Posted on 02/14/2007 8:00:35 AM PST by Mo1
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.
The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.
In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.
Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing "anti-military" while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to be more aggressive.
"What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without cutting off funding" for the troops, said Tom Mazzie of Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq. "We call it the 'readiness strategy.'"
Murtha's proposal, which has been kept under tight wraps, is likely to pass the House next month or in early April as part of the supplemental spending bill, Democratic insiders said, if the language remains tightly focused and does not threaten funding levels for combat forces already in the field. The battle will then shift to the Senate. Anti-war groups like Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnestoa, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition.
Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war, a direct challenge to conservative incumbents who are attempting to straddle the political line between their pro- and anti-war constituents.
If the Senate does not approve these new funding restrictions, or if Senate Republicans filibuster the supplemental bill, Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership would then be able to ratchet up the political pressure on the White House to accede to their demands by "slow-walking" the supplemental bill. Additionally, House Democrats could try to insert the Murtha provisions into the fiscal 2008 defense authorization and spending bills, which are scheduled to come to the floor later in the year.
"We will set benchmarks for readiness," said a top Democratic leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops. "We are not cutting funding for any [unit] in Iraq," said the aide, who admitted the Democratic maneuver would not prevent the president from sending some additional forces to Baghdad. "We want to limit the number who can go ... We're trying to build a case that the president needs to change course."
Mazzie, though, suggested that Democrats ought to directly rebut the Republican charge that Democrats are threatening the safety of American forces in the field by pushing restrictions on war funding. "Cutting off funding as described by the media and White House is a caricature," Mazzie said. "It has never happened in U.S. history, and it won't happen now."
Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove."
Andrews's group has launched a new Web site, MoveCongress.org, and he has already posted an interview with Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., one of the founders of the "Out of Iraq Caucus" in the House. An interview with Murtha on his legislative strategy will be posted on the site Thursday.
"I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing."
This is so disgusting to me I couldn't even finish reading the article. It actually makes me sick.
The president is talking about this now! He said the Congress is actually writing a resolution expressing disapproval of Patraeous's (sp) plan.
I wish I could type what I was thinking when I read this
Mo...I read this article twice.
And, do you know what will happen if they go this way???
The troops that are already in Iraq, will be forced to STAY for much, much longer...because since the dems are making their stand at not "letting" new troops be trained and outfitted "properly" to qualify to be sent...
Then, in order for us to WIN THE DAMN WAR...the ones that are there, will have to stay!!!
I think it is time for a VICTORY revolt against this hugh conglomeration of the Soros' of the world, that are trying to bring down our country from within.
I know it; literally, Mo, I couldn't finish it. It's making me thinkin violent, ugly thoughts and I just refuse to go there on Valentines Day.
Peach...the Dems, along with the BIG MONEY anti-war groups are going to block any money for our national security..and they are going to force troops already in Iraq to have to stay...because they won't let new ones go over.
And when our troops start dying in even larger numbers, I'm laying the blame directly where it belongs -- on Congressional Democrats.
And when we get attacked here at home, I'm laying the blame directly where it belongs -- on Congressional Democrats.
I think we need to all call our Republican Congressmen and tell them we expect them to speak against this as a block and speak forcefully.
I am so anger at these BS games ... I won't shed a tear if the terrorists try to go after the capital again
Ah, yes...death by a thousand cuts
grr
anger = angry
I can count on one hand the people I'd be sorry to lose in Congress. Not many of them have even the loyalty of a hound dog.
When, not if, the next attack comes to the American soil remember the name of your elected offical who had no bal*s.
I hate the left.
Blame Republicans and Conservatives who ran terrible campaigns, and the rest of us who abandoned the big picture so that we could seek petty revenge against the Administration over other things.
I have said over and over again, that the time to change the Right is at the PRIMARY stage, not at the general election stage.
Everything that is happening now, is simply what we deserve, and it is us who bear responsibility for allowing the Democrats to abandon the WOT and our troops.
My anger is reserved for the 100%ers, the nutcases who have infected the Right with the negativity that will insure Democrat rule for the next 20 years.
Now, back to Lurking. See ya.
This is progress for the DIMS. Cut and Run is now cut and Walk.
me too
They are cowards.
They are worse then cowards
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.