Democrats Move To Cut Bush's War Funding If Iraq Withdrawal Vetoed

[Bob Geiger]

The White House and Republican leaders may think that they will have dodged the majority of the American people when George W. Bush vetoes the recently-passed war-funding bill containing a provision mandating withdrawal from Iraq but, as they so often are, they will be mistaken.

In anticipation of a Bush veto and the likelihood that they won’t be able to summon enough Republicans who care about the troops or public opinion sufficiently to override that veto, Senate Democrats are already rolling out a contingency plan that puts the GOP on notice about something very important: That they are going to be forced over and over again to be on the record as voting to strand our military men and women in the middle of a bloody civil war.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), long one of the gutsy leaders on the Democratic side of the Senate aisle, has announced that he will propose legislation immediately on return from this week's break that will cut off all funding for the Iraq war in less than a year.

Upping the ante on another major showdown immediately following the expected Bush veto of the war-funding (and withdrawal) bill, is the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) supports the Feingold measure and has signed on as the bill's first cosponsor.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “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.”

The Feingold legislation would take the withdrawal language passed last week a step further by not just calling for a withdrawal of troops, but actually cutting off money for the war effort, thus forcing Bush's hand.

With only three narrow exceptions to the directive, the bill states that redeployment of U.S. forces must begin within 120 days of enactment and, more importantly, that "no funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008."

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” said Feingold, in a statement. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

The Senate is in recess this week but it is expected that Senator Feingold will formally propose his legislation on the first day of the next work session, April 10.

"This is the next significant step toward ending this war," Feingold said in an interview over the weekend. "Congress can't afford to be characterized as backing down at this point. . . . If he <Bush> vetoes it, he's basically challenging us to accept his will."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Update: I have the full text -- short and sweet -- of the Feingold-Reid legislation here.

[TayTay]

1. Excellent

This is great news. I am very happy Sen. Reid is taking this action and forcing the Republicans to see that the issue of Iraq is not going to go away and that they are going to be looking at this war every day the Congress is in session.

I hope they get 51 co-sponsors. (Well, okay, no Lieberman, so maybe it's 50.)

[weezy2736]

6. Nah, I'll take 51

Even if I don't like Chuckie, it's fun to agree with Republicans sometimes, makes me feel nice and bipartisan.

[niceypoo]

2. Send Bush out the door in 08 with a mess on his hands, legacy sealed

It's what the american people voted them in to do....end this debacle before more innocents die. Almost 65% want us to leave Iraq. Its time to make a gutsy stand.

[terip64]

3. Great news! Kick and recommend!

[ginnyinWI]

4. Brilliant.

With each successive bill it's going to get worse for them--and the Repubs will be wishing they had signed the previous one. But it will be too late! Sure it's "playing politics", but it's to a good end. They're going to find out who knows how to play that game. As Pelosi said, there's a new Congress in town.

[jwirr]

7. Nixon was finally asked to resign by his own party. It was getting

way to hot for them.

[ginnyinWI]

8. that would be the best case this time, too.

Let the GOP impeach *, or at least begin to ignore his wishes from here until the end of his term. We know he won't resign willingly--or would he? I have the feeling he has less loyalty to his party than Nixon did.

[ScottGregory]

5. Dems lying about Iraq war also, leaving escape provisions!!

JMO, but(copy of full AP release below) the Dems are lying about Iraq also. They are leaving language in the bill that would allow continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, calling it "with three narrow exception."
Here's is one of the exception:
"(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Now, what do you think of exception (2)...that covers continued maintenance of troops for the huge U.S. embassy, and the 4-5 huge military bases.

This is crap! That language must be struck form the bill, and require ALL U.S. MILITARY AND NON-MILITARY OPERATIONS, INCLUDING COVERT AND "PRIVATE SECURITY" OPERATIONS AND OPERATIVES to be REMOVED FROM ANY IRAQI TERRITORY.

--sg

Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The 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 the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

"I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation," Reid said. "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."

"I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end," Feingold said. "Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq."

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services

[BeFree]

9. Careful there Scott

Don't you know the bill is just the best we will ever get? At least that's what so many here on DU have told me.

Don't you feel good that you are not buying into that? That you and I, and others, still think that the best thing to do for Iraq is to pull all the money from the occupation, ASAP?

And it appears that Mr. Feingold agrees with us?

[newyawker99]

12. Hi ScottGregory!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[IChing]

10. Thank you Russ Feingold

I think it is a good plan which might work I went to his site and pulled this off of it.

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html

[ScottGregory]

11. Look at that sect. (d), (2) which reads...

"(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel."

So as long as we are in Iraq, we can stay there...that's what that EXCEPTION means. And as I posted before, that means we keep the 4+ huge military bases and the big embassy, LOL!!

This is just a smoke-and-mirrors job on the American people.