Democrats Alter Plan To Restrict Iraq War

[cenacle]

Democrats Alter Plan To Restrict Iraq War
By Jonathan Weisman

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 by the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01604.html

Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January.

The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president's role as commander in chief.

The legislative jujitsu in the backrooms of Capitol Hill underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress -- Iraq. Democrats passed a resolution in February opposing Bush's deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, but Murtha's proposal to go a step further by restricting deployment to troops deemed to be adequately trained and equipped elicited a fierce response from Republicans, while also dividing the Democratic caucus.

The new plan would demand that Bush certify that combat troops meet the military's own standards of readiness, which are routinely ignored. The president could then waive such certifications if doing so is in "the national interest."

Democrats hope the waiver and benchmark proposals, whose details were confirmed by aides and senior Democrats close to the House Appropriations Committee and leadership, will keep the policymaking responsibilities on Bush. That should allow the committee to move forward next week with a $100 billion war spending bill.

"They're going to end up where they should have started a long time ago: You set readiness requirements, time-in-country requirements, time-in-rotation requirements as policy, then grant the president waivers and demand why it's so important for him to violate these principles," said a senior Democrat close to the Appropriations Committee. "It's all part of military regulations now. You have to elevate that to the policy of the country."

But any dilution of Murtha's original proposal is likely to infuriate the antiwar wing of the party, which wants dramatic action now. After a conference call yesterday, antiwar and labor groups all but gave up on Murtha's approach, concluding they could only support a war-funding "supplemental" bill if it contains a deadline for withdrawing troops.

Participants -- including the Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org, Win Without War and the Iraq veterans group VoteVets -- insisted there would be more support for a straightforward approach to ending the war than the roundabout efforts Murtha champions.

"A timeline will make a vote for the supplemental a vote to end the war and a vote against it a vote for war without end," said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

That conclusion mirrors the judgment of even some of the Democrats the proposal was meant to attract. One conservative lawmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of angering Democratic leaders, dismissed Murtha's approach as "too cute by half."

Democratic leaders are not likely to embrace a straightforward legislative timetable. But they hope the adoption of the benchmarks will win over antiwar groups.

Under those benchmarks, which Bush laid out in a speech to the nation Jan. 10, the Iraqi government would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. The government would also have to spend $10 billion of Iraq's money on job-creating reconstruction and infrastructure projects; hold new provincial elections this year; liberalize laws that purged Baath Party members from the government; and establish a fairer process for amending the Iraqi constitution.

If those benchmarks are not met, Democrats would demand Bush submit to Congress a timetable for withdrawing troops, leadership aides said. The idea is to force Bush to abide by his own promises but to make sure he remains responsible for conducting and ending the war.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution that would drastically narrow the scope of the military mission in Iraq to that of a support role, with the emphasis on counterterrorism activities. The effort is expected to last most of the week, with debate starting on the Senate floor as early as next week.

But unlike last month, when nonbinding language expressing opposition to Bush's troop increase plan was blocked by GOP procedural objections, Democrats this time intend to give Republicans broad latitude to offer their own Iraq-related measures. If Republicans go along, the result could be a remarkably robust and wide-open debate -- but nothing of consequence is likely to pass.

Staff writers Shailagh Murray and Lyndsey Layton contributed to this report.

[laughingwillow]

What a joke. More toothless legislation.

lw

[Stonehenge]

I agree. The demos are just trying to look like they are opposing the war without actually doing anything. It's nothing but posturing. I've said it over and over, the D's are just as worthless as the R's. Toss the rascals out and put greens in office.

[laughingwillow]

Rapscallions, all!

I'm so tired of opening the local morning paper and seeing Hillary starring me down with that fake grin of hers. She's darn near been living out here on the prairie in preparation for the caucses NEXT YEAR!

lw

[cenacle]

The Scooter Libby verdict and the veterans' hospital scandal further weaken an already weakened administration. I'm willing to wait awhile longer to see how things play out. I'm not optimistic, but I've decided to retrieve the towel I threw in a few days ago. I don't know what's going to happen next, but I do know that Iraq is not getting better, and the march to war with Iran, and possibly North Korea, have both stalled. The Dems are putting a brake on Bush right now, not yet altering the general course of things. But if they had not won the majority in Congress, we'd be at war with Iran already, I'd bet.

None of this is to say I'm happy, but what I see is what someone predicted, which is gridlock. A political trench warfare. I don't trust it, just try to see it as better than things were last year. Not saying much, but saying something.

God, I hate it when I post the "reasonable" response to a thread :twisted:

[laughingwillow]

Well, maybe we're getting too worked up about this gubmit bidness. Things are improving in Iraq. I know its so, because I heard Bush say it the other day. hahahahaha Doh! I mean, Waah! waah!

lw

[cenacle]

things are not improving in Iraq or anywhere else right now, but there are signs everywhere that the pendulum is swinging back...it couldn't swing much more to the right anyway...my main point, Willow, was that while Dems and Pubes are all government employees, and in some ways alike, there are big differences in how their parties are peopled...

i've said this before but let me put it this way: if Gore had taken his office in 2000, would we be at war with Iraq? No. He had no mission to pursue there, revenge, oil millions for his buddies, owning the land for the Rapture, whatever...Gore would have gone after Bin Laden...I don't know if Bin Laden engineered 9/11 alone or in cahoots with the Bush junta, or what...but I do know things would not have been as they are...

[cenacle]

Democrats want Iraq pullout by fall 2008
By David Espo, AP Special Correspondent

Published March 8, 2007 by Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_ ... JVW6Ws0NUE

In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) said the deadline would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She told reporters the measure would mark the first time the new Democratic-controlled Congress has established a "date certain" for the end of U.S. combat in the four-year-old war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The White House had no immediate reaction, although Bush has repeatedly rejected talk of establishing a deadline for troop withdrawals.

Within an hour of Pelosi's news conference, House Republican Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) attacked the measure. He said Democrats were proposing legislation that amounted to "establishing and telegraphing to our enemy a timetable" that would result in failure of the U.S. military mission in Iraq.

"Gen. (David) Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha (news, bio, voting record)," the Ohio Republican added. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, has been heavily involved in crafting legislation designed to end U.S., participation in the war.

According to an explanation of the measure distributed by Democratic aides, the timetable for withdrawal would be accelerated if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not meet goals for providing for Iraq's security.

Democrats won control of Congress last fall in midterm elections shadowed by public opposition to the war, and have vowed since taking power to challenge Bush's policies.

Pelosi made her announcement as Senate Democrats reviewed a different approach â€" a measure that would set a goal of a troop withdrawal by March of 2008. Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada called a closed-door meeting of the rank-and-file to consider the measure.

In the House, Pelosi and the leadership have struggled in recent days to come up with an approach on the war that would satisfy liberals reluctant to vote for continued funding without driving away more moderate Democrats unwilling to be seen as tying the hands of military commanders.

The decision to impose conditions on the war risks a major confrontation with the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress.

But without a unified party, the Democratic leadership faced the possibility of a highly embarrassing defeat when the spending legislation reaches a vote, likely later this month.

To make the overall measure more attractive politically, Democrats also intend to add $1.2 billion to Bush's request for military operations in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is expected to mount a spring offensive.

The bill also would add $3.5 billion to Bush's request for veterans' health care and medical programs for active duty troops at facilities such as the scandal-scarred Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

Democrats also proposed $735 million for a health care program for low-income children. The program is popular among governors of both political parties, but the administration has not signaled its acquiescence to the additional money.

As described by Democrats, the legislation will require Bush to certify by July 1 and again by Oct. 1. whether the Iraqi government is making progress toward providing for the country's security, allocating its oil revenues and creating a fair system for amending its constitution.

They said if Bush certified the Iraqis were meeting these so-called benchmarks, U.S. combat troops would have to begin withdrawing by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by Sept. 1.

Otherwise, the deadlines would move up.

If Bush cannot make the required certification by July 1, troops must begin a six-month withdrawal immediately. If Bush cannot make the second certification, the same six-month timetable would apply.

The legislation also requires the Pentagon to adhere to its existing standards for equipping and training U.S. troops sent overseas and for providing time at home between tours of combat.

Pelosi said the provision was designed to make sure the government would "not be sending our troops into battle without the proper training, the proper equipment."

Yet it also permits Bush to issue waivers of these standards. Democrats described the waiver provision as an attempt to embarrass the president into adhering to the standards. But they concede the overall effect would be to permit the administration to proceed with plans to deploy five additional combat brigades to the Baghdad area over the next few months.

The measure emerged from days of private talks among Democrats following the collapse of Rep. John Murtha's original proposal, which would have required the Pentagon to meet readiness and training standards without the possibility of a waiver.

Murtha, D-Pa., and chairman of a House Appropriations military subcommittee, said its implementation would have starved the war effort of troops because the Pentagon would not have been able to find enough fully rested, trained and equipped units to meet its needs.

Several moderate Democrats spoke out against it, though. And Republicans sharply attacked it as the abandonment of troops already in the war zone.

___

Associated Press reporters Jim Abrams and Anne Flaherty contributed to this story.

[cenacle]

now THIS is what we've been waiting for, pullout timetable attached to war funding bill...it's going to get ugly, but now that Nancy has set her print on it, she's going to rally her people to push it...

it's taken them weeks to hone their strategy and it may get honed some more in the verbal bloodbath to come, but it's about fucking time...they work for US, they work for ALL the americans in iraq and afghanistan, and they are supposed to be citizens of the world...let's see them act like it hereon...

[laughingwillow]

quote above: Yet it also permits Bush to issue waivers of these standards. Democrats described the waiver provision as an attempt to embarrass the president into adhering to the standards. But they concede the overall effect would be to permit the administration to proceed with plans to deploy five additional combat brigades to the Baghdad area over the next few months.

Do you really think Bush and cronies give a rats-ass about being embarrassed over this? As far as I can see, Bush will become embarrassed only when his war effort in Iraq is deemed a failure by those around him, and that ain't happening, imo.  Not as long as we have troops on the ground.

lw

[cenacle]

Democrats Rally Behind a Pullout From Iraq in ’08
By Jeff Zeleny and Robin Toner

Published March 9, 2007 by the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washi ... ref=slogin

WASHINGTON, March 8 â€" Democratic leaders in the House and Senate began a new legislative push on Thursday for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in 2008, coalescing behind a fixed timetable to end the war.

The plan to establish a specific date for removing troops intensifies the confrontation with the administration at a time when Congress is scrutinizing President Bush’s request for nearly $100 billion in additional spending toward military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Republicans vowed to block the new Democratic effort, which they said amounted to micromanaging the war, and the White House immediately signaled its opposition.

“It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it’s safe to say it’s a nonstarter for the president,” said Dan Bartlett, a senior White House adviser, speaking to reporters as he traveled with Mr. Bush to Latin America.

Given the Republican opposition and the Democrats’ slender margin in the Senate, the significance of the new plans was as much political as it was legislative. Democratic leaders in the House were optimistic about passing their legislation, but their counterparts in the Senate faced immediate resistance from Republicans and acknowledged that their chances of attracting enough votes seemed slim.

The new American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, warned on Thursday that American troops there faced a long road ahead and left open the possibility of calling in even more soldiers to calm the country. He stressed the long-term nature of the effort and asserted a need for open-endedness in the American commitment.

The notion of Democratic leaders embracing a timetable to leave Iraq had ramifications beyond Congress, particularly in the presidential race. The Senate plan sets a goal for troops to be removed by March 31, 2008, similar to a proposal by Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois.

A chief rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has advocated a phased withdrawal of troops, but has not proposed setting a specific date. She said she intended to support the Democratic resolution. “It’s a goal; it’s not a hard deadline, it’s a goal,” Mrs. Clinton said in an interview Thursday evening as she left the Capitol. “We’re just trying to create some pressure on the president. That’s the whole point here.”

The proposals in the House and Senate reflected the growing sentiment among Democrats that the American public was ready for an end to the war and would not punish their party for escalating the pressure on Mr. Bush to do so. Still, Democratic leaders worked behind the scenes, from dawn to dusk, to sell the plans to the party’s nervous conservatives and still unsatisfied liberals.

“This is extremely painful,” said Representative Carol Shea-Porter, a New Hampshire Democrat elected last fall, in part, because of her opposition to the war. She is eager to end the conflict but intent on supporting the troops. “There are times that you have to search for a compromise for the good of the country.”

In the House, Democratic leaders presented legislation to their members on Thursday that would place new conditions on military operations in Iraq as well as call for a troop withdrawal no later than August 2008. The proposals are attached to an emergency spending bill that will be considered next week in the Appropriations Committee and debated on the House floor before the end of the month.

The Democratic proposal in the House would require Mr. Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting a series of military, political and economic benchmarks. If Mr. Bush cannot verify any progress in Iraq, the legislation calls for the majority of all combat troops to be removed beginning July of this year and completed by Dec. 31.

The legislation also would prohibit military action in Iran unless authorized by Congress.

To build support for the plan among Republicans and inside their own caucus, Democrats also proposed spending an additional $900 million to help troops recover from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress. The plan also calls for $1.2 billion more than Mr. Bush requested to fight terrorists in Afghanistan.

“This bill takes giant steps toward putting resources into that war, a war that is unfinished and nearly forgotten by the administration,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.

Democratic leaders loaded the spending bill in the House with provisions intended to build support, or make it hard to vote against, including money for Gulf Coast recovery efforts, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, agriculture disaster programs and security.

The Democratic spending bill is expected to add at least another $20 billion to the administration’s initial request of just over $100 billion â€" and it could still grow.

For much of the day on Thursday, liberal Democrats in the House strolled in and out of the narrow hallway that leads to Ms. Pelosi’s office in the Capitol. Democratic leaders sought to allay concerns from some lawmakers that the proposal was not an aggressive enough stance against a four-year-old war.

“All this bill will do is fund another year of the war, and I can’t vote for that,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, who rose at a closed-door meeting to express dissatisfaction with the plan, which he said he believed lacked provisions to force a troop withdrawal.

Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees defense spending and has been one of the party’s most visible war critics, was working with Ms. Pelosi. “It’s one vote at a time,” he said. “That’s what we’re working on.”

In the Senate, Democrats said they had strong support in their caucus for a new resolution that would require the president to begin a gradual withdrawal of troops, aiming for a full removal of combat forces by March 31, 2008. The proposal would be binding, but it is unlikely to attract enough Republican support to pass the Senate.

Still, Democrats see it as a major step in their effort to escalate pressure on the administration and Senate Republicans with a series of votes against Mr. Bush’s strategy in Iraq. They also said the resolution had wide support in the Democratic caucus, including that of centrists like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who noted that the withdrawal date was a goal with some flexibility.

Last June, Democratic leaders voted against a plan supported by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts calling for a similar withdrawal. Democratic strategists say that support for a timetable has steadily grown because of the conditions in Iraq, what they perceive as Mr. Bush’s resistance to change and the widespread support among the public for a clear-cut end to the war.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he would try to bring the resolution to the Senate floor on Tuesday. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, did not immediately agree to debate the measure, so it was almost certain to be shelved as other Iraq bills have been this year.

“Funding the troops is the goal of the Senate Republicans,” Mr. McConnell said. “Democrats in the Senate have, at latest count, had 16 versions of various proposals to interfere with the president’s ability and General Petraeus’s ability to conduct this mission successfully.”


Michael Luo contributed reporting.

[cenacle]

I agree, Willow, that what's happening now is messy and slow. Big slow bureacracy. I think the good news, such as there is, is that voters have made clear their take on this war, and that is probably driven these politicians more than all else. We scared em last November, came out in droves and fired a bunch of the bums. From what I can tell, leaving a war, esp a lost war, is messy and very dangerous. Withdrawal, even when it happens, is slow. The Vietnam withdrawal was over two years in happening, I believe. Essentially, though, the Dems have the right idea: Congress holds the purse-strings, and they are going to starve this war out. That's how Vietnam's end occurred too. It's already ugly, the fight to withdraw is just going to make the shit stink worse. If that's possible.

[laughingwillow]

Just listening to Bobby screaming the lyrics to Throwing Stones and one passage stands out.....

Heartless powers
try to tell us what to think.
if the spirit's sleeping
then the flesh is ink....

lw

[winder]

Just what is there to "win" in Iraq?
Who is "our" enemy" in Iraq?
So what if "they" know anything about "our" plans?

[cenacle]

The original name of the American invasion of Iraq was
Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

O
I
L

There's your answer :?