Comments on: Congress Passes Iraq Timeline Bill, Veto Expected

By: jeff b

jeff b — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:08:55 +0000

Tano: Of course the press didn't ask, but the close observer knows the answer already. The Republicans required 86 and 119 days to pass the supplementals in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

By: Tano

Tano — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:27:16 +0000

Perino says: "It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol."

And the crack reporters come back with the obvious question: "How long did the military supplementals take to get through the GOP-controlled Congress the last few years"?

Right? They asked that question, I'm sure.

By: Steve Plunk

Steve Plunk — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:33:11 +0000

The public didn't really vote OUT the Republican Congress. They changed the make up of our congress and put more Democrats in, shifting the power. It was not a major change in seats but just enough to change a few things, far from a mandate of any sort.

Bush's sentiments should rest on the last election he was a candidate. In that election he won.

By: legion

legion — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:57:18 +0000

And in related news, Chuck Hagel voted with the Dems on this bill. Look out for a particularly nasty slime attack on him, starting tomorrow...

By: Triumph

Triumph — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:25:23 +0000

You forgot to mention the most pathetic aspect of the White House response. Perino offered this explanation for the veto:

Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq – and the President listened. Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq – and the President will veto its bill.

Ok, Dana: the American people voted OUT the Republican Congress who were the great supporters of Bush's war. The new Congress passed a bill that offers a way out of the war--that reflects the view of the majority of Americans. And Bush claims that his veto of the bill ACTUALLY REFLECTS the sentiment of the last election?!?!?

This is one of the more desperate rationales I have ever heard.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:24:51 +0000

Clearly, Congress isn’t going to simply refuse to fund a war with troops in the field.

Clearly? I hope this isn't wishful thinking. Perhaps the Democratic Party leadership is counting on the blame falling on Bush and the Republicans no matter how bad it gets. Their rhetoric of late does not seem to allow much room for compromise. There will, of course, have to be a compromise, but I'm not sure that Senator Majority Leader Reid and Speaker of the House Pelosi will maintain their leadership poistions if they push on this one much harder.

By: The Sandbox

The Sandbox — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:05:51 +0000

Senate Passes Iraq Withdrawal Plan...

Looks like it's veto time:In an unprecedented slap at President George W. Bush's war policy, the U.S. Congress on Thursday approved legislation that links withdrawal of combat troops to paying for the war, ensuring a certain veto. Nonetheless, by a...