Nickdfresh
06-21-2006, 07:17 PM
June 21, 2006
G.O.P. Senators Attack Iraq Proposal by Democrats
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, June 21 — The Senate was immersed today in an impassioned and prolonged debate over Iraq, with Republicans accusing Democrats of lacking the resolve to see the war to an honorable end and Democrats accusing Republicans of election-year politics.
The debate, expected to last into the evening, was over a measure offered by some Democrats, who said it would lead to an honorable American withdrawal and would promote stability in Baghdad. Republicans immediately assailed it as a recipe for disaster.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the Bush administration's current approach to Iraq is "unsustainable and counterproductive." It is high time, he said, for someone to "make it clear, in words not yet spoken by this administration, that our commitment is not open-ended."
Mr. Levin and Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, proposed an amendment to a military spending bill that would call for the United States to at least begin redeploying troops by year's end. The proposal was harshly criticized by Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as a "timetable" meant to sound like something else.
"It sends signals," Mr. Warner said, signals that he asserted would undermine the bipartisan backing that the American forces in Iraq have so far enjoyed. Now is the time, Mr. Warner said, for Congress to give President Bush the support he needs, or risk making a "historic mistake."
Several hours of debate were expected on the Levin-Reed measure — "I have more speakers than I have time to allocate," Mr. Levin told Mr. Warner — before the lawmakers were to turn to an even more contentious proposal, an amendment offered by two Democratic senators, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, calling for a pullout from Iraq by July 2007. No votes on either measure were expected before Thursday.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said he would vote for both amendments as "a good start" toward pulling back from what he called the worse misuse of American military power since the Vietnam War. "The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and the attack on the World Trade Center," Mr. Leahy said.
The debate grew emotional as Senators Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, alluded to the deaths of two American soldiers abducted and savagely killed by insurgents. Relatives of one victim, Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker of Madras, Ore., said he died "for the freedom of everyone in the United States," Mr. Smith said, adding, "I couldn't agree more."
But Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the bloodshed "will go on and on" until Iraqis impose security on their own country. "What is victory in a land torn by its own warring factions?" she asked.
Mr. Levin and Mr. Reed described their proposal as a measure to force Iraqis to achieve political stability and become truly self-sufficient. Mr. Reed said the Bush administration's approach has been irrational from the beginning, and poorly executed all along.
"A military operation like this depends on much more than slogans," he said. While insisting that his and Mr. Levin's amendment did not contain a deadline for withdrawal, Mr. Reed said, "We must begin."
Mr. Warner scoffed at the contention by Mr. Levin and Mr. Reed that their amendment, less specific than Mr. Kerry's, set no timetable for withdrawal. "Why must they keep saying that?" Mr. Warner said. "It is a timetable."
Mr. Warner was quickly joined by Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican and a member of the Armed Services panel, who said the Levin-Reed measure, if adopted, would be "a significant step on the road to disaster."
Mr. McCain said that the Bush administration had made "serious mistakes" in Iraq, but that withdrawing prematurely would be a far more serious one. "Iraqi forces are not yet capable of securing the country," he said.
The options available to the United States are what they have always been, Mr. McCain said: "Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed."
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq was ill-conceived and disastrously open-ended, no matter what Republicans said. She said some comments from the Republican side suggested not so much a strategy for winning in Iraq but "a strategy for Republicans to win elections here at home."
"We are at a profound turning point for our nation," Ms. Clinton said.
Mr. Cornyn agreed in a sense, but he differed on which road to take. The Democratic approach "simply looks a lot like giving up," he said, dismissing it as "a policy of retreat, a policy of appeasement, a policy of surrender."
Mr. Cornyn alluded to Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston, the other American soldier abducted and slain in Iraq. The Senate should not let his "ultimate sacrifice" go for nothing, the senator said.
He said there are two ways to think of war: "War is bad and must never be fought; and war is bad but must sometimes be fought for the right reason."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21cnd-cong.html?hp&ex=1150948800&en=54556afc3de76c95&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Company
G.O.P. Senators Attack Iraq Proposal by Democrats
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, June 21 — The Senate was immersed today in an impassioned and prolonged debate over Iraq, with Republicans accusing Democrats of lacking the resolve to see the war to an honorable end and Democrats accusing Republicans of election-year politics.
The debate, expected to last into the evening, was over a measure offered by some Democrats, who said it would lead to an honorable American withdrawal and would promote stability in Baghdad. Republicans immediately assailed it as a recipe for disaster.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the Bush administration's current approach to Iraq is "unsustainable and counterproductive." It is high time, he said, for someone to "make it clear, in words not yet spoken by this administration, that our commitment is not open-ended."
Mr. Levin and Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, proposed an amendment to a military spending bill that would call for the United States to at least begin redeploying troops by year's end. The proposal was harshly criticized by Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as a "timetable" meant to sound like something else.
"It sends signals," Mr. Warner said, signals that he asserted would undermine the bipartisan backing that the American forces in Iraq have so far enjoyed. Now is the time, Mr. Warner said, for Congress to give President Bush the support he needs, or risk making a "historic mistake."
Several hours of debate were expected on the Levin-Reed measure — "I have more speakers than I have time to allocate," Mr. Levin told Mr. Warner — before the lawmakers were to turn to an even more contentious proposal, an amendment offered by two Democratic senators, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, calling for a pullout from Iraq by July 2007. No votes on either measure were expected before Thursday.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said he would vote for both amendments as "a good start" toward pulling back from what he called the worse misuse of American military power since the Vietnam War. "The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and the attack on the World Trade Center," Mr. Leahy said.
The debate grew emotional as Senators Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, alluded to the deaths of two American soldiers abducted and savagely killed by insurgents. Relatives of one victim, Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker of Madras, Ore., said he died "for the freedom of everyone in the United States," Mr. Smith said, adding, "I couldn't agree more."
But Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the bloodshed "will go on and on" until Iraqis impose security on their own country. "What is victory in a land torn by its own warring factions?" she asked.
Mr. Levin and Mr. Reed described their proposal as a measure to force Iraqis to achieve political stability and become truly self-sufficient. Mr. Reed said the Bush administration's approach has been irrational from the beginning, and poorly executed all along.
"A military operation like this depends on much more than slogans," he said. While insisting that his and Mr. Levin's amendment did not contain a deadline for withdrawal, Mr. Reed said, "We must begin."
Mr. Warner scoffed at the contention by Mr. Levin and Mr. Reed that their amendment, less specific than Mr. Kerry's, set no timetable for withdrawal. "Why must they keep saying that?" Mr. Warner said. "It is a timetable."
Mr. Warner was quickly joined by Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican and a member of the Armed Services panel, who said the Levin-Reed measure, if adopted, would be "a significant step on the road to disaster."
Mr. McCain said that the Bush administration had made "serious mistakes" in Iraq, but that withdrawing prematurely would be a far more serious one. "Iraqi forces are not yet capable of securing the country," he said.
The options available to the United States are what they have always been, Mr. McCain said: "Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed."
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq was ill-conceived and disastrously open-ended, no matter what Republicans said. She said some comments from the Republican side suggested not so much a strategy for winning in Iraq but "a strategy for Republicans to win elections here at home."
"We are at a profound turning point for our nation," Ms. Clinton said.
Mr. Cornyn agreed in a sense, but he differed on which road to take. The Democratic approach "simply looks a lot like giving up," he said, dismissing it as "a policy of retreat, a policy of appeasement, a policy of surrender."
Mr. Cornyn alluded to Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston, the other American soldier abducted and slain in Iraq. The Senate should not let his "ultimate sacrifice" go for nothing, the senator said.
He said there are two ways to think of war: "War is bad and must never be fought; and war is bad but must sometimes be fought for the right reason."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21cnd-cong.html?hp&ex=1150948800&en=54556afc3de76c95&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Company