Text 26133, 137 rader
Skriven 2007-01-10 10:52:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Dems
============
So they are playing politics with the war ?  WHoda thunk.  Why don;t they have
the guts to vote down the funding, if they don't agree with it ?  Where is the
Democrat's plan ?  The country is still waiting on it.

=============================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10capitol.html?ei=5065&en=43a3f144
8e55872c&ex=1169096400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

January 10, 2007
Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan
By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9  Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold
symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bushs plan to send more
troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and
seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a
closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval
before sending more troops to Iraq.

The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of
committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday
night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting
chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement
that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop
increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider
whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long
rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.

In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions  which would do
nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bushs intention to increase the United
States military presence in Iraq  would be the minimum steps they would pursue.
They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like
seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting
financing for the war  steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political
showdown over the presidents power to wage war.

The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of
Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash
between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the
Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a
confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have
struggled with how to take on Mr. Bushs war policy without being perceived as
undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.

If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the
president hes on his own, said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee. That will spark real change.

The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress
from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will
have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House
aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.

While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing
for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation,
Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of
simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against
the plan.

They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using
language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the
United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake

We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say
no to escalation, said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. I
really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this
escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than
any other thing that we can do.

On the eve of the presidents Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W.
Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet
with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were
likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were
proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message
that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad
was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of
their senators to back the resolution.

In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia,
said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the
best interest of the United States. Im particularly concerned about the greater
injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you
shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia? Mr. Warner said. Our American G.I.s should not
be subjected to that type of risk.

But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said
Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. You cant run a war
by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate, he said.

The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats plans. We
understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war  and the
necessity of succeeding in Iraq  are very real, he said Tuesday night.

On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings
on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice are among those who have agreed to testify.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bushs plan has
sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a
resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq.

We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, Mr. Levin
said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. We cant save them from themselves.
It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution.

Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr.
Bushs approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few
senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of
others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential
war-powers issue.

We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we
dont want to leave our troops short-changed, said Senator Mary L. Landrieu,
Democrat of Louisiana.

Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance
against the plan. It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy
constituents.

Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a
last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in
Iraq, said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who
proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. Rather than cooling tensions
in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.

Thom Shanker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)