Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
May 5, 2007
By Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse
WASHINGTON, May 4 — The aggressive attempts by Democratic presidential hopefuls to shape the war debate are threatening to complicate Congressional efforts to reach a deal on the Iraq spending bill, as the candidates’ calls for accelerating an end to the conflict compete with efforts by legislative leaders to extend financing for the war.
The proposal by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to repeal President Bush’s war authorization in October touched off a furious tussle on Friday among Democrats hoping to gain an upper hand with voters who oppose the war. It prompted other candidates to seek an even swifter end to the conflict, which was what some Congressional leaders had been trying to avoid as war-spending negotiations with the White House intensify.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, said the plan was “a good statement to make,” but that Congress should use the power of the purse to end the war. He compared the proposal to the 1971 Congressional action that repealed the resolution authorizing the Vietnam War, but noted: “The war went on for another three years.”
Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, said he proposed a similar measure three months ago. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Richardson said the plan by Mrs. Clinton of New York and Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, “only goes halfway,” because it would leave too many residual American forces in Iraq.
Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware said that he had proposed in January the idea of repealing the authority for the war resolution. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut praised the idea, but said that it would not change the president’s Iraq policy. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said October was too late to begin bringing troops home.
The flurry of exchanges among presidential candidates, according to interviews with lawmakers in both parties, is obscuring efforts to reach a substantive legislative compromise on Capitol Hill.
“The presidential debate is a complicating factor,” said Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who is working with Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican, to build a consensus to change Iraq strategy. “The whole thing is so polarized. There is a canyon separating the bases of both parties.”
Of the burst of Iraq pronouncements by presidential candidates, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Republican conference, said, “It is poison in the middle of a war, when the issue is funding the troops.”
In Congress, days after the president vetoed the Iraq spending bill, the Senate and the House were heading down different paths in producing new legislation to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as next week, Democratic officials said, the House could consider a measure that would essentially provide $30 billion — or three months of funding for combat operations — and call for the president to report in midsummer on progress being made by the Iraqi government. Congress would then vote again on providing the remainder of the money sought by the administration.
In the Senate, Democrats have opened negotiations with the administration in an effort to craft a measure that Mr. Bush would accept. The fact that the House and Senate are taking different approaches means another round of congressional negotiations must occur before a bill could be sent to the White House, putting lawmakers on a tight timeline if they want to finish before Memorial Day.
In both chambers, Democratic leaders already are bracing for a final compromise measure that might have to be passed with Republican support over the objections of strongly antiwar Democrats.
As the debate over the war funding proceeds, Congressional leaders also are navigating myriad proposals put forward by presidential candidates, not to mention other senators. The plan put forward by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd, for example, would require the president to seek new authority from Congress to extend the conflict beyond Oct. 11, 2007, which will mark the fifth anniversary of the original authorization.
Clinton aides said Friday that the senator believes that, if her measure were to pass, the Senate should vote on and approve a new authorizing measure allowing the Bush administration to keep a reduced number of troops in Iraq. Other Democrats who opposed the original war resolution have said that they are reluctant to give Mr. Bush any new authority.
“She would only support legislation that provided the president the authority necessary — a very limited number of U.S. forces in the region to carry out a greatly reduced mission — to end the war and bring the troops home as soon as possible,” said Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton.
For Senator Clinton, the proposal to repeal the president’s war authority is the latest in an evolution on the Iraq war. Under intense criticism from rivals and Democratic voters, she has steadfastly declined to apologize or express regret for her 2002 vote in favor of the war authorization.
Some Clinton advisers acknowledged that they were uncertain — and somewhat wary — about how the proposal to withdraw authorization would go over with antiwar and liberal Democrats, among others.
Democratic Senate aides played down the influence of presidential politics on the negotiations. Through a spokesman, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he agreed that the alternative ideas of rescinding the war authorization — or cutting off money for combat operations by next spring — merited a review by the full Senate.
“They can kick and scream and bite and scratch out there politically,” Mr. Reid said, “but they haven’t done that inside the caucus.”
Patrick Healy contributed reporting from New York.
May 5, 2007
By Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse
WASHINGTON, May 4 — The aggressive attempts by Democratic presidential hopefuls to shape the war debate are threatening to complicate Congressional efforts to reach a deal on the Iraq spending bill, as the candidates’ calls for accelerating an end to the conflict compete with efforts by legislative leaders to extend financing for the war.
The proposal by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to repeal President Bush’s war authorization in October touched off a furious tussle on Friday among Democrats hoping to gain an upper hand with voters who oppose the war. It prompted other candidates to seek an even swifter end to the conflict, which was what some Congressional leaders had been trying to avoid as war-spending negotiations with the White House intensify.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, said the plan was “a good statement to make,” but that Congress should use the power of the purse to end the war. He compared the proposal to the 1971 Congressional action that repealed the resolution authorizing the Vietnam War, but noted: “The war went on for another three years.”
Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, said he proposed a similar measure three months ago. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Richardson said the plan by Mrs. Clinton of New York and Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, “only goes halfway,” because it would leave too many residual American forces in Iraq.
Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware said that he had proposed in January the idea of repealing the authority for the war resolution. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut praised the idea, but said that it would not change the president’s Iraq policy. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said October was too late to begin bringing troops home.
The flurry of exchanges among presidential candidates, according to interviews with lawmakers in both parties, is obscuring efforts to reach a substantive legislative compromise on Capitol Hill.
“The presidential debate is a complicating factor,” said Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who is working with Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican, to build a consensus to change Iraq strategy. “The whole thing is so polarized. There is a canyon separating the bases of both parties.”
Of the burst of Iraq pronouncements by presidential candidates, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Republican conference, said, “It is poison in the middle of a war, when the issue is funding the troops.”
In Congress, days after the president vetoed the Iraq spending bill, the Senate and the House were heading down different paths in producing new legislation to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as next week, Democratic officials said, the House could consider a measure that would essentially provide $30 billion — or three months of funding for combat operations — and call for the president to report in midsummer on progress being made by the Iraqi government. Congress would then vote again on providing the remainder of the money sought by the administration.
In the Senate, Democrats have opened negotiations with the administration in an effort to craft a measure that Mr. Bush would accept. The fact that the House and Senate are taking different approaches means another round of congressional negotiations must occur before a bill could be sent to the White House, putting lawmakers on a tight timeline if they want to finish before Memorial Day.
In both chambers, Democratic leaders already are bracing for a final compromise measure that might have to be passed with Republican support over the objections of strongly antiwar Democrats.
As the debate over the war funding proceeds, Congressional leaders also are navigating myriad proposals put forward by presidential candidates, not to mention other senators. The plan put forward by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd, for example, would require the president to seek new authority from Congress to extend the conflict beyond Oct. 11, 2007, which will mark the fifth anniversary of the original authorization.
Clinton aides said Friday that the senator believes that, if her measure were to pass, the Senate should vote on and approve a new authorizing measure allowing the Bush administration to keep a reduced number of troops in Iraq. Other Democrats who opposed the original war resolution have said that they are reluctant to give Mr. Bush any new authority.
“She would only support legislation that provided the president the authority necessary — a very limited number of U.S. forces in the region to carry out a greatly reduced mission — to end the war and bring the troops home as soon as possible,” said Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton.
For Senator Clinton, the proposal to repeal the president’s war authority is the latest in an evolution on the Iraq war. Under intense criticism from rivals and Democratic voters, she has steadfastly declined to apologize or express regret for her 2002 vote in favor of the war authorization.
Some Clinton advisers acknowledged that they were uncertain — and somewhat wary — about how the proposal to withdraw authorization would go over with antiwar and liberal Democrats, among others.
Democratic Senate aides played down the influence of presidential politics on the negotiations. Through a spokesman, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he agreed that the alternative ideas of rescinding the war authorization — or cutting off money for combat operations by next spring — merited a review by the full Senate.
“They can kick and scream and bite and scratch out there politically,” Mr. Reid said, “but they haven’t done that inside the caucus.”
Patrick Healy contributed reporting from New York.