Democrats Alter Plan To Restrict Iraq War

[cenacle]

Senate Agrees to Begin Debate on Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published March 14, 2007 by the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/1 ... ref=slogin

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Breaking a parliamentary roadblock, the Senate voted Wednesday to begin its first formal debate on the Iraq war since Democrats took control of Congress in January.

The 89-9 vote paved the way for consideration of a Democratic measure that calls for -- but does not require -- President Bush to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008. The vote came after many Republicans abandoned the tactic they had used twice earlier this year to prevent the Senate from considering legislation aimed at forcing an end to the war.

Despite the vote, most Republicans opposed the Democratic bill and it was expected to eventually fall short of the 60 votes it will need to pass. Even so, the debate would give Democrats a chance to put Republicans on record as opposing a timetable on the war at a time when most American voters oppose.

"This is the message the American people delivered to Congress on Nov. 7, 2006, and this is the message we must send to President Bush," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to an election day in which Democrats captured both chambers.

The Senate breakthrough came after Republicans abandoned demands for assurances that a debate on the war include consideration of various GOP proposals, including a resolution vowing to protect funding for troops. Fearful such a measure would undercut the anti-war message Democrats wanted, Senate Democrats had refused.

But confident the latest Democratic proposal would fail, Republicans agreed to let debate begin. Republicans have argued that Congress should give the troop increase Bush ordered in January time to work. Bush says the increase -- 21,500 combat troops plus thousands of additional support troops -- is needed to help stabilize Iraq, where U.S. forces are now commanded by Gen. David Petraeus.

"It is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate only recently gave to Gen. Petraeus," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., contrasting the Democratic measures with the chamber's recent approval of Petraeus' nomination as commanding general of the Iraq war.

[cenacle]

Panel keeps Iraq timeline in budget plan
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

Published March 15, 2007 by Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_ ... ld.Gis0NUE

A Democratic plan to require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq passed its first test on Thursday as the House Appropriations Committee voted to endorse the proposal, overcoming Republican opposition.

Members voted 37-27 along party lines to uphold a provision in a $124 billion war spending legislation that calls for troops to leave Iraq before September 2008, and possibly sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. Republicans had proposed stripping out the timetable.

The Democratic-run committee then approved the overall spending measure by 36-28. Rep. Barbara Lee (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., a strong foe of the war, was the only lawmaker to switch sides in the vote, saying afterward, "I believe the American people sent a mandate to us to bring home our men and women before the end of the year."

The votes gave Democrats a victory, if only for the moment, in their effort to challenge President Bush's war policies and pressure him into starting a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Despite the measure's approval, its longer-range fate is dim. In the Senate, minority Republicans can use procedural moves to block the troop withdrawal language and the White House has threatened to veto the bill if it contains the provision forcing the removal of troops.

Rallying enough support for the bill, which allots $95.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been a challenge for Democratic leaders. Many party members support bringing troops home sooner than the 2008 deadline, while others have been reluctant to embrace a firm deadline to end the war.

The defeated Republican amendment would have eliminated the 2008 deadline and inserted language that would promise not to cut funding for troops.

"We are trying to end the authorization of the war if the Iraqis and the administration don't perform," said Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., committee chairman.

"Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do" but "we can't afford to turn over Iraq to al-Qaida," said Rep. Bill Young of Florida, top Republican on the subcommittee that oversees military spending.

Democrats said the timetable was necessary to force the Iraqis to step up, and by another 37-27 partyline vote pushed through a provision promising to "fully support the needs" of service members in combat.

Young proposed a separate amendment that would have restricted funding to steps needed to carry out a troop withdrawal. He said he would vote against it but was an issue that should be settled.

Sensing an effort to lure them into a vote that could be used against in re-election campaigns, Democrats opposed Young's proposal as well and it failed 64-0.

Republicans accused Democrats of micromanaging the war, taking over a role best left to the generals. Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky accused Democrats of an "ill-advised and precipitous withdrawal" plan. And Rep. Roger Wicker (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi said the legislation was a backdoor method of cutting off funds for the troops â€" a charge that Obey disputed.

The political landscape was different across the Capitol, where Republicans expressed confidence they had the votes to defeat an alternative approach advanced by Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) and Senate Democrats.

Their proposal sets a goal of a troop withdrawal by March 31, 2008. A mid-afternoon vote was expected.

The Iraq debate spilled over to the 2008 campaign for the White House.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a New York Times interview that if elected she would maintain a scaled-down American military force in Iraq that would stay off the streets in Baghdad and no longer would try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence.

She cited "remaining vital national security interests" for a continued deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq aimed at fighting al-Qaida, deterring Iran, protecting Kurds and possibly supporting the Iraqi military, the newspaper reported Wednesday night on its Web site.

She said her plan was consistent with the Senate resolution, saying it called for "a limited number" of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces and conduct "targeted counterterrorism operations."

While the House bill is unlikely to sail through unchecked, Democrats say its passage â€" even if by a slim majority â€" would be a loud message to the president to end the war. Pelosi was trying to line up votes from party liberals who want troops out of Iraq sooner than the 2008 deadline, as well as more conservative Democrats who are concerned the bill would micromanage the war.

A total of 10 peaceful anti-war protesters were arrested, both inside the committee room and outside the building where the debate was unfolding.

Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police said they would be charged with unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct. "They were being loud and boisterous. They were told to stop and they didn't so they were arrested," she said.

[cenacle]

See the wheels of gub'mint grind slowly along. Hopefully the war ends before everyone in Iraq is dead, and there are no soldiers left in AmeriKKKa to go over and fight...

more seriously, Hilary's comments about keeping a US presence in Iraq if she is elected is VERY disturbing...

[Stonehenge]

Hill is very scary. She is a liberal fascist of which there are many. Liberal fascists want govt to run everything in people's lives. Her support for the idea of govt taking over health insurance is a big tip off of what the bitch would do if she ever got her hands on the levers of power. I don't even like her being a senator. I'm not sure there is anyone on the R side that would make me vote for her if that was the choice. I'd probably just go green or libertarian.

That's why I say the demos have no chance in '08. The bitch has it locked up and her only real competition for the nomination is Obama who will lose also. At least he has some good ideas which is more than I can say for her. No way will I vote to put Hill-billy back in office.

[cenacle]

Senators set Iraq deadline in war bill
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

Published March 21, 2007 by Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_ ... xy2VzMWM0F

Senate Democrats have drafted a $121.5 billion war spending bill that would direct President Bush to begin bringing home troops from Iraq with the goal of ending U.S. combat missions there in just over a year.

The provision is similar to a resolution the Senate narrowly rejected last week. It failed on a 50-48 vote, falling 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to pass, after President Bush vowed to veto the legislation.

"United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution," states a copy of the draft bill, obtained by The Associated Press. Like the bill the Senate defeated, it would set a nonbinding goal of pulling out combat troops by March 31, 2008.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., released details to panel members Wednesday in anticipation of a committee vote on the bill on Thursday.

Republicans and even some Democrats are expected to bristle at the inclusion of the Iraq policy provision. The measure would require Bush to begin removing U.S. combat troops within four months of the bill's passage.

The House is expected to vote Thursday on a similar $124 billion spending bill that would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House bill, which Bush also threatened to veto, would demand that combat troops be out of Iraq before September 2008, possibly sooner.

Many Republicans say they oppose setting hard-and-fast deadlines to end the war because it would tie the hands of military commanders and embolden insurgents to ramp up attacks once U.S. troops are gone.

But some Republicans might have a tough time turning the proposal down because it is attached to a bill that provides much-needed funding for troops in combat, assistance for fishers and farmers, hurricane reconstruction and other popular spending projects.

Byrd's bill would leave an unspecified number of troops behind in Iraq for anti-terrorism missions, to train Iraqi forces and to protect coalition infrastructure and personnel. Of the more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, fewer than half are combat forces.

The Senate proposal also would urge the Iraqi government to meet certain benchmarks, such as disarming militias and amending the constitution to protect Sunni minorities.

It would set no consequences if the Iraqis fail to achieve those goals. Under the House bill, combat troops would have to begin coming home as early as this fall if the president cannot certify that the Iraqi government was making progress.

The Senate measure requires the U.S. commander in Iraq to submit regular reports on progress made by the Iraqi government toward meeting those goals; the president would have to report on progress made in redeploying troops.

[cenacle]

Dems challenge Bush with Iraq timetable
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

Published Friday, March 23, 2007 by Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_ ... XEif6s0NUE

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Just over an hour later, an angry Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions."

Ignoring Bush's promised veto, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Joined at the White House by veterans and service family members, Bush said: "A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job.

"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen."

The House vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi., who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party's more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo.

Voting for the bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans â€" Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed the bill, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

Excluding the funds in the House-passed bill, Congress has so far provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. More than 3,200 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since war began in March 2003.

Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to debate as early as Monday legislation that also calls for a troop withdrawal â€" and has also drawn a Bush veto threat.

That $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with the goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008. Unlike the House bill's 2008 date, the Senate deadline is not a firm requirement.

While Friday's House vote represented Democrats' latest ratcheting up of political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately being able to force a troop withdrawal.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail â€" a tall order because they will need about a dozen Republicans to join them.

And should lawmakers send Bush a compromise House-Senate measure, both chambers would need two-thirds majorities to override him â€" margins that neither seems likely to be able to muster.

In Friday's House debate, Democrats said it was time for them to begin influencing the war's path.

"The American public expects, the Congress of the United States, to do something," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md. "Not simply to say 'yes' to failed policies, but to on their behalf, speak out and try to take us in a new direction."

"What we're trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., who had helped write the bill.

With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 "no" votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best chance of forcing Bush to change course â€" an argument that was aided when they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

They got a breakthrough Thursday when four of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not stand in its way. California Democrats Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), Diane Watson (news, bio, voting record), Barbara Lee (news, bio, voting record) and Maxine Waters (news, bio, voting record) said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it because it would not end the war immediately.

"Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif.

The Iraq deadline created an unusual dynamic in the sharply partisan Congress. Bush loyalists teamed up with some anti-war liberals in opposing the measure. Conservatives said a firm deadline for the war would tie the hands of military commanders and embolden insurgents after the U.S. left Iraq, whereas many liberals said the bill would continue to bankroll an immoral war for more than a year.

"If you want peace, stop funding this war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"Approval of it means we vote to abandon Iraq at an arbitrary time no matter the situation, said Republican Rep. Ted Poe (news, bio, voting record). It's also "loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war," added Poe, R-Texas, referring to the billions of dollars added to the bill to fund domestic programs and attract votes.

But members said Pelosi was able to convince liberal members of her caucus that the legislation was their best shot at challenging Bush on the war even if it fails to become law.

[cenacle]

House, Senate Negotiators Agree on War-Funding Bill
Legislation Calls for Ending U.S. Combat Operations in Iraq Next March

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer

Published Monday, April 23, 2007 by The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement today on final war-funding legislation that would begin bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as early as this July, setting a goal of ending U.S. combat operations no later than March of next year.

The deal, which will come to final votes in the House and Senate Wednesday and Thursday, sets up a veto clash with President Bush by week's end. Congressional Democrats had considered making all dates for withdrawing U.S. troops advisory, hoping to persuade Bush to sign the bill, which would provide more than $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But once the president made it clear a veto was inevitable, Democratic leaders decided to stick to binding dates, at least for the initial troop pullouts.

Bush "is the only person who fails to face this war's reality -- and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq's future, but for ours," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) declared in a speech this afternoon.

The legislation would maintain House-passed language setting strict requirements for resting, training and equipping troops. But it would also grant the president the authority to waive those restrictions, as long as he publicly justifies the waivers.

The bill establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, including the establishment of a program to disarm militias. The benchmarks also require reductions in sectarian violence, the easing of rules that purged the government of all former Baath Party members, and passage of a oil revenue-sharing law.

If Bush fails to determine that those benchmarks are being met by this summer, troops would begin coming home by July 1 of this year, with a goal of completing the withdrawals by the end of the year, according to the House-Senate deal. If he determines they are being met, troops would begin coming home no later than Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1, 2008.

After combat forces are withdrawn, some troops could remain to protect U.S. facilities and diplomats, pursue terrorist organizations and train and equip Iraqi security forces.

The agreement also stipulates that some foreign aid to Iraq would be cut off if the benchmarks are not met.

The agreement all but guarantees a veto. Bush has repeatedly vowed not to sign such a bill, and he repeated his rejection today in brief comments to reporters following a meeting in the White House with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

"I will strongly reject an artificial timetable [for] withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," Bush said.

Democrats tried to gain political momentum in the agreement by stripping out some spending items that Bush and congressional Republicans have ridiculed. The final legislation will no longer fund peanut storage facilities in Georgia and will not aid spinach farmers in California who were harmed by last year's E. coli scare. Nor will it fund Christmas tree farms, Menhaden and shrimp fishermen on the Gulf Coast, or sugar cane growers.

It would raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years.

[cenacle]

Congress passes Iraq bill, veto awaits
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

Published April 26, 2007 at Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_ ... 7nMuvMWM0F

A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.

"It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol. But that's where we are," said deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

"The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: "It's time to bring our troops home from Iraq."

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will "get harder before it gets easier."

Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats.

"The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel  of Nebraska sided with 48 Democrats and Independent Bernard Sanders in supporting the bill. No Democrats joined the 45 Republicans in voting against it. Missing from the vote were GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both staunch advocates of the president's Iraq policy.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill.

"We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism or sectarian violence. Or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving," Lieberman said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Bush since has acknowledged that the war has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, he announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq.

Perino said earlier that if Democratic lawmakers timed the sending of the bill to the anniversary of Bush's speech, it would be "a ridiculous P.R. stunt."

"That is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate," she said Thursday morning.

As Democrats pushed through the bill, Petraeus depicted the situation in Iraq as "exceedingly complex and very tough." He said there have been some improvements in the two months since Bush's troop buildup began, but "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort."

Asked at a Pentagon news conference Thursday about the impact on the effort in Iraq if that legislation passed, Petraeus said, "I have tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals."

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press the vote was not helpful.

"We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process," al-Dabbagh said. "Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over."

In the House, two Republicans â€" Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina â€" joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. Voting no were 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said Democrats were still considering what to do after Bush's veto. One option would be funding the war through September as Bush wants but setting benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet, he said.

Murtha chairs the House panel that oversees military funding.

"I think everything that passes will have some sort of condition (placed) on it," he said. Ultimately, Murtha added, the 2008 military budget considered by Congress in June "is where you'll see the real battle," he said.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the immediate focus should stay on the president "making such a tragic mistake in vetoing this." Eventually, "I think he's going to have to accept constraint on his bad judgment here. . . . We've got to keep relentlessly putting pressure on him."

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has said the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships.

[cenacle]

Well, well, it's taken them from January to now to stand up officially to the Fascist-in-Chief, but here it is. Dogfight is underway, the blood in Iraq continues to fly.

The opposition to the Chimp is not going to cease, and our numbers are growing...

[laughingwillow]

Well, its taken them since Jan to officially stand up symbolically, imo.  (He's the official decider on the matter as long as the dems lack the votes to override his veto.)

Really standing up to the little bastard would involve hearings concerning  the official lies justifying the invasion of Iraq and impeachment procedures, imo.  At least then the chicken hawks would be too busy covering their arses to concentrate on coming up with new ways of killing people in iraq.

lw

[cenacle]

Senate Sends War Timetable To Bush's Desk
As Funding Bill Heads to Likely Veto, Talks on Revised Legislation Begin
By Shailagh Murray, Washington Post Staff Writer

Published Friday, April 27, 2007 by the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews


The Senate approved a $124 billion Iraq war spending bill yesterday that would force troop withdrawals to begin as early as July 1, inviting President Bush's veto even as party leaders and the White House launch talks to resolve their differences.

The 51 to 46 vote was a triumph for Democrats, who just weeks ago worried about the political wisdom of a veto showdown with the commander in chief as troops fight on the battlefield. But Democrats are hesitant no more. And now that withdrawal language has passed both houses of Congress, even Republicans acknowledge that Bush won't get the spending bill that he has demanded, one with no strings attached.

Bush is expected to veto the bill early next week. But bipartisan negotiations have already started on a compromise to cool the red-hot war debate, at least on the funding front.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spoke with Bush yesterday morning and later held initial talks with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers began to weigh alternatives to the legislation's most contentious provision, the binding withdrawal terms. The goal is to be more flexible but still restrain how Bush conducts the war.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has criticized Bush's war policy but opposed the Democratic bill as too heavy-handed, singled out one development that has stoked a more cooperative spirit on Capitol Hill: word that the Iraqi parliament may recess for two months this summer.

"That would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today," Warner said.

The provision most likely to survive the next round is a set of political and diplomatic benchmarks for the Iraqi government. The language all but certain to be dropped, or at least diluted, would require troop withdrawals to begin as early as July 1 and no later than Oct. 1. Another sticking point is the bill's $21 billion worth of domestic spending, which Bush and some Republicans have protested as pork.

A significant number of Republicans support the benchmarks -- possibly enough to override a second veto, should Bush resort to that. The measures would prod Baghdad officials to build up military forces, crack down on militias and sectarian violence, protect minority rights and manage Iraq's extensive petroleum reserves.

Bush announced the benchmarks in January in a televised address but set no consequences if the Iraqis failed to deliver. The spending bill would make a continued U.S. troop commitment contingent on progress -- although only up to a point.

Beginning July 1, if Bush decides that the Iraqis are falling short, U.S. combat forces would be withdrawn over six months. If the government shows progress, the deadline would be extended until Oct. 1, with troops leaving by March 2008.

GOP leaders signaled yesterday that they are ready to negotiate. In the House, which passed the measure late Wednesday largely along party lines, Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the veto "will give us a chance to sit down with our colleagues across the aisle and find common ground."

McConnell said, "There are a number of members . . . who do think that benchmarks could be helpful, depending upon how they're crafted."

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has been in Washington for the past several days briefing lawmakers as they voted on the spending package. He told reporters at the Pentagon yesterday that despite an increase in troop levels, the overall violence in Iraq has not declined, and he warned that U.S. casualties may increase in the coming months.

Because his plan to improve security in Baghdad moved soldiers from big bases to isolated outposts in the city, "this effort may get harder before it gets easier," he said. "It is an endeavor, again, that is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time."

While a deadline for bringing the troops home would not survive a veto, the Democrats' legislative victory is significant, beating expectations on both sides of the aisle. But it also opens the door to complicated new challenges. House and Senate leaders must establish terms that are tough enough to satisfy a large antiwar faction, particularly in the House. At the same time, they must water down the bill to a point where Bush will sign it.

Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials accuse Democrats of crass political posturing. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the spending bill "defeatist legislation" and reiterated Bush's pledge to veto it. But she added that the president "looks forward to working with congressional leaders to craft a bill that he can sign."

As the second phase of the spending debate unfolds, antiwar lawmakers are pressuring Democratic leaders to seek the most stringent terms possible. One idea is to pass a shorter-term funding bill -- possibly in the $30 billion to $40 billion range -- that would allow Congress to revisit the war in several months.

One champion of this approach is Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a senior appropriator with strong military ties, who has emerged as one of Bush's strongest critics. Murtha is advocating a 60-day bill that would provide enough funds for operations, maintenance and personnel while carrying the current legislation's provisions on benchmarks and readiness standards for deploying troops.

Senate Democrats worry that a shorter duration would be impractical. But yesterday, Reid confirmed that it was in the mix. "We have a lot of things we'll look at -- that's one of the things," he said.

Democratic leaders expect the negotiations on a new bill to run at least through mid-May. Although Bush has demanded the money as soon as possible, a report last month from the Congressional Research Service found that the Army has adequate funding to carry it through the end of July.

Under other alternatives, the toughest provisions of the war funding bill would shift to a defense policy bill that will come before the House next month, or would be broken out and beefed up in a separate bill in coming weeks. That would give antiwar liberals measures to vote on, while the Democratic leadership negotiates with Bush on war funding

The bulk of the spending package, about $95.5 billion, would go to the Pentagon for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats also included a minimum-wage increase that they have struggled to complete. They also added $21 billion for veterans' and children's health care, port security, avian flu research, drought relief for farmers and Katrina-related aid for the Gulf Coast.

Bush has repeatedly cited the domestic spending as one reason he would veto the bill. But some of the biggest provisions have powerful GOP defenders, including Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott and Sen. Thad Cochran, the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Both senators represent Mississippi, which would benefit from nearly $7 billion in Katrina aid.

Staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.

[cenacle]

The short-term funding idea looks to be the best we can hope for given the make-up of the current Congress and Bush's retardation. Fund it short-term, see Bush's "surge" go worse than better, build up a bi-partisan veto-proof opposition.

Honestly, this sucks for those in Iraq where the occupation should have ended long ago, but this is how things work in a democratic republic, especially one that let a lunatic take the highest office in the land.

I'm unhappy about it. But the end is not as impossibly far as it was.

[cenacle]

Bush aides reboot Iraq war negotiations
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

Published May 3, 2007 by Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_ ... BgtAKs0NUE

President Bush's top aides restarted negotiations with Democrats Thursday in a quest to find bipartisan consensus on how to bankroll the protracted war in Iraq.

No deal was immediately struck and lawmakers said they planned to continue discussions early next week.

"There is nothing off the table â€" including timetables" to end the war, reported Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Nothing."

The round of meetings came after Bush vetoed $124.2 billion legislation that would have funded war in Iraq â€" and Afghanistan as well â€" but also would have ordered troops to begin coming home Oct. 1.

Democrats said they were acting on a mandate from voters to end the war. But they did not have the necessary two-thirds majority to override Bush's veto, so now they're having to rethink their approach.

In a closed-door meeting Thursday with members, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed Reid's remark that Democrats have not agreed to drop language on troop withdrawals. Pelosi and Reid are trying to reassure more liberal members of their caucus that Democrats were not backing down. But privately, several Democrats have signaled they intend to do so to avoid a second veto and plan to focus their attention instead on upcoming spending bills.

Reid, D-Nev., met for 45 minutes in his office with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Later, Bolten and budget director Rob Portman met with Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., and Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, respectively.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said that Bolten had a good meeting with Reid and McConnell that allowed both sides to express their views, but would not elaborate. He said it's not constructive to drag out the discussions, and that the president hopes a bill could be finalized as soon as possible.

Likewise, Reid described the meeting as "constructive" and "comfortable." He said he anticipates Congress will able to send Bush a new bill before the Memorial Day recess at the end of this month.

Reid told reporters that Bolten offered some ideas, but declined to elaborate further on the discussion. After the meeting, Reid said he called Pelosi, who appointed Obey and Lewis to conduct the talks on the House side.

"I don't think it helps the negotiation process to do it publicly," Reid said.

Republicans have stuck behind the president in opposing setting a firm timetable on withdrawing U.S. troops from the war, although several say they want some kind of legislation challenging Bush's Iraq policy. More than 3,350 troops have been killed in Iraq, causing the U.S. commitment there to become deeply unpopular.

Numerous possible compromises on a new Iraq bill are being floated on Capitol Hill, all involving some combination of benchmarks. The key impasse, however, is whether to require redeployments of U.S. troops if the benchmarks are not met.

Democrats contend that initiating troop withdrawals will pressure Iraqis into making the necessary political compromises. Republicans say the Iraqis could still refuse to work together and the consequence would be a blood bath.

As lawmakers remain deadlocked on this point, they are finding common ground on at least one topic: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are considering a lengthy break this summer.

"If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight â€" that would be the outrage of outrages," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.

Added Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb: "I certainly hope they're not going to take any sort of recess when the question is whether they're going to make any progress."

The Iraq parliament's recess, starting this July, would likely come without Baghdad politicians reaching agreements considered key to easing sectarian tensions. Examples include regulating distribution of the country's oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership.

Iraqi politicians said Thursday the break might not happen or may be less than two months, but said it should be of no concern to U.S. lawmakers.

[cenacle]

The dirty mechinations continue...there's not much else to say but call your Congressperson if you're an American to express your opinion on it...

phone: 202-224-3121

[cenacle]

September Could Be Key Deadline in War
Lawmakers Call for Proof of Progress by Fall

By Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks

Published Tuesday, May 8, 2007 by the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline.

In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding.

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

"September is the key," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense. "If we don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration."

The fixation with September is all the more striking because funding bills that cleared the House and Senate this spring were looking well into 2008 to mandate significant changes. The Senate-passed bill set March 2008 as a goal for withdrawing U.S. combat troops, while the House envisioned combat troops being withdrawn by the end of August 2008. In the ensuing weeks, however, news from Iraq has shown little improvement, while public opinion has continued to harden against the war.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line in Bush's favor, said Sunday, "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Democrats were crowing yesterday over what they saw as the clearest signs yet that Republican unity behind the president is beginning to crack. And House Democrats are preparing to up the ante with new legislation that would demand a turnaround in the war by the end of July.

House Democratic leaders are coming together around legislation that would fund the war through September but would withhold more than half of those funds until July, when Bush would have to report on the Iraqi government's progress toward benchmarks such as quelling sectarian violence, disarming militias and sharing oil revenue equitably. Congress would then have to vote in late July to release the remaining funds.

The bill, which could come to a House vote as early as Friday, faces significant obstacles in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) wants to allow the House debate to unfold, in part to see whether the plan will appeal to Republicans.

Some House Democratic leaders are worried that another showdown vote this summer will keep the party's domestic agenda off track. And White House spokesman Tony Snow pronounced the bill "not helpful."

But the new proposal's momentum in the House underscores just how quickly time may be running out on a war that is hemorrhaging political support.

"There were always two debates in the debate over timelines to end the war," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "George W. Bush is hellbent on January 20, 2009, when he walks out of the door, leaving a box stamped 'Iraq' for the next president. The Republicans are hellbent on not going through the next election with Iraq tied to their ankles. All Boehner said publicly was what Republicans have been saying privately for months."

Democrats are ready to rush that process. The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.

The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration's progress report.

Democrats say that is a reasonable time frame for the first assessment of Bush's troop increase, since the last of the additional troops being sent to Iraq will arrive this month.

But Petraeus has said repeatedly that it will be at least another month or two after the troops are in place before it will be possible to assess the impact of those reinforcements and, just as important, of the new U.S. approach that is moving combat troops off big, isolated bases and into dozens of smaller combat outposts across Baghdad. When he visited Washington last month, Petraeus told members of Congress that he will be ready to assess his progress by September.

Not even the most optimistic military officials think Baghdad will be quiet by then, but they think they might be able to discern long-term trends.

Another major test will come in the form of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which under Islam's lunar calendar will begin this year around Sept. 12. In every one of the four years of the war, Ramadan has brought a spike in violence. If the Petraeus approach is not able to break that pattern, it will be difficult for many members of Congress to continue to argue that progress is being made.

September is also the last month of the fiscal year in Washington. Without tangible signs of progress, Congress is likely to demand tougher conditions on war funding for fiscal 2008.

All those factors point to this fall as the deadline.

"There is a sense that by September, you've got to see real action on the part of Iraqis," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "I think everybody knows that, I really do."

"I think a lot of us feel that way," agreed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Staff writer Shailagh Murray contributed to this report.