Senate resolution to criticize Iraq plan
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer
Published January 17, 2007 by Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)
Senate Democrats working with a well-known Republican war critic are developing a resolution declaring that President Bush's troop build up in Iraq "is not in the national interest," said people familiar with the document.
The resolution also would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress, according to officials who are knowledgeable about the draft.
These officials would speak only on grounds of anonymity because the drafting is still under way. Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, is helping Democrats with the wording of the anti-war resolution.
"It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq," it says.
The resolution will be cosponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) and Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), as well as Hagel. Levin, D-Mich., chairs the Armed Services Committee, and Biden, D-Del., heads the Foreign Relations Committee.
The Senate leadership is expected by Thursday to propose the resolution, with debate planned around the same time that Bush delivers his State of the Union speech next Tuesday.
Hagel's agreement to help Democrats champion the resolution amounts to a setback to the administration and to Bush, who has argued vehemently that some 21,500 additional U.S. troops are needed to help the Iraqi government calm sectarian violence in Baghdad and Anbar province.
Bush announced on Jan. 10 that he planned to augment the more than 130,000 forces in Iraq with the additional 21,5000 troops.
Earlier, Bush summoned Republicans skeptical of the war to the White House to discuss the issue as Democratic House and Senate leaders maneuver for votes to gauge GOP opposition to Bush's policy.
The White House refused to say who was invited to meet with Bush.
The resolutions in Congress seemed likely to be largely symbolic and they would not affect the Pentagon's war budget or challenge the president's authority over U.S. forces. Such votes, however, could be a shot across the bow to Bush.
The resolutions also would help Democrats measure GOP support for more aggressive legislative tactics, such as cutting off funds for the war.
Such a vote puts many Republicans in an uncomfortable position. They will have to decide whether to stay loyal to an unpopular GOP president and risk angering voters disillusioned by the war or buck the party line.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said Wednesday she thinks there should be a cap on U.S. troops in Iraq and said she wants "to condition American aid to the Iraqis on their meeting political benchmarks."
"I am opposed to this escalation," she said on NBC's "Today" program. "The Bush administration has frankly failed to put any leverage on this government," said Clinton, considered a likely 2008 Democratic presidential front-runner, although she has not yet entered the race.
Bush has been trying to sell his revised war plan to the public in a series of television interviews. He told PBS's Jim Lehrer in an interview broadcast Tuesday that keeping his old policies in place would lead to "a slow failure," but withdrawing from Iraq, as some Democrats and other critics suggest, would result in an "expedited failure."
"I am frustrated with the progress," Bush said. "A year ago, I felt pretty good about the situation. I felt like we were achieving our objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself. No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq."
Several GOP members of Congress have offered only lukewarm endorsements of Bush's plan.
Republican Rep. Chris Shays â€" who scraped by in the November elections while his GOP Connecticut colleagues Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson lost their seats â€" said his vote would depend on what Democrats come up with. He said he supports the troop push if there are guarantees offered by the Iraqis that they will reach a political settlement.
Lining up behind Bush in the Senate are Republican stalwarts and a few members who have long backed sending more troops to Iraq, including Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.
Acknowledging their party is divided on Iraq, Republican leaders are trying to stave off a showdown in Congress by casting Democratic efforts as a political ploy to embarrass the president.
Republicans are also discussing alternative proposals, including one House resolution promising to keep funding for troops in combat.
The White House cautioned lawmakers about the consequences of voting against a buildup.
"The one thing the president has said is, whatever you do, make sure you support the troops," press secretary Tony Snow said at the White House. "And the question people who support this resolution will have to ask is, how does this support the troops?"
This is a beginning, nothing that will change Bush* policy any time soon, but at least Senate spines are show signs of existence. It's good to see Sen. Clinton on board, as her take on the War thus far has been unclear, to put it nicely.
The Congress can cut funding to the War, which will not end it tomorrow, but will begin the process. This is how the Vietnam War came to an end, by Congressional legislation cutting funds, and limiting the number of troops allowed in the field.
Of course, the down side is that Bush* and the neocons may try to cast the Dems and allies as "losing" the war in Iraq. I doubt this argument will convince anyone at this point.
It's going to be a mess for the next two years, but the more lives we can save by pushing the Congress to act, the better. Nobody will forget Bush*'s failures. His bloody, idiot's legacy will haunt the Republicans for a long time to come.
Interesting.
I saw one of our (republican) senators last weekend while dining before the National Dual Wrestling Meet in cedar Falls, IA. I introduced myself and told him I'd appreciate it if he could help get this Iraq/Bush debacle settled the next time he happens to be in Washington. Not sure what he thought of my comment by his smile and handshake in response. hehe
lw
haha! You know, it doesn't always seems so, but they do listen to what people has to say...it just they are so spineless to what the media and spin doctors are saying as well...we'll see...
What I don't understand is that in a democracy, the leaders are supposed to do what the nation tells them to do and wants to do. Bush does as he pleases and the public be damned. How can one man have that much power? It's because he has usurped power systematicaly ever since he got in by stealing the vote. Clinton and others were doing the same thing but Bush has carried it to new heights. He does unconstitutional things every day but the "free press" seems totally unconcerned and gives him a free pass.
Signing statements are unconstitutional but he is getting away with it. Illegal detentions, warrantless opening of mail and so on are all unconstitutional. The patriot act is unconstitutional, IMO, and I'm waiting for the supreme court to make some ruling on the. But the court has been packed with Bush cronies so I don't hold out a lot of hope on that front. We are in a crisis.
Pelosi, White House clash over Iraq
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Published January 19, 2007 at Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) contended Friday that President Bush is rushing new troops to Iraq and betting that Congress won't cut off funds once they're in battle. The White House called her assertion "poisonous."
In an exchange of harsh rhetoric that underscored the intensity of the political fight, Pelosi, D-Calif., said the war should not be "an obligation of the American people in perpetuity."
"The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way," Pelosi said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
When asked whether she thought the president manipulated the deployments to avoid congressional action, Pelosi said she hoped he did not but thought "he could have told us about it sooner. ... We found out about it as the troops were going in."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino retorted that lawmakers are involved in a "sound bite war" against Bush, counter to Democrats' promises of bipartisanship.
"Those particular comments were poisonous," Perino said. "I think questioning the president's motivations and suggesting that he, for some political reason, is rushing troops into harm's way, is not appropriate, it is not correct, and it is unfortunate because we do have troops in harm's way."
In a letter to Bush, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said they were eager to work "in a bipartisan fashion on the terrorism issue and in so doing strengthen the relationship between your administration and Congress."
Meanwhile, support was building around a resolution that would oppose Bush's plans for more troops to Iraq.
Senate Democrats, backed by Republicans Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine and Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, unveiled legislation this week that would criticize Bush's decision.
"It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq," the nonbinding Senate measure states.
"When we hold the up-or-down vote â€" and in the many votes that follow â€" our troops will get everything they need," Reid said Friday. "It is the president who will find he no longer has a blank check."
Republican Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon said he was wary of the term "escalating" in the resolution and was working with Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb. on a "constructive, nonpartisan resolution that expresses the opposition of the Senate to the surge."
Collins and Nelson, alongside Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., were expected to announce the details of that resolution on Monday. While the senators declined to offer details, Warner has said he is most concerned that U.S. troops will be caught in the crossfire of an endless sectarian conflict.
Officials have said one possibility under discussion by some Republicans is an alternative that supports the troop increase as long as the Iraqi government meets certain conditions.
Pelosi's criticism Friday came as Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, told a House panel that Bush's plan to deploy 21,500 additional troops to secure Baghdad and Anbar province could delay progress in training Iraqi security forces.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended removing U.S. combat troops by early next year, and changing the U.S. mission from security to training and logistical support of Iraqi troops.
If a focus remains on security, "you delay the date of completion of the training mission. You delay the date of handing responsibility to the Iraqis. You delay the date of departure of U.S. troops," Hamilton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
___
Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.
Pelosi is tough, and she's leading the majority, we have to wait and see what this word firefight with Bush yields. She has the pursestrings of the Congress behind her, and American support.
Signing statements are not illegal, just being unconstitutionally used by Bush. Many presidents have used them, just not to say that they don't listen to no steenin' laws as the Chimp does.
The press is supposed to be independent, they will annoy progressives at times, and do seem skewed by their corporate masters and lack of balanced reporting. But I have noticed that they will jump on any bloody story, any politician who seems vulnerable, any bright shiny story. We cannot trust them for the truth, just mostly for how the wind blows.
Keep an eye out late January when Bush asks for billions more in war money. If the Congress rolls over, then I think we better take to the streets. If not, then the elections really did make their point. Will world will be heeded? I don't know what to expect.
I say cut them off at the knees. Congress should cut off all funding for the Iraq occupation. Bush can either make a phased withdrawal with what funds he has left or do something stupid. If he does something stupid that gets the troops killed it will be clearly his fault. I think he would simply usurp more power and take money from somewhere else and put it in Iraq. He needs to be taken out and hung moreso than Saddam did.
(//http://www.fuzzytravel.com/manue/pictures/random-pics/2794-peace.jpg)
Being there:
As war looms with Iraq, protestors fill the streets of San Francisco
Story & photos by ANDREW EDWARDS
"In the midst of a march of thousands, tens of thousands, their signs pumping up and down like pistons in a massive anti-war machine, a daisy-chain of white prayer flags flapped delicately in the breeze. At the poles were the old, the young, the starry-eyed, the hard-bitten, veterans of protests past, veterans of foreign wars, first-time protesters (like myself), housewives, grandmothers, treesitters, everything in between...."
//http://www.northcoastjournal.com/012303/rally0123.html
Whoa there. A resolution to criticize? That's pretty heavy-handed, don't you think? :P:D