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."
We have a lot of those nutjobs right here on FR. It's a shame because we know the media reads FR and after seeing some of the crazier comments around here, I almost can't blame the media for thinking Republicans are either a) nuts or b) hate-filled. We're seeing living proof right here on FR.
Why is it so hard to vote against a senile traitor? It's not.
'Rats. RINOs. What's the diff?
Soooooo... liberal democrats want literally bleed the war effort to a standstill by hanging US troops out to twist in the desrt wind, along with an entire nation of Iraquis? Is there any reason to doubt that liberalism is evil?
It is all that is gutless, sneaking, and yellow to the core. It is a disease of the soul, a childish attempt at escaping responsibility, knowledge, reality, rather than any coherent set of political beliefs.
It is the worship of the zero on the alter of failure. It is death.
So Bush needs to get those troops moving now ahead of this legislation.
Alternatively, I fully believe that if the ROE in Iraq were to kill the enemy no matter what, and to take the handcuffs off our troops allowing them to do same, we might just not need those 21K additional troops.
I used to rant all the time about the simple fact that you cant do squat if you dont win, only to be shouted down by creeps with agendas beyond the Conservative cause.
One example: Duncan Hunter.
I live in San Diego County and I KNOW Duncan Hunter, and I can tell you that his chances for the Presidency are worse than mine. Any Freeper could do a bit of digging and find a TON of financial malfeasence and dirty dealing in Hunter's background, but because he parrots a good Conservative speak, many just jump on that train with nothing but their own ignorance to guide them. It is embarassing to watch, and it reminds me of the same foolishness that cause so-called Conservatives to back Ross Perot, leading to the Clinton presidency.
Nuts will be nuts, but you would think that with Google and other tools, that Conservatives would have enough energy to back up their positions with facts. Until that happens, Conservatism is DOOMED.
Ditoo.
The enemy within reveals their battle plan.
"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. "
The dems plan will not allow the troops to stay.
If they are not shamed, they never will be.
Here is a quote by Sam Johnson yesterday.
"Words can't fully describe the unspeakable damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground" in Vietnam, said Johnson, R-Texas, who was released 34 years ago on Tuesday.
He spent 7 years as a POW in North Vietnam, and was still a POW when the Democrats defunded the war in Vietnam, he said he thought they would be there forever after hearing about it.
Sam spoke in front of the Rules Committee, saying those exact things, on Monday night...they just dismissed him with barely a thank you for MISSING a tribute dinner held for HIM...just to speak before them.
The Dems totally dismissed his speech.
Because they don't care
"The democrat party will lie, cheat, steal, and beg to get your vote for two reasons: 1)Their only concern is the expansion of power, and; 2) Democrat voters, especially liberals, don't vote with their minds or consciences... they vote to maintain or expand the power base of democrats and government in general. Democrats and their voters care most for what is best for their party, and little for what is best for America."
Knowing this, there is no excuse for voting to allow Democrats to gain the power to do what YOU KNOW they will do, so that you can sooth your own mind by punishing a RINO. It is simply the most stupid, selfish and egotistical expression to vote out a Republican, RINO or not, and allow Democrats to take over, regardles of your feelings, because you have a solution, called a PRIMARY!
You just proved that there is NO REASONING behind what some of you are doing, do the detriment of your own agenda. It is ALL ABOUT YOU, not Conservatism, not the defeat of Liberals, you just want some payback.
IT IS NUTS!
I rest my case.
The R leadership is sure to give him prime time so his message can be heard.
LOL...I was just sitting back and waiting for your response to that last post to you!!!
You didn't let me down!
I hope they give him some "prime" time...because his message on Monday night...though a short one, was quite powerful.
No need to get upset the democrats in D.C. are nothing but a seething pool of stupidity and proud of it,they have the same play book they have used from 1960 and veryone knows that the democrat party in owned by the anti American group.
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.