Nickdfresh
01-18-2007, 05:35 AM
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.”
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washington/18cong.html?hp&ex=1169182800&en=99772e13dda6155d&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
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.”
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washington/18cong.html?hp&ex=1169182800&en=99772e13dda6155d&ei=5094&partner=homepage)