Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Post
February 27, 2008
Pg. 3
Decision Backed by GOP Foes of Measure
By Paul Kane, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to begin debating a bill that would require the administration to start withdrawing forces from Iraq in 120 days and cut funding for battlefield deployments, a surprise move supported by Republicans who want to highlight the security achievements over the past year under President Bush's troop buildup strategy.
Republicans remain almost unanimously opposed to any required withdrawal timeline, but they supported opening the debate because they want to draw attention to the decreased violence and other military progress in Iraq since the United States sent an additional 30,000 U.S. troops there last year.
"There's been so much improvement in the situation in Iraq. Since [Democrats] are the ones who want to turn back to the subject, we'd like to spend the time talking about the dramatic improvements in Iraq," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters moments before a preliminary vote on the withdrawal measure.
The Senate voted 70 to 24 in favor of beginning a debate on a motion to formally vote on the bill, with 43 Republicans joining 26 Democrats and one independent.
In five previous efforts during the past 20 months, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) had not received even 30 votes to bring his bill to a final vote. Not a single Republican had previously supported any of Feingold's withdrawal bills, which have proposed the deepest cuts of any legislation requiring troop pullouts from Iraq.
The Republican move to back the debate on the Feingold proposal caught Democratic leaders off guard. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who supports the Feingold measure, had hoped the Senate would begin considering a package addressing the mortgage crisis late yesterday. He had expected Republicans to remain opposed to debating the withdrawal plan as well as another bill requiring a new administration strategy on the fight against al-Qaeda.
The latest Feingold bill would require troop redeployments out of Iraq within 120 days of being signed into law, while allowing funds to be spent there only for specific purposes: continuing counterterrorist operations, protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, training Iraqi forces and redeploying U.S. forces out of the country.
"Keeping our troops in Iraq will not solve Iraq's problems," Feingold said during the debate yesterday. "And it won't help us address the growing threat by al-Qaeda around the world."
There is little chance of the Feingold measure actually passing, however, with Republicans remaining steadfastly opposed to it and almost half of the Democratic caucus thinking it goes too far. Democrats and Republicans expect the bill to fail later this week, either in a parliamentary gridlock or in a straight vote.
GOP senators openly mocked the measure, the subject of the 35th Iraq-related vote since Democrats took over the chamber in January 2007. "We don't need to waste any more time on this," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.).
But Republicans welcomed the chance to emphasize the U.S. military's achievements since the troop increase last June. "I never dreamed it would matter this much," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a leading proponent of the strategy. He noted that monthly attacks against U.S. forces are down 60 percent since last June. "In other words, we're rolling back the attacks," he said.
But the debate showed early signs of sharp partisan attacks on both sides. One Republican, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.), told reporters that supporting the Feingold withdrawal proposal would be "a bullet right in the hearts of our troops" in Iraq -- a statement Democrats pounced on as offensive to their legislative motives.
The unusual GOP tactic left Democrats in the odd position of criticizing Republicans for supporting a procedural motion to debate a bill that was offered by Democrats. "They're scared to death of [the] housing bill. They are going to stall and stretch this out as long as possible," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said, referring to the Iraq pullout debate.
Democrats had not been expecting the troop-withdrawal debate to resume until late April or May, when Congress is expected to take up another supplemental spending request for the Iraq war from Bush. But Feingold was given the chance to offer his legislation this week as a stand-alone measure, largely because Reid had defused an earlier debate over Pentagon policy by assuring Feingold that he could offer the withdrawal language at a later time.
Instead of the expected quick rejection of Feingold's bill yesterday, the chamber's decision to debate it forced Democrats to scramble to pull together their war-related proposals. Under consideration are a pair of amendments from Sen. James Webb (D-Va.). One would require troops to return to a one-to-one ratio in the time spent on duty in Iraq and the time spent back home; the other, modeled on the post-World War II "G.I. Bill," would provide greater financial assistance for higher education to troops returning from overseas duty.
Senior Democrats said they remain stymied in their long-term effort to pull Republicans away from Bush on Iraq policy, with just four GOP senators so far supporting a less stringent withdrawal bill offered by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich).
"There's been no shift toward us," Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said yesterday.
Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, said the debates this week and this spring are not likely to change policy but would probably sharpen the division between the two parties on Iraq in advance of the November election.
"The best hope is that you're going to strengthen the [Democratic] majority in Congress and win the presidency," Kerry said.
February 27, 2008
Pg. 3
Decision Backed by GOP Foes of Measure
By Paul Kane, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to begin debating a bill that would require the administration to start withdrawing forces from Iraq in 120 days and cut funding for battlefield deployments, a surprise move supported by Republicans who want to highlight the security achievements over the past year under President Bush's troop buildup strategy.
Republicans remain almost unanimously opposed to any required withdrawal timeline, but they supported opening the debate because they want to draw attention to the decreased violence and other military progress in Iraq since the United States sent an additional 30,000 U.S. troops there last year.
"There's been so much improvement in the situation in Iraq. Since [Democrats] are the ones who want to turn back to the subject, we'd like to spend the time talking about the dramatic improvements in Iraq," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters moments before a preliminary vote on the withdrawal measure.
The Senate voted 70 to 24 in favor of beginning a debate on a motion to formally vote on the bill, with 43 Republicans joining 26 Democrats and one independent.
In five previous efforts during the past 20 months, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) had not received even 30 votes to bring his bill to a final vote. Not a single Republican had previously supported any of Feingold's withdrawal bills, which have proposed the deepest cuts of any legislation requiring troop pullouts from Iraq.
The Republican move to back the debate on the Feingold proposal caught Democratic leaders off guard. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who supports the Feingold measure, had hoped the Senate would begin considering a package addressing the mortgage crisis late yesterday. He had expected Republicans to remain opposed to debating the withdrawal plan as well as another bill requiring a new administration strategy on the fight against al-Qaeda.
The latest Feingold bill would require troop redeployments out of Iraq within 120 days of being signed into law, while allowing funds to be spent there only for specific purposes: continuing counterterrorist operations, protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, training Iraqi forces and redeploying U.S. forces out of the country.
"Keeping our troops in Iraq will not solve Iraq's problems," Feingold said during the debate yesterday. "And it won't help us address the growing threat by al-Qaeda around the world."
There is little chance of the Feingold measure actually passing, however, with Republicans remaining steadfastly opposed to it and almost half of the Democratic caucus thinking it goes too far. Democrats and Republicans expect the bill to fail later this week, either in a parliamentary gridlock or in a straight vote.
GOP senators openly mocked the measure, the subject of the 35th Iraq-related vote since Democrats took over the chamber in January 2007. "We don't need to waste any more time on this," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.).
But Republicans welcomed the chance to emphasize the U.S. military's achievements since the troop increase last June. "I never dreamed it would matter this much," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a leading proponent of the strategy. He noted that monthly attacks against U.S. forces are down 60 percent since last June. "In other words, we're rolling back the attacks," he said.
But the debate showed early signs of sharp partisan attacks on both sides. One Republican, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.), told reporters that supporting the Feingold withdrawal proposal would be "a bullet right in the hearts of our troops" in Iraq -- a statement Democrats pounced on as offensive to their legislative motives.
The unusual GOP tactic left Democrats in the odd position of criticizing Republicans for supporting a procedural motion to debate a bill that was offered by Democrats. "They're scared to death of [the] housing bill. They are going to stall and stretch this out as long as possible," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said, referring to the Iraq pullout debate.
Democrats had not been expecting the troop-withdrawal debate to resume until late April or May, when Congress is expected to take up another supplemental spending request for the Iraq war from Bush. But Feingold was given the chance to offer his legislation this week as a stand-alone measure, largely because Reid had defused an earlier debate over Pentagon policy by assuring Feingold that he could offer the withdrawal language at a later time.
Instead of the expected quick rejection of Feingold's bill yesterday, the chamber's decision to debate it forced Democrats to scramble to pull together their war-related proposals. Under consideration are a pair of amendments from Sen. James Webb (D-Va.). One would require troops to return to a one-to-one ratio in the time spent on duty in Iraq and the time spent back home; the other, modeled on the post-World War II "G.I. Bill," would provide greater financial assistance for higher education to troops returning from overseas duty.
Senior Democrats said they remain stymied in their long-term effort to pull Republicans away from Bush on Iraq policy, with just four GOP senators so far supporting a less stringent withdrawal bill offered by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich).
"There's been no shift toward us," Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said yesterday.
Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, said the debates this week and this spring are not likely to change policy but would probably sharpen the division between the two parties on Iraq in advance of the November election.
"The best hope is that you're going to strengthen the [Democratic] majority in Congress and win the presidency," Kerry said.