Democrats snub Republican Iraq pullout timeline (extends past 2008 elections)

Democrats snub Republican Iraq pullout timeline
Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:37pm ET
By Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Senate Republicans proposed drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq over 15 months, but Democrats rejected the plan because it stretched to after the November 2008 election, both sides said on Friday.

It was the latest manifestation of a Senate stalemated over how to end the unpopular Iraq war launched by President George W. Bush in 2003. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sounding frustrated with the Senate, said her chamber would take up several Iraq bills next week, although none dictate a U.S. troop pullout.

"We in the House cannot confine our aspirations for changing the direction in Iraq to what might be possible today in the United States Senate," Pelosi, a California Democrat, told a news conference.

Next week, the House will take up bipartisan legislation requiring the Pentagon to submit regular reports on troop withdrawal planning to defense committees of Congress, as well as a bill regulating contractors in response to recent deaths of Iraqis in incidents involving the U.S. firm Blackwater.

The Senate late on Thursday passed legislation that would grant 25,000 special immigrant visas over five years to Iraqis, such as translators, who have worked for the U.S. government and are threatened as a result. There is no companion bill yet in the House.

Bush has beaten back demands from Democrats for a quick end to the war, saying the U.S. presence would go on after he leaves office in January 2009. There are about 165,000 U.S. troops there now.

War opponents have struggled all year to gather enough votes in the Senate, which has a slender Democratic majority, to challenge Bush's war strategy. Over time, more Republicans have become involved in talks on the war with Democrats, but few have joined Democrats on critical votes.

In the talks that stretched across recent days but ended without agreement on Thursday, Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich, a Foreign Relations Committee member, proposed setting a goal of changing and paring down the U.S. mission in Iraq within 15 months of enactment.

"It wouldn't be before the (2008 presidential and congressional) election, so it wouldn't be a political football," Voinovich aide Chris Paulitz explained.

But Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan refused, wanting a nine-month goal for "transitioning the mission" in Iraq. Levin is co-author of a Democratic effort to force a troop pullout within nine months that has failed several times to pass the Senate, most recently a week ago.

"To try to put this until after the election rather than a reasonable period for completion I believe would be to unnecessarily introduce a political element to what is a bipartisan effort," Levin told reporters. Other Democrats also would not back that approach, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters.

Levin said he would keep talking to Voinovich and other Republicans the Ohio senator had brought on board, including Tennessee's Lamar Alexander, North Carolina's Elizabeth Dole and Minnesota's Norm Coleman, who all face re-election next year. Even if they reached a deal, it was unclear when it could be brought to the Senate floor.

Guess someone better sit the RINOS and the Democrats in the Senate down and explain to them the significance of THIS

This is a pretty major indication of victory in Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904108/posts

Iraq: We Want American Security Partnership

Iraq wants the U.N. Security Council to extend the mandate of the 160,000-stong U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq only through the end of 2008, then replace it with a long-term bilateral security agreement, Foreign Ministry officials said Saturday.

Aides to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the mandate extension for the U.S.-led coalition, due to be discussed at the end of this year, would be “the last extension for these forces.”

Iraq would then seek a long-term, bilateral security agreement with the United States like the ones Washington has with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Egypt, he said.

“Iraq needs a new resolution to determine the shape of the relationship between the two countries and how to cooperate with the U.S. forces,” said Labid Abawi, a deputy foreign minister.

Zebari first disclosed the plan in an interview with the London-based Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat that was published Saturday.

A resolution adopted unanimously by the U.N. Security Council on June 8, 2004, said the U.S.-led multinational force would remain in Iraq at the request of the interim government that was about to assume control of the country from the United States and Britain.

The resolution, drafted by the United States, authorizes a review of the mandate at the request of the Iraqi government every six months. The mandate last was extended for one year on Dec. 31 and expires at end of this year.

“We will ask the council to extend the mandate for another year...then our negotiations with the Security Council will be kicked off,” Zebari was quoted as saying.

“We will ask the council to include an article that allows Iraq to enter into negotiations with the United States to reach long term security agreements to meet Iraq’s security needs bilaterally,” Zebari added.

“The negotiations and talks over the security agreements will take a long time as they will cover the issues of sovereignty and immunity, the mission of these forces, Iraq’s security needs and the role of the U.S. forces in training (Iraqi forces),” he said.

Zebari said the bilateral agreement would “not set a timetable (for withdrawal of U.S. forces) ... but could include an article calls for decreasing their numbers.”

Abawi told the AP this would depend “on the situation on the ground and the readiness of the government and the army to deal with this situation.”

Last June, Iraqi legislators led by followers of a radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr passed a resolution requiring the government to seek parliamentary approval before asking the United Nations to extend the U.S. mandate.

The measure was approved along party lines — with Sunnis joining the bloc loyal to al-Sadr and another disaffected Shiite party to support it — and Shiite and Kurdish backers of al-Maliki’s government in opposition.

The parliamentary move could snarl the mandate renewal, as Iraqis and their legislative representatives grow increasingly disenchanted with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It is all game playing. The Democrats face a horrible reality. They have to fund their own defeat. They HAVE to, and they know it. If they do not fund the defense budget, then face troops in the field fighting hand to hand and dying because Congress would not pay for ammunition. A few of those on camera, blood streaked and screaming their anger and they lose their seats forever.

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THIS PEOPLE . . . the DNC and Soros is orchestrating all the stories we have seen the last few days about the “inevitability” of Clinton’s win and the loss of seats in Congress next year STRICTLY in the context of the Iraq funding that is pending. EVERYTHING going on is about Iraq. They must persuade GOP Senators that election disaster pends if they do not fold on Iraq.

Victory in Iraq looks now to be likely and they know it and are terrified of it. Call your senator and representative and DEMAND that he stand firm on “Success In Iraq”.

the unpopular Iraq war launched by President George W. Bush in 2003.

This sentence is their TALKING POINTS!

I see it all over the map, either voiced repeatedly or printed in the drive by media!!

When has any war ever been POPULAR?

I lived through 5 years of German occupation in my former home country, and the only popular thing we saw was when the allies rolled VICTORIOUS into our country defeating the Germans!!!

I wonder how FDR would have acted if he have had the present (D)-clowns sitting in congress when thousands by thousand brave young men lost their lives fighting for OUR freedom and liberty that we cherish so much??

First it was the Germans in WWI and WWII together with the fanatic Japanese. Then it was Stalin's cold war threats, including Korea and Vietnam. Then OBL knocked on our doors many times in the 90ths. including WTCs. Radical Islams are one the march to cream and extinct our western civilizations, what is next, the white flag waving D-"ass" clowns???

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.