posted on June 26, 2007 11:49:00 PM new
GOP Support for Iraq War Slips
Updated 1:48 AM ET June 27, 2007
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican support for the Iraq war is slipping by the day. After four years of combat and more than 3,560 U.S. deaths, two Republican senators previously reluctant to challenge President Bush on the war announced they could no longer support the deployment of 157,000 troops and asked the president to begin bringing them home.
"We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq," Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Bush.
Voinovich, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released his letter Tuesday _ one day after Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the panel's top Republican, said in a floor speech that Bush's strategy was not working.
"The longer we delay the planning for a redeployment, the less likely it is to be successful," said Lugar, who plans to meet later this week with Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser.
Lugar and Voinovich are not the first GOP members to call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon made similar remarks earlier this year. But their public break is significant because it raises the possibility that Senate Democrats could muster the 60 votes needed to pass legislation that would call for Bush to bring troops home.
Their remarks also are an early warning shot to a lame duck president that GOP support for the war is thinning. The administration is not expected until September to say whether a recent troop buildup in Iraq is working.
"Everyone should take note, especially the administration," said Snowe, R-Maine, noting Lugar's senior position within the GOP. "It certainly indicates the tide is turning."
Lugar told reporters Tuesday that he does not expect the fall assessment to be conclusive and would only fuel sentiment among lawmakers that Congress should intervene with legislation to end the war.
"The president has an opportunity now to bring about a bipartisan foreign policy," Lugar said. "I don't think he'll have that option very long."
The White House on Tuesday appealed to members for more patience on the war in Iraq.
"We hope that members of the House and Senate will give the Baghdad security plan a chance to unfold," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.
Snow also said Lugar was a thoughtful man and that his remarks came as no surprise.
"We've known that he's had reservations about the policy for some time," he said.
Republican support for the war has declined steadily since last year's elections, mirroring public poll numbers. In an AP-Ipsos poll earlier this month, 28 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, down 5 percentage points in a month.
Earlier this year, Voinovich and Lugar said they doubted the troop buildup in Iraq would work. But they declined to back a resolution expressing opposition to the troop increase because they said it would have no practical effect. The two senators also refused Democratic proposals to set a timetable for troop withdrawals.
Other Republicans, including Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine, expressed similar concerns about Iraq but recently have said they will wait until the September assessment before calling for a change in course, including possible troop withdrawals.
Voinovich and Lugar said they still would not support a timetable for troop withdrawals and are unlikely to switch their vote. But softer alternative proposals are in the works that could possibly attract their support.
After the Fourth of July recess, "you'll be hearing a number of statements from other (Republican) colleagues," predicted Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a longtime skeptic of the war strategy.
Warner spokesman John Ullyot said the senator is drafting a legislative proposal on the war, but declined to discuss the details. The measure would likely be offered as an amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill on the floor next month.
In the meantime, Democrats say they will try again to set an end date on the war and cut off funding for combat.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Lugar's speech "brilliant" and "courageous" and said it would later be noted in the history books as a turning point in the war.
"But that will depend on whether more Republicans take the stand that Sen. Lugar took," Reid added.
Also on Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of confirming Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute as Bush's personal adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Pete Geren as Army secretary. A full Senate vote on the nominations has not been scheduled.
posted on July 7, 2007 06:53:19 AM new
Friday, July 6, 2007
WASHINGTON NEWS
Domenici Breaks With Bush On Iraq
Sen. Peter Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who is up for reelection next year, broke with President Bush on the Iraq war. Domenici's move is being treated as a significant development, indicative of Bush's increasingly weak position within his own party. The Washington Post says Domenici is a "party loyalist and former staunch war supporter," and thus "one of the most significant GOP losses to date." The timing of Domenici's announcement is interesting. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "a showdown is likely" in coming weeks "over a Democratic amendment to the main Defense Department spending bill demanding that US troops begin leaving Iraq within 120 days." The New York Times notes that is "an idea Mr. Bush has already vetoed," and in fact Domenici "made it clear Thursday that he did not support such measures either, saying, 'I'm not calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops, but I am calling for a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to continuing home.'" Instead, USA Today reports, Domenici "supports a bipartisan bill that embraces findings of the Iraq Study Group, which said combat troops could be out by March 2008 if certain steps were taken."
The AP notes Domenici "said he has not talked to the administration about wanting a strategy shift," and the Los Angeles Times reports the senator's comments "drew a measured response from the White House, which has been trying to maintain Republican support for the president's 6-month-old strategy of using additional American forces, primarily in Baghdad, to control sectarian violence." ABC World News said the White House is worried over Domenici's defection, but "officials are taking some comfort by the fact that he said he wasn't ready to cut off funding, wasn't ready to call for a complete withdrawal of troops."
Doolittle Calls Iraq A "Quagmire" Domenici wasn't the only Republican to abandon Bush yesterday. The Sacramento Bee reports, "Rep. John Doolittle, questioning whether the Iraq war is worth the continued loss of American lives, said Thursday that US troops should be pulled back from the front lines 'as soon as possible'" and "the fighting should be turned over to Iraqi forces." The "criticism came from an archconservative Republican who had campaigned with Bush and long repeated the president's refrain that Iraq is a central front in the war on terror."
posted on July 10, 2007 11:44:30 PM new
Bush Says No Iraq Shift; Criticism Rises
Updated 2:06 AM ET July 11, 2007
By DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush threatened to veto legislation setting a date for a troop withdrawal from Iraq on Tuesday despite growing bipartisan calls in Congress for an end to U.S. participation in the war and sharp criticism of the Iraqi government.
As the Senate opened a new debate on the conflict, one of the president's staunchest supporters bluntly said the administration had pursued the wrong policy for years after toppling Saddam Hussein. "The strategy we had before was not the right strategy," said Christopher Bond, R-Mo. "We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."
Asked later who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, "Ultimately, obviously, the president."
Democrats said Bush's newest strategy was hardly a success, either.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that since Bush ordered thousands more troops to Iraq last winter, "we've lost more than 600 troops, costing the American taxpayers more than $60 billion. The escalation has done nothing to bring the Iraqi government together. It's done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq."
Two Democrats, Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, back legislation to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be completed by the end of April 2008.
A vote is expected next week, and Reid said nearly all Democrats support the proposal. Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon is a supporter, as well, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told reporters she may switch her position and vote for it, too.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would call for a vote on a similar measure by week's end.
The Senate proposal appears to be short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. Bush's veto threat applied to any legislation that sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal "without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of commanders."
"Setting a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure," he said in a written statement that employed terms similar to those he used earlier in the year when he vetoed legislation that set a target date for a withdrawal.
In a further sign of eroding GOP support, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., called for troops to come home next year.
"Simply put, our troops have been doing a great job, but the Iraqi government has not," said Dole, the latest Senate Republican facing the voters in 2008 to switch positions on the war. "Our commitment in Iraq is not indefinite, nor should the Iraqi government perceive it to be."
Also expected to come to a vote in the next two weeks is a plan to place into law recommendations from last winter's report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The group called for removing all combat brigades not needed for training, force protection and counterterrorism by March 31, 2008. In an ominous sign for the White House, six Republicans have signaled support for the proposal, along with six Democrats.
Despite a steady procession of Republicans calling for a change in course, several GOP lawmakers warned against a precipitous withdrawal.
"I believe that our military in cooperation with our Iraqi security forces are making progress in a number of areas," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who recently returned from his sixth trip to the region. The GOP presidential candidate said he noted a dramatic drop in attacks in Ramadi in the western Anbar province.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who accompanied McCain to Iraq, also cited progress since Gen. David Petraeus took command several months ago and the additional troops began arriving.
The Iraqis are "rejecting al-Qaida at every turn. I don't want the Congress to be the cavalry for al-Qaida," he said.
Graham was also part of a group of senators who met privately during the day with Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, and Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, a top adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The senator said afterward the White House is looking at new ways to hasten progress in two primary areas: destroying al-Qaida in Iraq and forcing the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad to make political progress.
But he quoted Bush's aides as saying the administration would oppose calls for a troop withdrawal.
Bush, who was in Cleveland, said issues related to troop strength "will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."
He added, "I call upon the United States Congress to give General David Petraeus a chance to come back and tell us whether his strategy is working, and then we can work together on a way forward."
Petraeus is expected to make his report in September, but Bush also must give Congress an evaluation by July 15 on the progress made by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in several areas of political and economic change.
The 23-page report is expected to state that Iraq has not met or made substantial progress toward about half the targets set by Congress, and has made progress on or arguably achieved the others.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to list any benchmarks that have been met. But he conceded that the most prominent goals had not _ enactment of legislation to allocate oil and gas revenue among the Iraqis or a law to address consequences of the mass firings of Baath Party members.
Bush's allies made clear their unhappiness with the government in Iraq.
"The central government's dysfunction is real. I'm not here to say that it's not," said Graham. "I am in many ways more depressed than I've ever been about political reconciliation in the short term."
McCain, Graham, Bond and others took turns on the Senate floor to warn of grave consequences if Democrats get their wish for a quick troop withdrawal.
At an afternoon news conference, Bond also brought up the question of overall strategy.
"Late last winter we confirmed General Petraeus unanimously to bring a new strategy. Republicans and Democrats said we needed a new strategy, and there's no question we did.
"The strategy we had before was not the right strategy. We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy. Unfortunately, General Garner lost that argument several years ago," he said a reference to the general who was installed as the first postwar governor of Iraq. Garner arrived in Iraq in April 2003 and was replaced the following month.
Asked, in retrospect, how long the House and Senate should have permitted an inadequate strategy to continue, Bond replied, "Congress was not running the war."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 10, 2007 11:47:40 PM new
Bush Says No Iraq Shift; Criticism Rises
Updated 2:06 AM ET July 11, 2007
By DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush threatened to veto legislation setting a date for a troop withdrawal from Iraq on Tuesday despite growing bipartisan calls in Congress for an end to U.S. participation in the war and sharp criticism of the Iraqi government.
As the Senate opened a new debate on the conflict, one of the president's staunchest supporters bluntly said the administration had pursued the wrong policy for years after toppling Saddam Hussein. "The strategy we had before was not the right strategy," said Christopher Bond, R-Mo. "We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."
Asked later who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, "Ultimately, obviously, the president."
Democrats said Bush's newest strategy was hardly a success, either.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that since Bush ordered thousands more troops to Iraq last winter, "we've lost more than 600 troops, costing the American taxpayers more than $60 billion. The escalation has done nothing to bring the Iraqi government together. It's done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq."
Two Democrats, Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, back legislation to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be completed by the end of April 2008.
A vote is expected next week, and Reid said nearly all Democrats support the proposal. Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon is a supporter, as well, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told reporters she may switch her position and vote for it, too.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would call for a vote on a similar measure by week's end.
The Senate proposal appears to be short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. Bush's veto threat applied to any legislation that sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal "without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of commanders."
"Setting a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure," he said in a written statement that employed terms similar to those he used earlier in the year when he vetoed legislation that set a target date for a withdrawal.
In a further sign of eroding GOP support, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., called for troops to come home next year.
"Simply put, our troops have been doing a great job, but the Iraqi government has not," said Dole, the latest Senate Republican facing the voters in 2008 to switch positions on the war. "Our commitment in Iraq is not indefinite, nor should the Iraqi government perceive it to be."
Also expected to come to a vote in the next two weeks is a plan to place into law recommendations from last winter's report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The group called for removing all combat brigades not needed for training, force protection and counterterrorism by March 31, 2008. In an ominous sign for the White House, six Republicans have signaled support for the proposal, along with six Democrats.
Despite a steady procession of Republicans calling for a change in course, several GOP lawmakers warned against a precipitous withdrawal.
"I believe that our military in cooperation with our Iraqi security forces are making progress in a number of areas," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who recently returned from his sixth trip to the region. The GOP presidential candidate said he noted a dramatic drop in attacks in Ramadi in the western Anbar province.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who accompanied McCain to Iraq, also cited progress since Gen. David Petraeus took command several months ago and the additional troops began arriving.
The Iraqis are "rejecting al-Qaida at every turn. I don't want the Congress to be the cavalry for al-Qaida," he said.
Graham was also part of a group of senators who met privately during the day with Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, and Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, a top adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The senator said afterward the White House is looking at new ways to hasten progress in two primary areas: destroying al-Qaida in Iraq and forcing the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad to make political progress.
But he quoted Bush's aides as saying the administration would oppose calls for a troop withdrawal.
Bush, who was in Cleveland, said issues related to troop strength "will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."
He added, "I call upon the United States Congress to give General David Petraeus a chance to come back and tell us whether his strategy is working, and then we can work together on a way forward."
Petraeus is expected to make his report in September, but Bush also must give Congress an evaluation by July 15 on the progress made by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in several areas of political and economic change.
The 23-page report is expected to state that Iraq has not met or made substantial progress toward about half the targets set by Congress, and has made progress on or arguably achieved the others.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to list any benchmarks that have been met. But he conceded that the most prominent goals had not _ enactment of legislation to allocate oil and gas revenue among the Iraqis or a law to address consequences of the mass firings of Baath Party members.
Bush's allies made clear their unhappiness with the government in Iraq.
"The central government's dysfunction is real. I'm not here to say that it's not," said Graham. "I am in many ways more depressed than I've ever been about political reconciliation in the short term."
McCain, Graham, Bond and others took turns on the Senate floor to warn of grave consequences if Democrats get their wish for a quick troop withdrawal.
At an afternoon news conference, Bond also brought up the question of overall strategy.
"Late last winter we confirmed General Petraeus unanimously to bring a new strategy. Republicans and Democrats said we needed a new strategy, and there's no question we did.
"The strategy we had before was not the right strategy. We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy. Unfortunately, General Garner lost that argument several years ago," he said a reference to the general who was installed as the first postwar governor of Iraq. Garner arrived in Iraq in April 2003 and was replaced the following month.
Asked, in retrospect, how long the House and Senate should have permitted an inadequate strategy to continue, Bond replied, "Congress was not running the war."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 11, 2007 10:10:14 AM new
Snowe Embraces Troop Withdrawal Bill
Updated 12:21 PM ET July 11, 2007
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Olympia Snowe on Wednesday became the second Republican to embrace a bill ordering troops out of Iraq as President Bush's national security adviser tried to stop defections from the White House war policy.
Snowe, R-Maine, joined Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., in co-sponsoring a bill that would require troops to start leaving in 120 days. The bill also would end combat by April 30, 2008.
Snowe's endorsement is a shift for the senator, who in recent months opposed a similar measure. Snowe had said earlier that she'd been considering signing on to the measure because the situation in Iraq was growing worse.
"Frankly, given the fact that the Iraqi government isn't prepared to change its own political direction, we should be prepared to change course with resepect to our strategy," Snowe told reporters Tuesday.
While other Republicans were expected to oppose the firm timetable on troop withdrawals, more and more GOP members are calling for the U.S. to end combat next year.
At least 10 Republicans in recent weeks have said the U.S. should start reducing the military's role in Iraq, with the latest challenge to the president's Iraq strategy coming Tuesday from Sen. Elizabeth Dole.
"Simply put, our troops have been doing a great job, but the Iraqi government has not," Dole, R-N.C., said. "Our commitment in Iraq is not indefinite, nor should the Iraqi government perceive it to be. It is my firm hope and belief that we can start bringing our troops home in 2008."
Accordingly, the White House this week revived its outreach effort to members, including Wednesday's visit by Bush's top national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, who met with more than a dozen senators.
The visit came as the White House finalized a 23-page progress report on Iraq that concludes the government in Baghdad has made little progress in meeting reform goals laid down by Bush and Congress.
Earlier this year, Congress passed a 2007 war spending bill that identified 18 benchmarks for political, security and economic reforms. The list was based on promises made by the Iraqi government when Bush decided to send in 30,000 additional U.S. troops.
The legislation required Bush to certify by July 15 and again on Sept. 15 that Baghdad was making significant strides in meeting the benchmarks. If he cannot, U.S. aid dollars must be cut, according to the law.
The law allows Bush to waive the requirement to cut funding.
Based on that list, the administration is likely to argue some progress has been made in reducing the level of sectarian violence and militia control. Iraq also has established several, but not all, of the needed joint neighborhood security stations in Baghdad, as well as increased the number of capable Iraqi security units.
But the report also is expected to concede that several major goals have not been met: Iraqi laws to allocate oil and gas resources and revenue, and to address amnesty for former Baath Party members. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the report will indicate whether there has been "progress at a satisfactory rate, or unsatisfactory rate, and in some cases maybe mixed results on some of those benchmarks."
Bush is not expected to withhold aid from the Iraqis.
Bush said Tuesday he would veto any legislation setting a deadline on troop withdrawals. He also said he would not rethink his military strategy until at least September, when the top military commander delivers a progress report on the troop buildup.
"That's what the American people expect. They expect for military people to come back and tell us how the military operations are going," Bush said. "And that's the way I'm going to play it as commander in chief."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 11, 2007 11:35:14 PM new
Uneasy GOP Senators Beseech Bush on Iraq
Updated 1:46 AM ET July 12, 2007
By DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) - Nervous Senate Republicans beseeched the White House without apparent success Wednesday for a quick change in course on Iraq as congressional Democrats insisted on high-profile votes calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops by spring.
Prospects for a less-sweeping, bipartisan challenge to President Bush suffered a setback when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the leading proposal has "less teeth than a toothless tiger."
Taken together, the events pointed toward a 10-day period of politically charged maneuvering in the Senate in which Democrats push for a withdrawal, the White House's allies resist and a small but growing collection of Republicans _ most of them facing re-election in 2008 _ is caught in the middle.
"I'm hopeful they (White House officials) change their minds," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said after a meeting that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley held with several Republicans in the Capitol.
There was no evidence of that _ and the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, was biting in his criticism of Republicans who have parted company with Bush on the war. "Wimps," he called them in closed-door comments confirmed by an aide.
Bush, one day after ruling out talk of any shift in strategy before fall, met at the White House with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Both lawmakers emerged saying that the administration's troop buildup had produced progress and deserved a chance to work, at least until Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, produces a widely anticipated report on the war in September.
The White House owes Congress an interim report later this week on the progress that the Iraqi government has made toward meeting a series of political, military and economic goals.
One senior U.S. official said the report will judge that the Iraqi government has partially met some objectives, failed to achieve others, and completed action on a few requirements for upgrading its military.
In a downbeat assessment, the nation's top intelligence analyst told Congress during the day that the troop increase had not created conditions that would allow the country's various groups to reconcile their deep differences.
"They (the violence levels) have not yet been reduced significantly," Tom Fingar told the House Armed Services Committee.
There were signs of crumbling Republican support for the president's war policy at every turn _ although Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said that so far, not enough to allow administration critics to prevail.
GOP officials said Sens. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and McCain had engaged in a brief but spirited debate Tuesday at a closed-door meeting attended by Vice President Dick Cheney. These officials said Voinovich dismissed the warnings that al-Qaida terrorists represented a threat in Iraq, adding that left to their own, the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq would both turn on the outsiders and drive them from the country.
McCain disagreed, said these officials, and painted a stark picture of the ramifications of a U.S. troop withdrawal. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversations were supposed to be private.
Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon became the first Republican to declare on the Senate floor that he will vote for Democratic-drafted legislation that orders a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be concluded by April 30, 2008.
Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have also said they will vote for the measure, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said she has not ruled out joining them.
Most Democrats are expected to support the legislation, but Republican opponents have vowed to block a final vote, and they appeared to have enough strength to do so.
The compromise legislation, backed by a bipartisan group of 12 lawmakers, draws on a report issued last winter by the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker, a Republican, and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana.
Among its provisions is a goal of removing most U.S. combat brigades by the first quarter of 2008, with the exception of troops needed to train Iraqi forces, protect U.S. assets and conduct counterterrorism operations.
Reid spoke dismissively of the measure at a news conference. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has not been critical of the proposal, but nor is he a supporter.
Without the active support of either Reid or McConnell, the party leaders, the prospects of the measure succeeding are poor, particularly since it likely will need 60 votes to advance.
Across the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unexpectedly announced Tuesday night that the House will vote later this week on legislation requiring a troop withdrawal.
Republicans were critical. "The fact is Democrats have offered no plan for success in Iraq, indeed no plan at all other than to leave the country to radical jihadists like al-Qaida," Boehner said in a written statement.
The decision by Pelosi, as well as Reid's criticism of a potential compromise, underscored the potential political peril for Republicans facing votes on a war that has become deeply unpopular with the public 16 months before the 2008 elections.
There were indications of their concern on several fronts, from Smith's speech on the Senate floor, to the presence of a half-dozen or so GOP senators at the meeting with Hadley, to the compromise effort that has drawn the support of six Republicans to date. Among them are Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine and Domenici, all of whom face the voters in 2008, as well as Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, a member of the GOP leadership.
At a news conference, McConnell sidestepped questions about the political impact on Republicans of the war debate.
Instead, he said he was pleased that the GOP had held firm against a proposal to assure fixed periods of time at home between deployments for troops. The measure, advanced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., had a majority, 56-41, but fell four short of the 60 votes needed to advance.
____
Associated Press writers Anne Flaherty and Katherine Shrader contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 12, 2007 06:05:32 AM new
mingotree
posted on July 11, 2007 11:24:23 PM
Well, Roadsmith , I had to post something or she would've accused herself of talking to herself LOL!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on July 12, 2007 06:54:53 AM new
Linda_K
posted on July 12, 2007 06:17:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFLMHO"""""""
Gee, linduh, is that all you can think of to say about the Repugs turning on your beloved president bushit ???....
(or is that just hysterical laughter ?)
I LOL everytime I read of another Republican giving bushit the finger
posted on July 13, 2007 08:28:39 PM new
New GOP Bill Challenges Bush Iraq Policy
Updated 10:42 PM ET July 13, 2007
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two top Republicans cast aside President Bush's pleas for patience on Iraq Friday and proposed legislation demanding a new strategy by mid-October to restrict the mission of U.S. troops.
The proposal, by veteran GOP Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana, came as the Pentagon conceded a decreasing number of Iraqi battalions are able to operate on their own.
"American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top," the Warner-Lugar proposal states.
Democrats and the White House were dismissive of the proposal. However, it could attract significant support from GOP colleagues who are frustrated by Iraq but reluctant to break ranks with their party or force the hand of a wartime president.
The two senators are considered the GOP's foremost national security experts. Warner was the longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee until stepping down last year, while Lugar is the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
The legislation also draws heavily from existing GOP-backed proposals, increasing the chances of attracting support.
It would require Bush to submit by Oct. 16 a plan to "transition U.S. combat forces from policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" to a narrow set of missions: protecting Iraqi borders, targeting terrorists, protecting U.S. assets and training Iraqi forces.
The bill suggests the plan be ready for implementation by next year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid balked at the proposal because it would not require Bush to implement the strategy. He said he prefers legislation the Senate will vote on next week that would order combat troops to be out of Iraq by next spring.
Warner and Lugar "put a lot of faith in the president _ that he will voluntarily change course and voluntarily begin to reduce the large U.S. combat footprint in Iraq," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley in a statement.
Earlier on Friday, Reid dismissed as too soft a separate proposal supported by several Republicans and Democrats that would require Bush to adopt the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, intended to pave the way for a 2008 withdrawal.
"If you give this president a choice, he will stay hunkered down in Iraq for years to come," Reid, D-Nev., said.
Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said the White House would review the Warner-Lugar measure. "But we believe the new way forward strategy _ which became fully operational less than a month ago _ deserves the time to succeed," he said.
In addition to requiring a new military strategy, the legislation calls on Bush to seek renewed authorization for the war, which Congress gave him in 2002. Many members contend that the authorization _ which led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 _ was limited to approval of deposing Saddam Hussein and searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Through top aides and in private meetings and phone calls, Bush has repeatedly asked Congress to hold off on demanding a change in the course of the war until September, when the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, deliver a fresh assessment of progress.
But many Republicans, most of whom will face voters next year, say they are tired of the war, which is in its fifth year and has killed more than 3,600 troops.
In a report to Congress this week, the White House conceded that not enough progress was being made in training Iraqi security forces _ the linchpin in Bush's exit strategy for U.S. troops.
At a news conference Friday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of battle-ready Iraqi battalions able to fight independently has dropped from 10 to six in recent months despite an increase in U.S. training efforts.
Pace said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be "overly concerned" about because the problem was partly attributable to losses in the field.
"As units operate in the field, they have casualties, they consume vehicles and equipment," Pace said.
In another development Friday, Bush's top spokesman appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress on military, political and other benchmarks designated by the United States.
However, Tony Snow said, "Let's also see what happens because quite often when parliaments do not meet, they are also continuing meetings on the side. And there will be progress, I'm sure on a number of fronts."
The Warner-Lugar proposal is the first major legislative challenge to Bush's Iraq policy endorsed by the two senators. Lugar and Warner have previously expressed grave doubts about Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq. But both remain reluctant to back binding legislation that would manage deployments.
"I have great respect for the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the authorities granted to each in that document," Warner said in a statement Friday.
___
Associated Press Writers Pauline Jelinek, Lolita C. Baldor and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.
(This version CORRECTS that the quote on Warner-Lugar faith in the president was from a Reid spokesman, not Reid)
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 16, 2007 02:06:39 PM new
Fact = NO support for that bill.
As a matter of FACT, reuters points out today that:
"Hadley noted that Warner and Lugar did not call for a withdrawal deadline or schedule -- unlike some Democratic plans -- and they envisioned a U.S. involvement in Iraq for a "considerable period of time."
"All they're simply saying is we need to think about now how we can transition to a new phase in Iraq when U.S. forces may have a different role," he said.
My, the anti-war left just cannot accept that UNTIL such time this CIC decides we will leave Iraq...we will NOT be leaving.
Now, IF the dems/liberals could count on their party to do anything except TALK and talk and talk....things might end up differently.
But they've CLEARLY shown their party supporters they don't have the guts to do anything other than TALK some more.
And the way things look today....we're staying...and are considering sending MORE troops.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 16, 2007 02:21 PM ]
Gee, linduh, is that all you can think of to say about the Repugs turning on your beloved president bushit ???....
Are YOU a Bunghole?
