Senate Democrats to force GOP hand on Iraq war

[Neil D]

This is a bit lengthy, but a informative read. So, are the dems being a bit too agressive? Not agressive enough??? What's yer take on this all?

Series of bills to scale back U.S. occupation will test resolve of wobbling Republicans

(07-10) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Senate Democrats, increasingly restive over the war in Iraq, plan to force a series of votes starting today aimed at either changing the course of President Bush's policy or embarrassing Republican members over their continued support for a war the public has soured on.

The anti-war Democrats, led by their increasingly outspoken majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, have been heartened in recent weeks by a stream of defections among Republicans who had been stalwart in their support for Bush's policy.

Republican senators Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio and Pete Domenici of New Mexico have made it clear they want Bush to start withdrawing the 160,000 American troops in Iraq, but they aren't ready to begin voting with the Democrats.

Democrats say rhetoric is fine but the real test for Republicans will be in the votes they cast now. "The president continues to dig us into a deeper and deeper hole in Iraq,'' said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., one of four Senate Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination on an anti-war platform.

"And right now, the most important thing we can do is keep the pressure on him -- and our Republican colleagues -- to stop digging and to start to work our way out of this war with no end," added the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman.

Another Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, took to the Senate floor Monday to say he expects the diminished GOP support for the president's policy to become evident this week.

"I think it will become clear this week that there is growing sentiment in the Senate to force the Iraqis'' to take over the fighting in their country from Americans who have suffered more than 3,600 combat deaths since March 2003.

One closely watched aspect of the war debate will be the roles played by Biden and the three other Democratic presidential candidates -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois and Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

For all the Democrats, the votes on the floor this week and next on the huge 2008 defense authorization bill will be a test of their resolve in the face of Bush's continued opposition to their ideas. It will also test whether they can find the votes needed to force a change in the president's policy, particularly after they backed down in May when Bush vetoed a war funding bill that would have required an American troop withdrawal from Iraq.

This time, Reid said, things will be different. "We want there to be change and it should not be a fig leaf,'' he said.

The Senate debate comes as an interim report is scheduled to be released Sunday by the president on whether the Iraqi government has met its performance benchmarks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled plans to visit Central and South America this week to stay in Washington and work on the document with other senior officials.

A draft of the interim report, circulated Monday among government agencies, concludes that the government in Iraq has met none of its targets for political, economic and other reform, an official who asked not to be identified told the Associated Press.

Another report, this one from Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on how Bush's troop-increase strategy is working, is due by Sept. 15.

But Reid and the Republican Senate defectors said they don't want to wait until then to change Iraq policy.

The White House on Monday denied a New York Times report that administration officials have started discussing gradual troop withdrawals as a way of forestalling further Republican defections in Congress. ''The idea of trying to make a political judgment rather than a military judgment about how to have forces in the field is simply not true,'' White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

First up today in the Senate is a planned vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would mandate increased times at home for regular Army, reserve and National Guard units before they can be sent back to duty to Iraq. The House included similar language last spring when it passed the war funding bill, but it was dropped from the final legislation.

The administration opposed the provision, saying it amounted to micromanaging the war and improperly infringed on the president's powers as commander in chief.

"I'm not one who believes in interfering in the military when they're deployed. But we need to do this,'' said Webb, a former Republican who served as Navy secretary and whose son is an Army trooper deployed to Iraq.

If it becomes law as part of the military authorization bill, Webb's amendment would be effective immediately, meaning it would severely restrict the Pentagon's ability to send units back to Iraq.

His measure would mandate that regular military units remain stationed at home for at least as long as their prior deployment in Iraq before being sent back. Reserve and Guard units would have to stay home for three years between deployments.

The strategy of the Republican Senate leadership as Democrats seek votes on anti-war amendments is still not clear. They could seek to filibuster proposals such as Webb's, meaning 60 votes in the narrowly divided Senate would be required to proceed to final debate and a vote. Or they could allow a straight up-or-down vote.

The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, didn't give any indication of his plans, but said he will insist on floor votes for Republican amendments he termed as strengthening the war on terrorism.

After Webb's amendment is dealt with, Reid is expected to call up a plan offered by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq beginning within 120 days of enactment.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., says he plans to offer a measure co-sponsored with Reid that would require almost all forces to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, after which all funds for the war would be cut off.

In the House, Democratic leaders are huddling to decide whether to go ahead with plans to vote on anti-war proposals this week, or postpone action until next week.

One measure that could come up is a proposal by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, prohibiting permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and banning U.S. control over any Iraqi oil resources.

GOP senators tilted against war

Republican senators who have endorsed some form of legislation calling for a reduction in troop levels in Iraq:

-- Richard Lugar, Indiana

-- George Voinovich, Ohio

-- Pete Domenici, New Mexico

-- Susan Collins, Maine

-- Olympia Snowe, Maine

-- John Sununu, New Hampshire

-- Lamar Alexander, Tennessee

-- Gordon Smith, Oregon

-- Chuck Hagel, Nebraska

Those who have expressed doubts about the president's war policies but haven't signed on to legislation calling for a change in strategy:

-- Norm Coleman, Minnesota

-- John Warner, Virginia

-- Judd Gregg, New Hampshire

Iraq war costs overshadow other operations Total appropriations for Iraq have reached $450 billion, almost triple the cost of operations in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

[Dr. Shane]

Basically Congress is trying to repeat the same mistake it made in Vietnam. That is, running a war overseas from the Capital Building. I understand their frustrations, like many Americans, I too am frustrated.

Quote:

a planned vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would mandate increased times at home for regular Army, reserve and National Guard units before they can be sent back to duty to Iraq.

This is a fine example. It is a "feel-good" measure but really the Pentagon should be making these types of decisions during time of war and not the Congress.

Anyone know how long troops were deployed during WW2? And many of them were not volunteers.