[Peace-discuss] Iraq War: conf. call with Sen. Durbin

[John W.]

On 7/19/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

Durbin's answer about "setting the bar at voting for legally binding
> withdrawal language [because] nothing less will move Bush" doesn't ring
> quite true when everyone knows that the White House has announced
> unequivocally that it will veto any "legally binding withdrawal
> language." The Democrats want to be able to say that they did everything
> possible to stop the war but couldn't -- while they don't do the one
> thing that would work, not voting funding.


Please indulge my ignorance for a moment.  If the Congress were somehow to
deny funding for further war in Iraq (I assume this would be part of some
overall appropriations bill; is it both houses of Congress that would have
to pass such a bill?), couldn't Bush veto THAT?  And if Bush vetoed it,
wouldn't it require a two-thirds majority in both houses to override his
veto?

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070720/ab4875f5/attachment.html