Senate Ignores Veto Threat, Passes Iraq War Spending Bill 

WASHINGTON —  The Senate on Thursday passed the Iraq war spending bill 51-47 after President Bush said he would likely veto the legislation over the inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The $122 billion emergency supplemental bill funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would require Bush to comply with orders to start bringing troops home from Iraq within four months, with a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who voted against the legislation, said political infighting had led to naming "the date for defeat in Iraq."

"We’ve taken a step backwards,” he said after the vote. “It is the wrong message at the wrong time, surely this will embolden the enemy, it will not help our troops in any way.” ...

***

Breaking: Senate passes Iraq timetable
Allahpundit

Mild surprise in the final tally. As you’ll recall, the amendment to strip the timetable from the bill was defeated 50-48 on Tuesday. The Dems picked up an extra vote somewhere today. Probably Mark Pryor’s.

Standby for updates. While you wait, who wrote this?

The withdrawal language is wrongheaded. As we have argued before, it is bad precedent and bad public policy for Congress to attempt to micromanage military operations in Iraq. As Bush said Wednesday: “It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, D.C., to be dictating arbitrary timelines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away.”…

If a majority of the people’s representatives conclude that the effort to stabilize Iraq has failed, then Congress should vote to cut off war funding. That is its constitutional privilege. But a willingness to wait even a few months to see the results of the surge strategy, followed if necessary by a meaningful threat to cut off funding for combat by a specific date, is more likely to focus Iraqi minds than the current, purely political, play. ...

Surprise.

Update: Solid piece here from the LAT mapping out the maneuvering to come. A compromise bill with the timetable intact is expected on Bush’s desk by mid-April; he’ll veto it, with a standoff expected to continue possibly until August, which at least will give the surge a chance. What about funding in the meantime? Quote: “One tool the Democrats could use would be to pass temporary spending extensions, known as continuing resolutions, for 30 days or so at a time. That would enable them to avoid the charge that they have cut off funding for the troops while keeping the heat on the White House to compromise.”

Update:

***

Fruit Loops
Ed Morrissey

Many of us railed against the pork that the House included in its supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war, along with its mandatory time tables for defeat and retreat. Proving that the House is a collection of pikers in a porkfest, the Senate added its own pork onto their version of the bill -- leading to the strange speech of Barbara Boxer using "Strawberry Fields Forever" in support of a war funding bill:

"There's a song called 'Strawberry Fields Forever,' " the California Democrat declared on the Senate floor, as an aide displayed a poster of an icy berry patch. "This is a strawberry field," Boxer continued, seeking funds for frostbitten fruit farmers. "It looks like an ice rink. The strawberries are somewhere in there; they are destroyed. I also want to show you oranges. . . . Here you can see the icicles near the avocados."

The relationship between crops and troops was lost on Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who backed an amendment that would remove spending for sugar beets and other agricultural pursuits. "I don't see how the asparagus-spinach problem helps us win in Iraq," he argued at a news conference.  ...

***

Handcuffing the troops 
Michelle Malkin

The Senate passes the Retreat Deadline bill.

Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by two Republicans, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, in voting for the measure. Opposed were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman.

Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wy., and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., did not vote.

Hello, veto.

***

N.Z. Bear at Victory Caucus notes that Congress is in such an urgent state of emergency over the war spending bill that it's going on Spring Break: ...

***

Senate Passes Cut-and-Run Supplemental;
Cuts-and-Runs Home for Spring Break

The Democrat-controlled Senate has succeeded in passing their version of the "emergency" supplemental which, buried under conditions, defeatist withdrawal timetables, and piles of pork  actually contains the funding that our troops need to keep fighting.

The bill pased 51-47. Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) voted against it, while on the other side, Republicans Chuck Hagel (R-NB) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) crossed over to vote for defeat.

So what happens now? Well, President Bush has made crystal clear that he will veto the bill. But he won't even get a chance for several weeks. The Democratic leadership have decided to stick to the normal (read: non-emergency) calendar, and so Congress is now heading home for Spring Break. Once they return, the Senate bill still needs to be reconciled with the House version, and so the final bill won't make it to President Bush's desk until at least mid-April.

Meanwhile, our troops are waiting.  ...

***

Democrat Iraq Bill Brings 'Green Zones' to the Homeland
by Scott Ott

(2007-03-29) — A little-known provision of the $124 billion Iraq redeployment time-line bill, passed by Congress this week, would bring the 'Green Zone' concept home to major American cities as U.S. troops pull out of Iraq.

The idea for setting up heavily-fortified security perimeters in New York, Washington D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Houston and elsewhere came from journalists, diplomats and politicians who have enjoyed the safe feeling they get in the Green Zone in Baghdad. ...

According to language in the provision, “the new Homeland Green Zones will ensure that, even if Islamic terrorists follow our troops back to our shores, they won’t stand a chance of attacking our politicians and other important citizens. Their impact will be limited to striking at less strategic targets, like ordinary citizens and second-tier landmarks.” 

Scott's on a roll today. Click here and here while you're at it.