legislation being submitted which would "effectively end military involvement in Iraq."

In a countermove designed to counter President Bush's expected veto of an emergency supplemental spending bill containing a timetable for US troop withdrawal, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is introducing legislation which would "effectively end military involvement in Iraq."

According to a press release sent to RAW STORY, Feingold's 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 passed by the Senate." It would also end "funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008." The exceptions include operations against Qaeda and other terrorist groups, training Iraqi security forces, and funds related to security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

The bill is cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), along with Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The press release notes, "If the President vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, Reid has said he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day."

Now im not really savvy on US politics when it comes to the senate and so forth,
But, effectivley the US president can only veto 1 bill?
And thus this bill coming in means he has to chose which one he'd prefer to veto?

could someone confirm or update me on this, because if this particular bill gets passed, i think the dream of peaceloving citizens might finally be coming to frutition, with this illegal - corporately funded war being forced to end.

rawstory.com...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Agit8dChop]

The president can veto as many bills as he wants.

I'll be curious if the democates will stand united on this. So far, they do a lot of huffing and puffing but the haven't had the balls to actually tell that they want to end the war.

Politics can be so interesting. I just wish that people wern't dieing over in Iraq while our politicians debate what to do.

This does nothing but waste time. This bill will be vetoed and has no chance of passing.

The fact is our troops are on the ground and they are in harms way. They need funding regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the war. It isn't our soldiers' fault that Bush may have made mistakes.

Originally posted by Vipassana
It isn't our soldiers' fault that Bush may have made mistakes.

I agree 100%.
Unfortuantely, they are the ones dealing with the HARSH consequences of his 'mistakes'
I prefer to call them, purposley-maniuplated plans.

And what happens if this happens to get a 51% backing?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

And what happens if this happens to get a 51% backing?

It may indeed, but it will still be vetoed. There is no limit on how many times Bush can veto. The checks and balance system means that if he does veto, the bill goes back to congress and it can only pass if it gets a 2/3rds vote. For it to pass after a veto it will need 66% backing, which is highly unlikely.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Vipassana]