Clinton raises stakes in battle on troop levels
Clinton raises stakes in battle on troop levelsBy Edward Luce, Demetri Sevastopulo and Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: January 19 2007 23:12 Last updated: January 19 2007 23:12
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party’s presidential frontrunner for 2008, pushed out in front of her Senate colleagues by proposing a resolution that would freeze the number of US troops in Iraq. She also called for their “expedited” withdrawal from Iraq.
Mrs Clinton’s move, which came after a four-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, raised the stakes in the congressional battle with George W. Bush following his announced “surge” last week of 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Unlike a separate bipartisan resolution that criticises Mr Bush’s increased troop levels but would be non-binding, Mrs Clinton’s resolution would impose a congressional cap on existing US troops levels, which total about 132,000.
Her bill would also impose conditions on the future US funding of the Iraqi government. Failure to comply with those conditions, which would include disbanding the sectarian militias that terrorise the streets of Baghdad, would result “in real world consequences”, said Mrs Clinton.
The White House said that it would listen to opposing views but dismissed talk of reversing the troop increase. “To tie one’s hand in a time of war is a pretty extreme move,” said Tony Snow, the presidential spokesman, when asked about Mrs Clinton’s resolution. “The president has obligations as commander-in-chief and he will go ahead and execute them.”
Mr Bush has been engaged in an assertive public relations push to make his case for the surge, as well as to admonish more directly the Iraqi government for past failures to act. The political wrangling came as Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said the number of US troops in Iraq could be “dramatically” reduced “within three to six months” if the two governments succeeded in speeding up transfers of weapons and equipment to Iraqi military forces.
In a pointed response to US criticism of his government, Mr Maliki told the London Times he wished “we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists”.
Following meetings with Republican leaders at Camp David over the weekend, Mr Bush invited disgruntled Republicans to the White House to assuage their concerns about his plan for Baghdad.
Meanwhile Democratic senators said they were confident of getting majority support for their bipartisan resolution, which is expected to be debated next week. The resolution is sponsored by Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator, Joe Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, and Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee. At least seven of the 49 Republican senators have criticised Mr Bush’s “escalation” of the Iraq war.
Mrs Clinton has yet to declare her candidacy for 2008 but is expected to do so in the next weeks. On Tuesday Barack Obama, the first-term senator for Illinois and Mrs Clinton’s closest rival, took the first step towards announcing his candidacy.
Unlike Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, although he was not a member of the Senate in 2002 when Mrs Clinton voted in favour of a resolution authorising the war.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a6f21f2a-a69e-11db-937f-0000779e2340.html
Published: January 19 2007 23:12 Last updated: January 19 2007 23:12
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party’s presidential frontrunner for 2008, pushed out in front of her Senate colleagues by proposing a resolution that would freeze the number of US troops in Iraq. She also called for their “expedited” withdrawal from Iraq.
Mrs Clinton’s move, which came after a four-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, raised the stakes in the congressional battle with George W. Bush following his announced “surge” last week of 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Unlike a separate bipartisan resolution that criticises Mr Bush’s increased troop levels but would be non-binding, Mrs Clinton’s resolution would impose a congressional cap on existing US troops levels, which total about 132,000.
Her bill would also impose conditions on the future US funding of the Iraqi government. Failure to comply with those conditions, which would include disbanding the sectarian militias that terrorise the streets of Baghdad, would result “in real world consequences”, said Mrs Clinton.
The White House said that it would listen to opposing views but dismissed talk of reversing the troop increase. “To tie one’s hand in a time of war is a pretty extreme move,” said Tony Snow, the presidential spokesman, when asked about Mrs Clinton’s resolution. “The president has obligations as commander-in-chief and he will go ahead and execute them.”
Mr Bush has been engaged in an assertive public relations push to make his case for the surge, as well as to admonish more directly the Iraqi government for past failures to act. The political wrangling came as Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said the number of US troops in Iraq could be “dramatically” reduced “within three to six months” if the two governments succeeded in speeding up transfers of weapons and equipment to Iraqi military forces.
In a pointed response to US criticism of his government, Mr Maliki told the London Times he wished “we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists”.
Following meetings with Republican leaders at Camp David over the weekend, Mr Bush invited disgruntled Republicans to the White House to assuage their concerns about his plan for Baghdad.
Meanwhile Democratic senators said they were confident of getting majority support for their bipartisan resolution, which is expected to be debated next week. The resolution is sponsored by Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator, Joe Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, and Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee. At least seven of the 49 Republican senators have criticised Mr Bush’s “escalation” of the Iraq war.
Mrs Clinton has yet to declare her candidacy for 2008 but is expected to do so in the next weeks. On Tuesday Barack Obama, the first-term senator for Illinois and Mrs Clinton’s closest rival, took the first step towards announcing his candidacy.
Unlike Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, although he was not a member of the Senate in 2002 when Mrs Clinton voted in favour of a resolution authorising the war.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a6f21f2a-a69e-11db-937f-0000779e2340.html
posted by presgore19 at 3:37 PM
<< Home