

And now we know why the Dhimmis delayed putting the bill through.

In the House, two RepublicansReps. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolinajoined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. Voting no were 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said Democrats were still considering what to do after Bush's veto. One option would be funding the war through September as Bush wants but setting benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet, he said. Murtha chairs the House panel that oversees military funding. "I think everything that passes will have some sort of condition (placed) on it," he said. Ultimately, Murtha added, the 2008 military budget considered by Congress in June "is where you'll see the real battle," he said.

That's where the Dhimmis will be their worst.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Dems Say W Must Accept Timetable

2007-03-28

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Democrats are showing no signs of backing down on their rebuke of the Iraq war, insisting President Bush will have to accept some sort of legislative timetable in exchange for the billions of dollars needed to fund the war.

"We would hope that the president understands how serious we are," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after the Senate voted to uphold a proposal in a war spending bill calling for the troop withdrawal.

As the Senate resumes debate on the $122 billion bill Wednesday, President Bush was expected to address the legislation in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington.

Deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush would use the speech as an opportunity to address the war on terror and the need to let the new Iraq security plan get fully under way.

"The president will say it is dangerous to our soldiers on the ground to let Washington politics delay this funding," Perino said. But Reid and other Democrats say they won't back down.

"Rather than making all the threats that he has, let's work with him and see if he can give us some ideas how we can satisfy the wishes of a majority of the Senate, the majority of the House and move forward," Reid said.

The bill finances operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but requires Bush begin bringing home some combat troops right away with a nonbinding goal of ending combat missions as of March 31, 2008.

The House last week passed a similar bill by a 218-212 vote. That bill orders combat troops out by Aug. 31, 2008 _ guaranteeing the final spending measure negotiated with the Senate will include some sort of timetable on the war.

Senate Republicans tried Tuesday to strip out the withdrawal language but failed in a 50-48 vote. One Democrat _ Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas _ sided with Republicans in opposition to the public deadline, contending such a measure would broadcast U.S. war plans to the enemies. "Congress should not define how long our enemy has to hang on to win," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered the deciding vote by joining anti-war Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon in breaking ranks and voting with Democrats to put a nonbinding end date on the war.
"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," Hagel, R-Neb.
But there is no way to understand, read, plan or manage this thing except by running away, eh Chuck?

Pryor said he supports setting a deadline for U.S. involvement in Iraq, but only so long as such a date remains classified. Pryor compares the 2008 date set by his Democratic colleagues akin to announcing to the Germans plans for the U.S. invasion of France in World War II.

But ultimately, Pryor said, he will vote in favor of the bill. "At the end of the day, the end of the process, I'm going to support the troops, ~~the way I would want to be 'supported', if I actually had to fight for something~~" he said.

"This is not one battle; it's a long-term campaign," Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters.

The vote leaves hanging a small group of Republicans frustrated by the war and wanting to go on record as such but opposed to setting a timetable.

In recent months, GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Warner of Virginia, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Olympia Snowe of Maine wanted legislation expressing opposition to Bush's war strategy and setting goals for the Iraqi government to meet in exchange for continued U.S. support.

But each said they opposed setting a firm timetable on the war and sided with their Republican colleagues.

"My vote against this rapid withdrawal does not mean that I support an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq," Collins said in a statement issued after the vote.

If Bush's strategy in Iraq does not show "significant results" by fall, "then Congress should consider all options including a redefinition of our mission and a gradual but significant withdrawal of our troops next year."
They know W will veto, so it's just sending a message to the al Qaeda.

Link

Home Front: Politix