Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
November 16, 2006
Pg. 1
By Kate Zernike
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — For much of the first postelection hearing on the war in Iraq on Wednesday, the Republican side of the table was largely empty. But the room was still crowded — with competing agendas.
There were three contenders for president, including the Democratic and the Republican titans for 2008 and the one from Indiana who is hoping to cast himself as the Democrats’ compromise candidate.
There was the self-described “Independent Democrat — capital I, capital D,” who is at risk of bolting and taking his party’s new narrow majority with him. (Was that red tie a hint?) And there were the two parties, trying to bolster their positions on the war after an election that each side seemed to interpret in wildly different ways.
In contrast to the Republicans, who arrived late and left early (if they arrived at all), all but one of the Democrats arrived early and stayed late, filling up their side of the Armed Services Committee table quickly, eager to assert their new strength. As the hearing began, Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, flashed a thumbs-up to the incoming Democratic chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
But no sooner had Mr. Levin outlined his case for a phased pullout of troops beginning in four to six months than the new Independent Democratic hero of the hawkish wing, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, began acting the role of cross-examiner, leading Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American military commander in the Middle East, to say that such a withdrawal would increase violence and instability.
“I take it by your answer that you profoundly disagree?” Mr. Lieberman asked. With the Democrats, he meant. “We have a window of opportunity and, really, responsibility now, after the election,” he said, “to find a bipartisan consensus for being supportive of the efforts of our troops and our diplomats there to achieve success.”
To this, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic contender for the 2008 race, knocked back the remains in her coffee cup.
Her leading Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, pressed his argument that more troops were needed in Iraq. When General Abizaid disagreed, Mr. McCain called attention to the remarks of retired military officers who characterized Congressional proposals for phased withdrawal as “terribly naïve.” Mr. McCain’s protégé, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, backed him up; when the general insisted that more troops were not the solution, Mr. Graham cut him off, saying, “Do we need less?” forcing General Abizaid to say that no, that was not the solution, either.
Mrs. Clinton pressed the Democrats’ case that a change in military strategy was necessary to prod the Iraqis into taking responsibility for their own country. “Hope is not a strategy,” she told the generals. “Hortatory talk about what the Iraqi government must do is getting old. I have heard over and over again, ‘The government must do this, the Iraqi Army must do that.’ Nobody disagrees with that. The brutal fact is, it’s not happening.”
She showed she could play bipartisan with the best of them, noting that the new Iraq had failed to meet the benchmarks demanded by Mr. Nelson and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, a Republican.
“Can you offer us more than the hope that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army will step up to the task?” she asked.
Mr. McCain, who would have been the committee chairman had the Republicans maintained control of the Senate, arrived almost an hour late, heralded by the accelerated click of cameras.
As Mr. Nelson questioned General Abizaid, the Arizona senator stood up to confer with Senator Susan M. Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine. At this, Mr. Lieberman got up and walked to the Republican side to join them in a brief, chuckling huddle, then ambled back to his party’s side with a glance at his colleagues as if to say, “You watching?”
In his questions, Mr. Lieberman noted that he was “picking up on” points Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham had made.
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, the other Democratic presidential hopeful, who advocates moderation between the party’s liberal and hawkish wings, tried to emphasize that the Republicans had lost a national referendum on Iraq.
“We just had an election in our country in which the American people expressed less than total confidence in the effectiveness of our own government,” Mr. Bayh said, introducing the idea that the Iraqi government did not deserve much confidence, either.
“I mean, they say the right things,” he said, “but when the going gets tough and they have to make the hard decisions, they sort of retreat into their corner and they’re just not able to find that common ground.”
But while Democrats argued that the election had been a signal from American people that the military solution was not working, Mr. McCain said it was a message that they were unhappy with the status quo — and that only more troops could shake the stagnation.
“Many of us believe that this may not be a long-term commitment,” he said, “but at least a commitment to bring Baghdad under control, and that is not happening today.”
General Abizaid gave something to both sides, arguing for making the American teams helping to train the Iraqi military “more robust.” But he said Iraqis looked unkindly on a major increase in American troops. “They believe it undermines their gaining greater and greater authority and responsibility,” he said.
The Republican side was anchored by the departing chairman and the protector of Senate decorum, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia. He congratulated Mr. Levin, noting that they came to the Senate together 28 years ago. When Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, the only committee member seeking re-election to lose, arrived on the Republican side, Mr. Warner walked over to shake his hand.
November 16, 2006
Pg. 1
By Kate Zernike
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — For much of the first postelection hearing on the war in Iraq on Wednesday, the Republican side of the table was largely empty. But the room was still crowded — with competing agendas.
There were three contenders for president, including the Democratic and the Republican titans for 2008 and the one from Indiana who is hoping to cast himself as the Democrats’ compromise candidate.
There was the self-described “Independent Democrat — capital I, capital D,” who is at risk of bolting and taking his party’s new narrow majority with him. (Was that red tie a hint?) And there were the two parties, trying to bolster their positions on the war after an election that each side seemed to interpret in wildly different ways.
In contrast to the Republicans, who arrived late and left early (if they arrived at all), all but one of the Democrats arrived early and stayed late, filling up their side of the Armed Services Committee table quickly, eager to assert their new strength. As the hearing began, Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, flashed a thumbs-up to the incoming Democratic chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
But no sooner had Mr. Levin outlined his case for a phased pullout of troops beginning in four to six months than the new Independent Democratic hero of the hawkish wing, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, began acting the role of cross-examiner, leading Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American military commander in the Middle East, to say that such a withdrawal would increase violence and instability.
“I take it by your answer that you profoundly disagree?” Mr. Lieberman asked. With the Democrats, he meant. “We have a window of opportunity and, really, responsibility now, after the election,” he said, “to find a bipartisan consensus for being supportive of the efforts of our troops and our diplomats there to achieve success.”
To this, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic contender for the 2008 race, knocked back the remains in her coffee cup.
Her leading Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, pressed his argument that more troops were needed in Iraq. When General Abizaid disagreed, Mr. McCain called attention to the remarks of retired military officers who characterized Congressional proposals for phased withdrawal as “terribly naïve.” Mr. McCain’s protégé, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, backed him up; when the general insisted that more troops were not the solution, Mr. Graham cut him off, saying, “Do we need less?” forcing General Abizaid to say that no, that was not the solution, either.
Mrs. Clinton pressed the Democrats’ case that a change in military strategy was necessary to prod the Iraqis into taking responsibility for their own country. “Hope is not a strategy,” she told the generals. “Hortatory talk about what the Iraqi government must do is getting old. I have heard over and over again, ‘The government must do this, the Iraqi Army must do that.’ Nobody disagrees with that. The brutal fact is, it’s not happening.”
She showed she could play bipartisan with the best of them, noting that the new Iraq had failed to meet the benchmarks demanded by Mr. Nelson and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, a Republican.
“Can you offer us more than the hope that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army will step up to the task?” she asked.
Mr. McCain, who would have been the committee chairman had the Republicans maintained control of the Senate, arrived almost an hour late, heralded by the accelerated click of cameras.
As Mr. Nelson questioned General Abizaid, the Arizona senator stood up to confer with Senator Susan M. Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine. At this, Mr. Lieberman got up and walked to the Republican side to join them in a brief, chuckling huddle, then ambled back to his party’s side with a glance at his colleagues as if to say, “You watching?”
In his questions, Mr. Lieberman noted that he was “picking up on” points Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham had made.
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, the other Democratic presidential hopeful, who advocates moderation between the party’s liberal and hawkish wings, tried to emphasize that the Republicans had lost a national referendum on Iraq.
“We just had an election in our country in which the American people expressed less than total confidence in the effectiveness of our own government,” Mr. Bayh said, introducing the idea that the Iraqi government did not deserve much confidence, either.
“I mean, they say the right things,” he said, “but when the going gets tough and they have to make the hard decisions, they sort of retreat into their corner and they’re just not able to find that common ground.”
But while Democrats argued that the election had been a signal from American people that the military solution was not working, Mr. McCain said it was a message that they were unhappy with the status quo — and that only more troops could shake the stagnation.
“Many of us believe that this may not be a long-term commitment,” he said, “but at least a commitment to bring Baghdad under control, and that is not happening today.”
General Abizaid gave something to both sides, arguing for making the American teams helping to train the Iraqi military “more robust.” But he said Iraqis looked unkindly on a major increase in American troops. “They believe it undermines their gaining greater and greater authority and responsibility,” he said.
The Republican side was anchored by the departing chairman and the protector of Senate decorum, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia. He congratulated Mr. Levin, noting that they came to the Senate together 28 years ago. When Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, the only committee member seeking re-election to lose, arrived on the Republican side, Mr. Warner walked over to shake his hand.