Informed Speculation

I don’t know what else to call it, since the Senate will apparently keep the withdrawal language, as we discussed below; basically, the Senate and House have voted for a veto. Fair enough, a veto they will get:

The Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

The vote triggered an instant veto threat from the White House in a deepening dispute between Congress and commander in chief.

Republican attempts to scuttle the nonbinding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines.

Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — called “two brave Republicans” by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after the vote — joined Democrats in opposing the amendment.

The roll call marked the Senate’s most forceful challenge to date of the administration’s handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. It came days after the House approved a binding withdrawal deadline of August 31, 2008.

“This is a strong message which amplifies the action of the House and reflects the overwhelming sentiment of the American people,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island. “It’s a message that must be heeded by the president and by the government of Iraq.”

Three months after Democrats took power in Congress, Reid said the moment was at hand to “send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war.”

But Republicans — and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat — argued otherwise.

John McCain, R-Arizona, a presidential hopeful, said that “we are starting to turn things around” in the Iraq war and that a timeline for withdrawal would embolden the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

The effect of the timeline would be to “snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq,” agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war candidate.

Bush had previously said he would veto any bill that he deemed an attempt to micromanage the war, and the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote — and again afterward.

“The president is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law,” it said.

The administration contends that setting a timetable on the war assumes failure in Iraq.

“This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies and undercut the administration’s plan to develop the Iraqi economy,” the White House said in a statement before the vote.

The $122 billion bill would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but order Bush to begin bringing some troops home right away, with the goal of ending combat missions by March 31, 2008.

The bill is similar to one the House passed last week, but with a tougher deadline. While the Senate identifies March 2008 as a goal — giving the president leeway to ignore the deadline — the House voted 218-212 to require all combat troops out as of August 31, 2008.

I’m disappointed, naturally, since the Senate DOES seem to have swung a little (and that is a victory for Democrats, let’s not sugarcoat it). Nevertheless, I hope once the President uses his veto, as he most assuredly will, that we can get a supplemental bill through both houses that actually helps the troops instead of makes a political statement, and one that is pork-free, thank you very much…