To counter Bush veto, Feingold introduces bill to 'effectively end military involvement in Iraq'

[Roland99]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/To_counter_Bush_veto_Feingold_introduces_0410.html

In a countermove designed to counter President Bush's expected veto of an emergency supplemental spending bill containing a timetable for US troop withdrawal, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is introducing legislation which would "effectively end military involvement in Iraq."

According to a press release sent to RAW STORY, Feingold's bill "requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill passed by the Senate." It would also end "funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008." The exceptions include operations against Qaeda and other terrorist groups, training Iraqi security forces, and funds related to security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

...

Reid added, "I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period."

...

"Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress," Feingold continued. "By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans."

Go Russ, Go!

[rodeodance]

1. Russ ends funding in ONE year -Not immediate like I keep hearing.

[Roland99]

2. Which would give us time to draw down our forces and wrap up Iraqi security farce training.

And, no, that's not a typo above. :)

[mike_c]

3. "...funds related to security for United States infrastructure...."

That would be the permanent occupation of the U.S. bases in Iraq, and the mega-embassy?

[whistle]

4. Let Bush veto the funding bill, then shit-can that bill and pass the

...Feingold bill to immediately end the Iraq involvement. I think that is brilliant! Let Bush eat cake.

[bdamomma]

8. I really hope * screws himself.

he has already screwed the troops.

[Pawel K]

5. Can someone explain how this counters the veto?

I'm not too sure if I understand this correctly, won't the chimp just veto this one too?

In the end isn't the only option to completely cut off funding?

[Roland99]

6. I guess it means they won't send the original bill back to King George w/o the withdrawal language.

At least that's my take on it.

There would be no new funding bill to give Bush carte blanche to continue his giant neocon-inspired fuck-up in Iraq.

[mike_c]

7. I think it means just the opposite....

It means they will send a Supplemental back without any withdrawal provision and will try to enact withdrawal legislation separately. Which will fail, naturally. Butts will be covered.

[Zodiak]

9. I tend to agree with you

The purposeful inclusion of the mealy-mouthed language that allows Bush to keep the troops there after the withdrawal date means that pass or fail, butts will be covered.

In the end, we will stay in Iraq atop our new ill-gotten oil gains. What the American people want is irrelevent in the face of ht oil lobbies and the free-market capitalists.

[mtnsnake]

15. That's probably the reality of it

Sad as it is, oil and greed take precedence.

Check your inbox, Zodiak. I just PM'ed you.

[Zodiak]

16. Thank you for the PM

no worries...no worries at all. I'm sorry I could not give you a better reponse thus far (been very busy), but you are ok in my book. No worries.

[Rydz777]

10. I'm afraid you're right

It's beginning to look like a kabuki dance. Feingold was right from the beginning about this miserable war, but the Senate is a swamp. The only way to support the troops is to get them home now while they still have their lives and limbs. If this is still going on at the time of the next election - and I'm beginning to think that it will - the voters are going to be very, very unhappy.

[whistle]

13. I like that...let see it in all caps and bold type...

...."BUSH'S GIANT NEOCON-INSPIRED FUCK-UP IN IRAQ"

[Bandit]

11. Aren't the three exceptions the reasons already given for us being there?

How will this end the war or pull any troops home?

[Roland99]

12. It will stop us from going on house-to-house raids and playing cop in a civil war.

[whistle]

14. That would be a good thing....

...since that is what has caused a great many of the American casualties and deaths of Innocent Iraqis.

[shadowknows69]

18. How roland?

When the logic given to us for that anyway is that it's being done to apprehend Al-Qaeda suspects. Bush can twist anything to his liking I'm not sure this bill is tight enough and I'm wondering why Evil incorporated hasn't realized it and handed GW the pen?

[Roland99]

19. Actually, the phrase al-Qaeda is becoming less and less common

It's something I've been noticing and I wouldn't be surprised to hear some talk of victory soon with a staged withdrawal leading into next year's elections.

Gates isn't a Rumsfeld.

[shadowknows69]

17. I've been wondering the same thing Bandit

that particular language seems to be in all of these. Makes me wonder why Bush is fighting it actually because it is ambiguous enough IMO for him to continue as he has been. All he has to do is get his Generals to scream "Al Qaeda is still here and they're fueling up thier aircraft carriers to follow us when we leave" or "The new US embassy needs 100,000 troops to protect it" or "those dumb ass Irqis still keep shooting at us and not the 'bad guys', they need more trainng"

Wheres the binding language really? Is Bush too stupid to sign a bill that basically still gives him free reign? Is it the help for the troops that he's resisting? Is there a bigger more sinister game going on here and congress is just playing their part of toothless opposition to keep the people placated?