House Panel Backs Iraq Timetable in Spending Bill

[nonesuche]

By JEFF ZELENY and ROBIN TONER of NYTimes
Published: March 15, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 15 — The House Appropriations Committee approved a war spending bill this afternoon that calls for most American combat troops to be removed from Iraq no later than Aug. 31, 2008.

The vote gave Democrats challenging President Bush’s war strategy a victory, although likely only a temporary one, in the heated debate on a plan to set a timetable for removing American troops from Iraq. Democrats have been fighting back charges that the legislation was meddling in the management of the war.

“Please don’t characterize what we are doing as shutting down funding for the troops,” said Representative David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat. “Some of you have the misimpression that’s what the Congress did in Vietnam, and you don’t want to see the repeat of that. Congress never did that in Vietnam.”

Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is leading the debate over a $124 billion emergency spending measure for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cleared the committee in a 36-to-28 vote almost entirely along party lines.

The only Democrat to vote against it was Representative Barbara Lee of California, who did not think the resolution was adequately antiwar. “I believe the American people sent a mandate to us to bring home our men and women before the end of the year,” she told The Associated Press afterward.

Ms. Lee is described in The Almanac of American Politics as being “at the far left of the ideological spectrum” and a consistent opponent of military action. She was the only member of Congress to vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. how soon they forget  

The bill includes billions of dollars aimed at shoring up domestic programs, from agricultural assistance to rebuilding the Gulf Coast damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The plan also sets a series of conditions on the war financing, including raising the requirements before troops could be deemed ready for combat. the trojan horse emerges and we need to look at ALL that is inside of this one bill for I'd like to also ensure what is appropriated for those suffering still from Katrina does get the job done too

“Is there anyone who thinks we shouldn’t have equipment here or training for the troops?” Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

Representative Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, accused the Democrats of loading up the legislation with billions of dollars in sweeteners, simply to draw support for a controversial plan to try to end the Iraq war.

“Welcome Kmart shoppers,” Mr. Rogers said. “This is the shopping mart for those who are nervous about supporting the precipitous withdrawal of troops. This is an effort to buy votes — whether you are a spinach farmer or salmon farmer, there’s something in here for you, if you just vote for this bill.” important stuff but it will be grossly unpopular with the democrats for they are hoping to sneak this in rising on the back of the war - why? aren't the sweeteners valid enough to stand on their own? one wonders why and my father's family built what they had from farming so I am not against farmers

The full House will consider the legislation next week. The White House has pledged to veto the bill if it manages to pass the Senate as well as the House.

Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the ranking Republican on the committee, said today that Democrats were attempting to manage the Iraq battlefield from Capitol Hill.

“When the founding fathers put together our country, there was no debate about the commander in chief,” Mr. Lewis said. “We do not need 435 commanders in chief. That’s my problem with this bill.”

The Senate began its own impassioned debate on Wednesday over an exit strategy from Iraq. Underscoring the mounting tensions between the Democratic Congress and the White House, the Bush administration issued a veto threat against the Senate measure as well, even though it is considered unlikely to win final passage. The administration’s statement denounced the Democratic Senate plan in forceful terms, declaring that it would “embolden our enemies” and “hobble American commanders in the field.”

The Senate’s long-awaited debate over Iraq, twice blocked last month by Republicans, opened along bitterly partisan lines. But it was also filled with sadness and dismay in both parties about the course of the war.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, acknowledged that “the situation is, indeed, dire,” while arguing that it was too important for partisanship. “Political parties don’t lose wars,” he said. “Nations lose wars, and nations suffer the consequences, and those consequences are far graver than a lost election.” ah a voice of reason in the midst of the rantings yes we will ALL suffer the consequences

What is at issue in the Senate is a Democratic resolution that would set a goal of removing most combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, and declare that the United States mission must be redefined to find a political — not a military — solution. Despite the measure’s slim prospects for final passage, Democratic strategists hope that it will step up pressure on the administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill to shift course on a war that, many noted, will pass the four-year mark next week.

Republicans described the resolution as an exercise in micromanagement. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, called it “unprecedented in the powers it would arrogate to the Congress in a time of war.” so now we change our constitution as per Pelosi's will?

Democrats countered that the resolution provided something the Republicans lacked — an exit strategy. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said, “To those who say we would micromanage the war I say, isn’t it time for somebody to manage the war?”

So far, support for the resolution in the Senate appears confined to the Democrats. Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican, hopes to offer an alternative plan aimed at drawing support from senators critical of the Iraq strategy but uneasy with a timetable for troop withdrawal.

His proposal would require the top military commander in Iraq to report to Congress every 60 days to determine whether “satisfactory progress” was being made. If it was not, the president would be asked to justify whether keeping forces there was in the national interest. The plan also would call for hiring an outside group to study whether progress was being made in Iraq.

Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said he has been trying with little success “to convey to the White House” the need to institute recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. “We need to take it down off the shelf and use it as something other than a bookend,” he said. agreed

The timing of a final vote is still unclear, subject to negotiations between the parties’ leaders, who left Wednesday evening without reaching agreement. Debate began only when Republicans withdrew a parliamentary roadblock and joined Democrats, in a vote of 89 to 9, to proceed. The sudden shift in Republican strategy was intended in large part to blunt the charge that the party had been blocking debate on the top issue in the country.

[mrs. red]

some one needs to pull the troops out of Kosavo (sp) too.... weren't we protecting them against ethenic cleansing... sorry about the spelling, I am tired tonite....

still no one has explained to me what happens once we leave....we just leave the Kurds to their deaths?? Oh, that's good...

[Carnut]

some one needs to pull the troops out of Kosavo (sp) too.... weren't we protecting them against ethenic cleansing... sorry about the spelling, I am tired tonite....

still no one has explained to me what happens once we leave....we just leave the Kurds to their deaths?? Oh, that's good...

It appears, from the latest TV commercials, that the troops are expected to redeploy to Darfur.

The Kurds will have to deal with life just as the South Vietnamese did.

[nonesuche]

the next installment from the Senate today:

March 16, 2007
Senate Rejects Democrats’ Call to Pull Troops
By ROBIN TONER and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, March 15 — The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008, but a similar measure advanced in the House, and Democratic leaders vowed to keep challenging President Bush to change course in Iraq.

The vote in the Senate was 50 against and 48 in favor, 12 short of what was needed to pass, with just a few defections in each party. It came just hours after the House Appropriations Committee, in another vote largely on party lines, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The House will vote on that legislation next Thursday, setting the stage for another confrontation.

The action in both houses threw into sharp relief the Democratic strategy of ratcheting up the pressure, vote by vote, to try to force the White House to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. But it also highlighted Republican unity in opposition; in the Senate, only one Republican, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, voted with the Democrats.

Republican leaders said they counted the day as a victory. “It is clear now that the majority of the Senate opposes a deadline for the withdrawal of troops,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, countered, “The Republicans are rubber-stamping the president’s failed policy. That’s the message here.”

President Bush, speaking at a Republican fund-raising dinner, applauded the senators who voted against a timetable. “Many of those members know what I know: that if American forces were to step back from Baghdad now, before the capital city is more secure, the scale and scope of attacks would increase and intensify,” he said.

The Democratic resolution in the Senate would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a “limited number” focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel. The House measure set a withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008.

The prospects that either the House or the Senate measure would will win final passage were always considered slim, given that the Senate legislation needed a so-called supermajority of 60 to advance. Even so, the White House issued forceful veto threats, sending a clear signal to Republicans where the president stood. The White House also worked behind the scenes this week to keep Republicans on board.

Both parties consider these measures an important political statement, a measure of how far the debate over Iraq has moved in recent months, and a sign of Americans’ discontent with the war.

But Senator Norm Coleman, a moderate Republican from Minnesota who voted against the Democratic measure, argued that the final vote could still be misleading. “There is frustration and deep concern about the war,” said Mr. Coleman, who is facing a tough re-election fight next year.

As they left the Senate floor, several other moderate Republicans who are facing difficult re-election campaigns next year were quick to register their opposition to the president’s overall Iraq strategy. But they said they were leery of legislating a troop pullout to begin within four months.

“That is such a short time frame for withdrawal,” said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, who opposed the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.

In the end, the Senate resolution did not attract the contingent of seven Republican moderates who joined Democrats in opposing Mr. Bush’s troop buildup plan last month. The only Republican defection was Mr. Smith of Oregon, who said in a statement, “Setting specific dates for withdrawal is unwise, but what is worse is remaining mired in the quicksand of the Sunni-Shia civil war.”

Two Democratic Senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, crossed party lines to oppose the withdrawal plan. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent and staunch supporter of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, voted as expected with the Republicans. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican running for president, was campaigning in Iowa at the time of the vote.

Democrats asserted that the only alternative to their plan was endorsing, once again, the status quo in Iraq. In a debate steeped in anger and dismay, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia declared, “We were wrong to invade, we were wrong to think victory would be quick or easy, and we are wrong to stay on in occupation that earns us only hatred — with no end, no end, no end in sight.”

Republicans declared that the resolution would be devastating to the American war effort, “like sending a memo to our enemy,” or “giving notice to the other side of when we’re going to depart,” in the words of Mr. McConnell.

The Senate also voted overwhelmingly on Thursday in favor of a pair of nonbinding resolutions, one Democratic and one Republican, expressing support for the troops in Iraq and pledging to provide them with all necessary funds. Republicans have asserted that Democratic policies to end the war will eventually lead to a financing cut that will harm the troops. Democrats furiously deny that charge and have seized on the scandal over poor conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center as evidence that Republicans are not true champions of the troops.

Despite the flurry of votes, the Iraq debate in the Senate is far from over. Senate Democrats said they would try to influence the president’s Iraq policy when they begin taking up the administration’s military spending request next week.

Across the Capitol, the House Appropriations Committee advanced its version of that legislation by a vote of 36 to 28. It was considered a major test vote, with Representative Barbara Lee of California the lone Democrat voting against it. “The American people sent a mandate to us to bring home our men and women before the end of the year,” Ms. Lee said. “I don’t think the president deserves another chance.”

As she spoke, two protesters sat in the back of the hearing room, holding a sign handwritten with black ink on pink paper that said: “Wake up. Stop Buying Bush’s War.” Other antiwar activists milled about outside the committee room, occasionally confronting lawmakers as they came and went.

Largely because of the strength of antiwar sentiment in the House Democratic caucus, and complaints that the legislation’s timetable is not fast enough, party leaders still face a fragile majority when they bring this legislation to the full House next week. While the House proposal calls for most American combat troops to be removed from Iraq no later than Aug. 31, 2008, it would require the drawdown to start up to a year earlier if the Iraqi government cannot show progress.

The plan also places conditions on the war financing, including a requirement that troops receive proper training, equipment and a period of rest between deployments. As a gesture to conservatives, the legislation would allow the president to waive those requirements on national security grounds.

“In World War II, troops were in action 30, 40, 50 days and then got relief,” said Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat. “Now, we don’t have the troops to relieve them.”

But Representative Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, accused Democrats of loading up the legislation — which now has a price tag of $124 billion — with an array of sweeteners, simply to draw support for a controversial plan to bring closure to the Iraq war.

“Welcome Kmart shoppers,” Mr. Rogers said. “This is the shopping mart for those who are nervous about supporting the precipitous withdrawal of troops. This is an effort to buy votes.”

[nonesuche]

Mrs I don't think this bill will succeed and likely if it did, it would be vetoed. I find it interesting to see the Dems like Murtha are willing to continue with funding for counterterrorism yet speak out the other side of their mouths that there are few terrorist threats?  

I can't find one good thing to say about Murtha and his machinations and manipulations. he's a prime example of why our Senate and House are mired in this war of partisanship which may well destory our country before the terrorists can do it.

[Anna]

[
It appears, from the latest TV commercials, that the troops are expected to redeploy to Darfur.

The Kurds will have to deal with life just as the South Vietnamese did.

 

2.5 million dead as happened in SE Asia is not an acceptable solution for most people but that's what happened when we cut and ran and abandoned our allies there.  That's only acceptable to people like John Kerry who assured all at the time that nothing like that would happen.

Of course, he was busy getting his brother the franchise on a major port there, too, so just so his financial interests were OK is all he cared about.

But I don't personally want to see a repeat of anything at all like what happened in Vietnam.  I don't think anybody with an ounce of compassion would.  For movie fans like you, that would be The Killing Fields.

And isn't it surprising that Hillary is not at all concerned with getting our troops out of Bosnia.  It is so odd how liberals pick and chose their wars.  Afghanistan = OK; Darfur = OK; Bosnia/Monica Wars = OK;  Iraq = Not OK.   And Iraq is the only one we have violation of the terms of a cease fire or legitimate reason.  Go figure.

.

.

[nonesuche]

you raise an interesting point Anna, yes Pelosi and friends surely seem to have no problem with any war but Iraq  

Pelosi reminds me of Hillary, both cases of blind ambition, I said the same thing about Dean during Watergate back in the day...