powerclown

You are correct DC, I misspoke. Looking over the bill online, I see they needed some republican votes in there as well. What I don't understand is, why did the Dems send this to the President, knowing beforehand that 1) Bush would veto, 2) they wouldn't have the votes to override the veto?

edit: seretogis provides an answer to that question.

sorry, 'anti-war democrats' in regard to those in favor of setting a timetable for withdrawal:

Defections now likely on Iraq bill
By Mike Soraghan
May 23, 2007

Liberal Democrats who reluctantly have backed House leaders on the Iraq spending bill may defect due to the leadership’s decision to eliminate any timeline for withdrawal from the legislation.

That could force the leadership to rely on Republican votes to pass the war-spending bill, which is expected to come to the floor as early as Thursday.

“The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a leader of the Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s going to take Republican votes to pass it.”

Woolsey has voted consistently against Iraq supplemental spending bills, saying they don’t do enough to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

Her observation is backed by comments by members like Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.). He was a surprise vote in favor of the original supplemental this year, but he said yesterday he cannot back the bill again without a timeline.

Grijalva said: “I’ve supported it all the way to this point. I understand the work that went into it. But if the goal is accountability, I don’t think this gets us closer to that goal.”

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said he expects enough Democrats to switch that leadership vote-counters will lose the margin of victory they have enjoyed so far.

“I’m on the edge,” he said. “I’m not liking this. A lot of people have bought into the notion that you have to fund the troops. Funding the troops means more troops are going to die.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) indicated that just because he has voted for it before does not mean he will vote for it without a timeline.

“Probably not,” Nadler said. “If it doesn’t have some sort of timeline, it’s going to be tough for me to vote for it.”

Freshman Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who ran against the war and enthusiastically supported the first supplemental and its call for withdrawal, is also wavering. Asked whether he could support the new plan, he shook his head and said, “I don’t know.”

If Democrats are looking for Republican votes, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) thinks they can find them. He says he would be surprised if the proposal cannot garner 10 to 15 GOP votes.

“If the bill is without timelines, there would be a few Republicans who have bases and military retirees in their districts who feel the need to support the troops,” Jones said.

[At a caucus meeting at press time, House Democratic leaders outlined their plan to get around liberal defections. The supplemental spending bill will be brought to the House floor as two amendments to the Senate bill. The first will be President Bush’s original Iraq supplemental request. It is expected to pass with the votes of many Republicans and conservative Democrats. The second, a domestic spending bill to include money for children’s health insurance, Gulf Coast hurricane relief, minimum wage and other items. They will be combined procedurally without a vote and sent to the Senate.

“It’s a concession to reality,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.).]

The timeline for withdrawal of troops fell to the cutting-room floor as leaders sought to fashion a bill that President Bush could sign and that could be passed by the Memorial Day break. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the House will not leave for that recess until a bill is sent to the president.

Democratic Caucus briefings on the bill were delayed twice this week. A Monday night caucus meeting was canceled, and the regular Tuesday meeting ended before Iraq came up, after a long discussion on trade.

The legislation is expected to include minimum-wage provisions and money for Gulf Coast hurricane relief and children’s health insurance, but it will exclude agricultural relief spending.

“There will be an awful lot of things in the supplemental that members will consider very important,” Hoyer said.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted that the final war-funding measure would incorporate the benchmarks-based provision authored by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and cosponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Supporters of the plan to remove timelines say it takes the question of whether Democrats will “fund the troops” off the table and opens the door to an uninhibited debate on Iraq policy in upcoming bills like the regular defense appropriations bill. Moran, for example, said he intends to vote for the supplemental “under the assumption that there will be stronger language” in future bills.

“This bill will get us to funding the troops,” said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.). “We’re going to come to an accommodation on funding the troops and keep the process going. Eventually, there will be a date certain.”
Lawmakers say they have to work with President Bush on this bill to keep moving towards ending the war, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said.

“In the end, the president has the last say,” Ruppersberger said. “The most important thing is the endgame — getting our troops out.”