Measure in Senate Urges No Troop Rise in Iraq

January 18, 2007
Measure in Senate Urges No Troop Rise in Iraq
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 — The Senate set the stage on Wednesday for a direct clash with President Bush over the war, with two senior Democrats and a prominent Republican introducing a symbolic measure to declare that the administration’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq runs counter to the national interest.

The resolution, proposed by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, both Democrats, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican, would not be binding, and the White House said it would have no effect on Mr. Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

But sponsors of the measure said Congressional passage would send a powerful message that the president could not ignore, and its adoption could be a precursor to further efforts by opponents of the war to place limits on his use of the military in Iraq or to limit financing for the war.

The measure says that the United States cannot sustain an open-ended commitment to Iraq, that the chief responsibility for quelling unrest there rests with Iraqi security forces and that the United States should seek a political solution. [Resolution text: nytimes.com/washington.]

“This resolution will demonstrate — and it will demonstrate it right away — that support is not there for the president’s policy in Iraq,” said Mr. Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. “The sooner he recognizes that reality and acts on it, the better off all of us will be.”

Mr. Biden’s committee expects to take up the resolution next Wednesday, pushing any votes on the measure past Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night. Senate Democratic leaders have said they will bring it to the floor relatively quickly. House Democrats have made it clear that they will not take up any similar proposal until after the Senate has voted on one.

Republican leaders promised to offer an alternative that would call for time to allow Mr. Bush’s new policy to work — an attempt to provide Republicans unhappy with the war an avenue to express their view without backing the more critical proposal.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, a longtime Democrat who was re-elected last year as an independent, was the only non-Republican to pledge support so far. But Mr. Kyl said he believed that many of his Republican colleagues would ultimately find it difficult to vote against the White House.

“You cannot micromanage a war from the United States Senate,” Mr. Kyl said. “At least, you can’t effectively or constitutionally do that. If you vote to fund the military, then you need to leave the tactical decisions to the commanders on the ground and the commander in chief.”

But another Republican senator, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, quickly got behind the new resolution, and Mr. Hagel predicted that others would as well. “Now is the time for the Congress to make its voice heard on a policy that has such significant implications for the nation, the Middle East and the world,” Ms. Snowe said in a statement.

Other Republicans who have expressed unease about the troop buildup, including Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, took no immediate stance on the resolution. They expressed some reservations about the tone and scope of the proposal, which refers to escalating the war, which some Republicans believe has become a loaded partisan description.

In an effort to limit defections, wavering Republicans were invited to the White House for briefings on Wednesday. Tony Snow, Mr. Bush’s press secretary, reiterated the administration’s contention that a vote in opposition to Mr. Bush’s policy would send a mixed message about American intentions.

“What signal does it send to the Iraqis in terms of steadfastness ?” he asked. “What does it say — does it make the troops feel better about their support from the United States?”

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, accused the resolution’s three sponsors of political gamesmanship in advocating a nonbinding vote rather than taking on the more difficult issue of limiting funding for American forces. “Rather than have a serious debate we see this kind of posturing,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Mr. Hagel bristled at that comment. “This is a serious resolution put forward by serious people who care about our country,” he said. “There is no moral high ground that one group of senators has over the other.”

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate say they believe that they can reach an early consensus on symbolic votes opposing the president and then later consider putting restrictions on spending for the war after gauging the depth of resistance. The House Defense Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday began a series of closed hearings on potential limits on military spending.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, gained Democratic support for requiring the president to seek new authority from Congress before raising troop levels.

House Republicans introduced a measure that would prohibit Congress from cutting off or restricting “funding for units and members of the armed forces in harm’s way.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Funny, it wasn't that long ago that the Democrats were crying about the low number of troops in Iraq, and saying that it was due to that the war was doing poorly.

SO either they want it to continue doing poorly, or they are just putting out more opposition. Either way what is really being accomplished?

These Democrats have not changed, not that I expected them to.

yeah, if you reduce the number of troops and pull out prematurely that's definitely not gonna have positive results, the dems are just saying what people wanna hear, as is the custom with politicians.

I understand politicians doing things like that, but don't they have any care for what it means to the world to see and hear this kind of stuff?

What does a pull out mean to the sability of the whole region? To Iraq, to our commitments?

The Dems seem only concerned with being opposite anything that Bush does, without regard to what is right. That is playing for power and only power. That will not end well.

21,500 more troops won't do the job.
The only thing that will fix Iraq, is the Iraqis doing the job. And while they're geting better, slowly, they're still piss poor.

It is a quagmire at this point.

While you definitely made numerous mistakes in post-conflict management 101, I think there's definitely a light at the end of the tunnel, the question is whether you have the commitment to make this into a success, even if it take 5, 10 or 15 years. I think it's all about security - as long as the borders are looser than a pair of parachute pants and nobody cares about the gov't the country will go nowhere.

old goat wrote:The Dems seem only concerned with being opposite anything that Bush does, without regard to what is right. That is playing for power and only power. That will not end well.

This is the bottom line, OG! Dems do NOT want us to win the WOT. They want to see President Bush FAIL, no matter what that may mean to the rest of the world. They HATE him. They still feel that he "stole" the election against Al Bore (I mean Gore) and that has clouded their every thought since. Their ONLY agenda has been to "get even." If that is not the case, then WHY have they not revealed any real solutions?
RightWingChick
(formerly ProudArmyWife. Still a PROUD Army wife, just with a new name!)

RWC that is my take as well.

All we ever hear is we object, we think it's wrong, we oppose. How the heck did they get elected on that platform?

Their "100" are going to last a long long time... none of it good for the country. They shut off all debate, all discussion. Bush had better see this enemy of the state very clearly. They are every bit as dangerous as the Islamofacists... maybe moreso.

At least they are pushing for minimum wage increases. I am sure that will fix everything. [/sarcasm]

Everyone knows I'm not a Bush fan. But nothing the man will do could satisfy the Dems. I'm not against sending the 21,500 more troops there . . . but I don't expect it to accomplish much.

If the military were allowed to do their job the way they can do it, it would accomplish much. They have to take the gloves off, but then the media will villify them.

We are in an age where the sheeple in this country have no stomach for trouble, where they would rather bury their heads in the sand than face up to what this war is really about.

Yes, this is much like putting the unarmed National Guard troops on the border and then having them shot at by the Mescans. We can't put our troops in such positions.

In Iraq, we have no problem taking down a neighborhood or whole town and wiping out the fedayeen. But we don't have the troops to secure and hold the town afterwards so the fedayeen creep back in.
This should be the job of the Iraqis but they have failed miserably. I saw this coming when I first heard about going into Iraq.

I can see that. I think our Military was neutered during the Clinton heyday, and because of that our troop strength is diminished. We need more troops there to keep the areas we clean out. The Iraqis though, are probably unable to hold their own yet. I think some of that is because they are fearful of the US pulling out and being left with a situation they can't handle.

Their borders seem to be emulating the US... porous.

I won't blame this on Klinton. Quite frankly, we just don't have the troops for that type of operation, nor does Dubya have the political stomach to do the alternative, which is to issue a 1 day warning and then carpet bomb entire cities.

I am not saying it is 100% on Clinton, but a lot of the Troop strength reductions are at his doorstep.

We have allowed ourselves to become far to worried about destruction for our own good. I agree that carpet bombing would be effective. Wipe out the problem towns and cities without mercy. Show our might.

WHen I watch the start of "Shock and Awe" I was underwhelmed. I thought there would have been so much more. While it was effective, it wasn't the show it should have been. Too much precision which hid what was being done.

old goat wrote:If the military were allowed to do their job the way they can do it, it would accomplish much. They have to take the gloves off, but then the media will villify them.

We are in an age where the sheeple in this country have no stomach for trouble, where they would rather bury their heads in the sand than face up to what this war is really about.

Absolutely! Today I read that "American Idol is too mean." I don't watch AI, but I doubt VERY seriously that Simon Cowell is "too mean."
I SO miss the days of TELL IT LIKE IT IS.
We have become SO WEAK. I heard a great quote on Fox News the other day: "Political Correctness is the HIV of our society and we are dying of AIDS." (wish I knew who it was so I could give the guy credit)

The whole point of PC is that it limits thoughts. It was used by Communist China in the 50's, it was brought to America by the Dhimmicrats, all for the same reason. It was for mind and thought control.

We have made it wrong to succeed because that means someone by nature then will fail, or just not do as well, and that won't feel as good. We have made it wrong to call something what it is... remember the negative talk when Bush talked about the axis of evil? Oh, can't have that.

While there are a few aspects I like, such as aiding in a more polite conversation, I think there are more things which we surrender through PC.

Anyway, that is probably better for a start of a new topic, as this was more about troop strength. Sorry for the aside.

PG, please expand upon this concept of "polite conversation"? I'm not familiar with that.



------------------------------



PC is nothing more than a form of social censorship. And thus, is vile.


-----------------------

Yeah, I'll agree with you there, some of my favorite comedians make fun of the whole PC thing so well - Dave Chapelle for example