Showmanship versus legislation: Iraq spending bill with timetable for withdrawal

The Washington Post tells us: Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable. It is not surprising that congress was unable to pass the Iraq deadline for withdrawal bill. Congress can never make US foreign policy, but it can have some oversight on spending. Congress was never interested in really checking if all those billions are just going into someone's Swiss bank account or if they are really doing any good. That is part of what they should be doing. The "timetable" was a silly popular gimmick that was doomed to failure. It was meant to get attention, and it did.

 

From the Post:

 

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

 

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."