It looks like the Bush Administration and Congress are headed for a showdown over Iraq in the coming weeks.
For those of us who like politics and government, this will be interesting to watch.
The U.S. Senate yesterday rejected an amendment 50-48 that stated: “To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Montana’s two U.S. Senators, Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., voted against the amendment (with the majority of 50 against striking the timeline language).
So now we wait to see if the U.S. Senate passes their own version of the war supplemental bill. After that, if it is any different than the bill the House passed (HR 1591) it would need to be reconciled with the House and then voted on again in both chambers. Supposedly, this will be after the spring recess.
The President has vowed to veto the bill if it gets to him and that’s where the showdown will begin. It does not look like there’s enough support in the House and Senate to override his expected veto.
The Administration claims they will start running out of money for the war around mid-April. Congress (mostly democrats) wants to place timelines for troop withdrawal. As with many appropriations bills in Congress, there were some items added to the bill that had nothing to do with the original intent of the bill (war funding).

The Western Word (TWW) says, “Let’s get it on!” Send the bill to the President and see what happens. If the President does veto the bill, how will the war be funded? Which way will the fallout go? Will Congress blink and pass a bill with no timelines and pork or will the President end up signing it as passed? How will the American people see this?
TWW believes that the majority in the House and Senate have made some strong points with these votes. They have some bargaining power now. After the 2006 elections, they had a mandate to go this route from many Americans. I don’t believe they have enough support to go all the way, just yet. The first reason they don’t have enough support is that they are dealing with a President who has approval ratings lower than a well digger’s bottom so what’s wrong with dropping a few more points? And secondly, he’s not up for re-election, so he does not have to face a public vote again and he does not have a VP who’s running for President in 2008. So, what’s to lose?
Nobody wants this war to last forever. TWW thinks it’s starting to look like it is. There are great points on both sides about staying the course or getting out.
TWW does not agree with publicly disclosed timelines that basically tells the enemy if they hold on for a determined amount of time, they will not have to deal with the USA. I do believe you tell the Iraqi leadership that time is running out; you need to start walking by yourself…NOW.
TWW believes with these votes, the damage has been done to this effort. However right or wrong you feel about the war, time is quickly running out in Iraq.
TWW hates the pork that was added on to the bill to basically buy votes, but that’s common practice in DC.
TWW would like to see if this idea called a “surge” works. Some reports say it is starting to work and supposedly not all of the “surge” troops are on the ground, yet. That is the last hope in my eyes.