The Senate has passed the Iraq War supplemental bill by a vote of 51-47. I will post the roll call as soon as the Senate Clerk does. The bill will now move to a conference between the House and Senate, as the Senate bill has several amendments that must be reconciled with the House bill.
The benchmarks and timetables survived and passed the Senate despite the President’s promise to veto any bill that contains them.
We elected the Democrats to put an end to the war and they have done the best they could considering their small margins and the basic timidity of a sizable part of the Democratic caucus.
I didn’t think Reid and Pelosi could accomplish this, but they did. The Congress is now on the record as saying that the President should begin bringing our troops home in 120 days.
I suspect the President will go ahead and veto the bill. But he can’t change what the Congress has done. Congress said that we should end this war. The Republicans could have filibustered, but they didn’t. They don’t have any fight left in them. They are still flapping their gums and repeating the talking points, but their heart isn’t in it.
The Democrats have the people behind them. They must stay united and stand strong.
Update [2007-3-29 11:34:53 by BooMan]:
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —51
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)NAYs —47
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)Not Voting – 2
Enzi (R-WY)
Johnson (D-SD)
I am truly proud of the Dems going forward with this. I think they realize that the Neocon Juggernaut is going to fall and fail badly, thus crushing the US economy in crippling debt, and that this crony-spending madness must return to pre-Cheney levels of useless Military-Industrial_Media-Financial Services pork barrel spending. Ah, the good ol’ days . . .
So I have faith that the Dems want to keep the status quo going, since the neocon faithful are far-reaching radicals that must be stopped.
I don’t see our government being returned to the people, but at least the Democrats are leaving behind the DLC-driven uber-corporatist-crony-MIDFS complex behnd (some).
Yes, I supported this whole drive, something is better than being shut out of the process entirely by having an extreme anti-war position. I’m glad to see this progress, and Bush’s veto will be even more damaging for CheneyCo. Let’s see what shakes down . . .
Wow. This should be interesting…if the timetables and benchmarks are in both versions of the bill, does that mena there’s no need for reconciling that portion of the bill?
Right.
The amendments all have to do with spending issues. Biden got money for mine resistant vehicles, DeMint stripped money for spinach growers.
All of that has to be reconciled. But the meat of the bill passed intact.
It will be very interesting to see how the presidential veto will be spun.
Well according to what bush said yesterday he is going to say he’ll veto bill because it doesn’t support the troops or give them the money they need…yeah I know that sounds absolutely nuts and crazy but I’m beginning to think bush has lost all or what very little touch with reality that he may have had. He really has gone completely round the bend delusional.
Given that Bush hasn’t an honest or rational bone in his body, this is the only response he’s left with. The strategy of the Big Lie has worked wonders for him so far. It’s no surprise that he’s going to keep using it now.
Roll call vote is up.
Pryor was the one who changed positions on the bill vs. the amendment.
So, Enzi voted for the timeline, but didn’t on the bill?
And of course, traitor Joe (isn’t that a grocery store chain?) voted with his soulmates.
No, Enzi didn’t vote on either.
okay, I thought he had gone against fellow Wyoming-ian Big Dick in a bigger way. I guess not voting is as big stand as he was willing to make.
My mistake.
Yeah, what’s up with Enzi not voting?
Is it for some personal reason? Or do the reps/dems have some sort of “gentleman’s agreement” here–since Johnson can’t vote, a Repub doesn’t vote?
I’m curious.
Markos just posted that Enzi is home in Wyoming with his mother, who is critically ill.
That is the question now. Bush seems to have committed himself to vetoing the bill. So when Dems introduce a new supplemental appropriations bill to replace this one, will they water this bill down, make it stronger, or simply reintroduce the same bill?
This will be the next battle. If they water the bill down to make it more acceptable to Shrub, the victory they have gained by getting this bill passed will be squandered. The Dems must not back down. I think they should simply reintroduce the same bill, restoring the requirement that Shrub not attack Iran without Congress’s approval.
Me, I’d make it tougher. I would send this bill to the President’s desk with a strong message: This is the best bill you are going to get. Don’t sign this, and the next one will be even less palatable. It looks like they have the will and the votes to do it.
Remember, he has about two weeks before he has to start explaining to the American people why he was for funding the war before he was against it. Sure, he’ll blame the Democrats for sending him timetables wrapped in a spending bill, but that’s hokum, and whether he knows it or not, you know it, I know it, Congress knows it and the American people know it.
I would like to have it made tougher too, but I think it would be hard to make the Blue Dogs go along with that. Keeping it the same would have the advantage of avoiding the appearance of being obstructionist.
On the other hand, making it tougher would have the advantage of teaching Shrub a lesson, as you say. Who knows, when the Blue Dogs notice that there is no uproar about the anti-war provisions in the current bill, they will finally realize that there is strong public sentiment against the war, and act accordingly.
I hope the Dem leadership understands that if they water down the bill, their base will erupt in fury.
Maybe it’s time to do a little carrot-and-stick with our representatives. “We’ve got your back, so don’t you dare weaken the next appropriations bill, or else.” Hard to say. I’m represented by three people I can pretty well trust already to vote for any future supplemental with time limits attached (McDermott in the House, Cantwell/Murray in the Senate) so for me it’s more like “Good job, let’s see more of the same.”
That goes double for anyone represented by a Blue Dog.
There are a lot of surprises in this vote that should fuel partisan political speculation and shape the 08 campaigns. For example, who would have thought a few months ago that the two GOP defectors would be Hagel and Smith instead of so-called moderates like Collins, Snowe, Coleman, Specter, Sununu?
It’s interesting that the only two Reps who strayed from Bush are up for reelection next year, while others apparently calculated that distancing themselves from Bush would not improve their chances. Here are the Republicans whose terms expire next year:
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Craig, Larry E. (R-ID)
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
Domenici, Pete V. (R-NM)
Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY)
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Smith, Gordon H. (R-OR)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Sununu, John E. (R-NH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
Next year’s elections now look brighter for Dem senatorial candidates as a result of this Senate vote, seems to me. Given the current mood of the nation, several GOP incumbents have placed their careers in mortal danger, among them Alexander, Coleman, Collins, Domenici (well, more for other reasons), Roberts, Sununu, maybe even Cornyn and Warner. Plus whoever runs for Allard’s seat in CO.
Interesting, too, to consider whether the Dems should now go a little light on Smith and Hagel and concentrate on the total Bushies?
I was dubious about the value of this “weak” bill as it was in process, but now in retrospect, I was dead wrong, as were my political compatibles like Kucinich. The Dem leadership did an amazing job of holding their members together, and the consequences, both substantial and partisan, will be great. I think history will mark this vote as a significant turning point.
so let me get this question answered.if the chimp vetoes this bill,is he vetoing the funding for the troops?
please — someone, answer the above.
thanks billjpa
Yes.
“I didn’t think Reid and Pelosi could accomplish this, but they did. The Congress is now on the record as saying that the President should begin bringing our troops home in 120 days.”
The 120 days puts the whole determination right back in the Chief Executives hands, not the congress, record or no record – in other words it’s a cynical cover for cutting off war funding, forsaking truth in the Orwellian words of “funding the troops”.
No, there is no need to fund the war…unless the idea is to present a political calculation that has nothing to do with ending the war, the troops, the Iraqi people or the American people.
No need to line up behind the timidity of the Dems just because Bush is dispicable. No, the truth is that the Dems leadership only differ with Bush’s foreign policies on the stratgey not the overarching policy. A little history will provide the glaring similarities. The Repub and Dems are aligned with Corporate money and a military industrial complex that is deeply rooted throughout the world and in our social economics.
Stop the funding – stop playing politics with this illegal war!