Posted on 01/17/2007 6:26:41 PM PST by Wolfstar
NOTE: This article had two different headlines, one on Yahoo's front page, and a different one internally.
White House tries to avoid Iraq showdown
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A Senate resolution opposing President Bush's war plan on Iraq put the White House and Republican leaders on the defensive Wednesday as they scurried to prevent a trickle of GOP support for the measure from swelling into a deluge.
Eager to avoid an embarrassing congressional rebuke of the president's new war strategy, the administration seemed to hint that the effort — led chiefly by Democrats — might somehow be of assistance to terrorists. They also herded GOP skeptics to the White House, where they tried to allay the concerns of Republican lawmakers including Sens. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota and Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) of Maine.
"What message does Congress intend to give?" asked White House spokesman Tony Snow. "And who does it think the audience is? Is the audience merely the president? Is it the voting American public or, in an age of instant communication, is it also al-Qaida?"
Initially announced by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and possible 2008 presidential candidates Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., the non-binding resolution states that "escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq" is not in the national interest. Bush has proposed adding 21,500 U.S. troops to the roughly 132,000 already in the country.
Moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, also quickly signed on.
Hagel's and Snowe's support for the measure is a major victory for Democrats, who believe their support will open the door for other Republicans to jump on board and challenge Bush.
The resolution does not call for a withdrawal of troops or threaten funding of military operations, as many Democrats have suggested. Instead, it says the U.S. should transfer responsibility to the Iraqis "under an appropriately expedited timeline" that is not specified.
[SNIP]
Underscoring the GOP effort to keep its troops in line, many of those same members were invited Wednesday evening to meet behind closed doors with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who has threatened to filibuster the measure.
As the White House sought to stave off a major showdown between the administration and Congress on Iraq, GOP members who support Bush's plan drafted rival proposals.
[SNIP]
Warner is considering an alternative proposal that could attract GOP attention. Rather than denouncing the president's strategy, Warner's resolution would voice support for recommendations by a bipartisan Iraq Study Group. That panel urged a withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by early 2008, and did not recommend sending more troops unless specifically requested by a military commander.
[SNIP]
Hagel stood alongside Democrats in a press conference vowing to "do everything I can to stop the president's policy," adding, "I think it is dangerously irresponsible."
[SNIP]
The resolution backed by Biden and the others could help Democrats measure GOP support for more aggressive legislative tactics, such as cutting off funds for the war.
[SNIP]
Many Democrats want to go much further and are expected to try to amend the resolution on the floor. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he wants legislation capping the number of troops in Iraq at existing levels — a plan that attracted support from Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has his own bill threatening funding of troops.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., on Wednesday announced her legislation that would require Bush to obtain congressional approval for additional troops in Iraq if the Iraqis cannot show progress after six months.
"I do not support cutting funding for American troops but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions," Clinton told reporters after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The resolution backed by Biden and the others could help Democrats measure GOP support for more aggressive legislative tactics, such as cutting off funds for the war.
She looked at me, began to cry and told me "That are going to do to my son, what they did to my husband in Viet Nam."
And she was absolutely right. :(
Horse hockey.
If they actually had the stones to vote to cut off funds, they would do so. Passing a toothless resolution means nothing. It's the Congressional equivalent of signing a petition or holding a candlelight vigil -- makes the participants believe they matter when in fact they don't.
Announcing this early in the new Congress that a nonbinding resolution is the most they can do in time of WAR is a pretty good indication that they will be complete moral cowards for the next two years.
The NVA did not win any of the battles of Tet but it was their sign that victory was in sight if they could hang on a little longer.
It means a great deal to observers who may not have the sense of (ahem) nuance you possess. It gives a very great deal of comfort to our enemies, if not aid. It tells our enemies to hang on for two more years (and help elect a Democrat president in '08 by funneling campaign through back-door channels).
Is this the most despicable group of politicians you have ever seen???
I have watched the speeches and pressers and interviews on talk shows since Congress was sworn in..and I have decided that the people going against Pres. Bush and the war are:
1. Too political to put the country before ambition.
2. Too lazy to research what this war is about and who the enemy really is.
3. Too dumb to figure out how dangerous their rhetoric and actions are.
Any or all of those three make me sick..and I can't count on my 2 hands Congresspeople that I wouldn't put in one of those catagories at this point.
I hope she's wrong. But they're definitely going to TRY to do it.
Yes, it sure is. BTW, of the 100 senators, how many are we up to now who are running for president in '08. Almost seems like around 90, with only the oldest not running. Sheesh!
Hagel, carry, Dodd, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Biden, Brownback
That is 8...so far.
This defeatist resolution is a non biding resolution and the question should be "why the traitors in the democrat party will not make it a bidding resolution to cut funding for the troops". The answer for that is very simple because if they do so it will be a political suicide for the democrats because the majority of the country do not want to betray the troops and surrender to the terrorists by leaving Iraq.
The enemies of America are watching to see what happen. Even this non biding resolution gives them the same kind of victory that General Jop speaks of in his memories of the war. They saw that all they had to do was hold on a little longer and Americans would tire of the war.
Too many NEA school teachers followed by leftist/limp wristed pansy college professors have corrupted our educational system in synch with a television/newspaper media composed of sophist/elitists who all together know how to control and manipulate the sheeple.
And when, and if the sandlanders win the war thanks to these traitors and their ilk in Washington, it will be GWB's fault according to the lib press, etc..
May God Bless our POTUS who stands with his back to the wall. I am one of his 31% and proud of him, and his courage.
Me too, oldtimer.
Seems like 80 the way those people all chase around after the nearest microphone. Ugh!
Just speaking for myself, I haven't a clue what the majority of the country does or does not want. I know what the majority of voters did in November. So do the Islamofacists, and they will be watching this non-binding resolution with great care. It doesn't have to be binding to be extremely damaging.
I sent McConnel an email today asking him to expel Hagel from the republican caucus, and to remove Snowe and any other republican that comes out in favor of this resolution from any leadership positions, including ranking member on any committee. I called Hagel's office this evening and left a message asking him to immediately resign from the republican party. Told him he was siding with public position of Al Sadr and AQ, and against our troops and our President. I'm beyond disgusted with this man who is stuck in his time warp of Viet Nam. He clearly is a man of weakness and has no leadership skills. He should hang his head in shame for what he is doing. I'm certain McConnel will garner enough support to counter this attack on our troops. If the resolution goes forward, it needs to be amended with the requirement to pull all funds from our troops. This vote of no confidence in our troops is disgraceful.
Filibuster this useless and divisive piece of legislation.
I agree. I hope McConnell does it.
You mean it DOES matter who controls Congress and staying home on election day wasn't a good idea, or voting 3rd party?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.