Senators to Offer Centrist Proposal on Iraq
Senators to Offer Centrist Proposal on Iraq DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENYPublished: January 20, 2007WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 — Senator John W. Warner of Virginia is drafting a proposal on Iraq policy with two Senate centrists in an effort to provide an outlet for lawmakers uneasy with President Bush’s troop buildup but unwilling to back a toughly worded resolution opposing the new strategy.
Aides said Friday that Mr. Warner, a Republican who just stepped down as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was working with Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, to draw up a Senate resolution they will unveil Monday as an alternative to another bipartisan plan that flatly opposes troop increases in Iraq.
That measure, by Senators Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, both Democrats, is scheduled to be considered by the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. But the emergence of a proposal embraced by Mr. Warner, an influential Republican leader on military issues, and other proposals circulating in the Senate showed there was no consensus yet.
The flurry of Iraq resolutions, coming from the political left, right and middle, raised the prospect of muddling the outcome of what Democratic leaders had hoped to keep a simple yes-or-no vote on Mr. Bush’s plan. Now, some lawmakers could vote for multiple resolutions if they reached the Senate floor.
“Either you support an escalation of American forces in Iraq or you don’t,” Mr. Hagel said Friday. “You can try and dance on the pinhead of technicality and wordsmithing all you want, but it’s going to come down to that.”
The undercurrent of the 2008 presidential campaign is also pulling on the debate over the symbolic vote on Iraq. Democrats had originally planned to offer a single nonbinding resolution, but now at least four senators with presidential aspirations have put their own names on Iraq proposals.
In short order this week, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut introduced a plan to cap troop levels in Iraq; Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offered a similar proposal; and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said he would present legislation as early as next week. All stopped shy of a proposal offered by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would block spending for any troop increase, an idea favored by the staunchest opponents of the war.
With votes in the House and Senate still to come, Democratic Congressional leaders jousted with the White House on Friday over Mr. Bush’s plan to add more than 20,000 troops to try to quiet violence in Iraq.
In an interview on “Good Morning America” on ABC, Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Mr. Bush of moving quickly to put the added troops in place because he knew Congress would not limit spending for military personnel in the field.
“Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm’s way,” Ms. Pelosi said, “but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can’t even see the light on this. It’s a tragedy. It’s a stark blunder.”
That drew a sharp response from the White House, where Dana Perino, a spokeswoman, called Ms. Pelosi’s comments “poisonous” and said Democrats had embarked on “sound bite war.”
“Speaker Pelosi was arguing in essence that the president is putting young men and women in harm’s way for tactical political reasons,” Ms. Perino said. “And she’s questioning his motivations, rather than questioning his policies.”
Senators Warner, Collins and Nelson, in a move reminiscent of the “Gang of 14” meetings that helped avert a showdown over judicial filibusters in 2005, began meeting this week after they saw the language of the initial bipartisan resolution. Some lawmakers who had expressed resistance to the troop increase said the wording was too partisan and went far beyond the issue of Iraq to discuss the entire Middle East, North Korea and Afghanistan.
Aides to the three senators declined to elaborate on the proposal, but all three have expressed skepticism about the administration’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. In an interview last week, Mr. Warner said Congress should move deliberately, but swiftly.
“Each of us are pained by the casualties that we are taking,” Mr. Warner said. “We cannot dither around on it.”
Mr. Biden and his allies have some advantages in making their resolution the center of the debate because he is now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and can move his resolution quickly through that panel. And the Democratic leadership, which determines the floor schedule, has indicated its support for the concept as well.
“The president’s plan will receive an up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Friday in a speech at the National Press Club. “With that vote, our hope, really our prayer, is that the president will finally listen: listen to the generals, listen to the Iraq Study Group, listen to the American people and listen to a bipartisan Congress.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/washington/20cong.html
Aides said Friday that Mr. Warner, a Republican who just stepped down as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was working with Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, to draw up a Senate resolution they will unveil Monday as an alternative to another bipartisan plan that flatly opposes troop increases in Iraq.
That measure, by Senators Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, both Democrats, is scheduled to be considered by the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. But the emergence of a proposal embraced by Mr. Warner, an influential Republican leader on military issues, and other proposals circulating in the Senate showed there was no consensus yet.
The flurry of Iraq resolutions, coming from the political left, right and middle, raised the prospect of muddling the outcome of what Democratic leaders had hoped to keep a simple yes-or-no vote on Mr. Bush’s plan. Now, some lawmakers could vote for multiple resolutions if they reached the Senate floor.
“Either you support an escalation of American forces in Iraq or you don’t,” Mr. Hagel said Friday. “You can try and dance on the pinhead of technicality and wordsmithing all you want, but it’s going to come down to that.”
The undercurrent of the 2008 presidential campaign is also pulling on the debate over the symbolic vote on Iraq. Democrats had originally planned to offer a single nonbinding resolution, but now at least four senators with presidential aspirations have put their own names on Iraq proposals.
In short order this week, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut introduced a plan to cap troop levels in Iraq; Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offered a similar proposal; and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said he would present legislation as early as next week. All stopped shy of a proposal offered by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would block spending for any troop increase, an idea favored by the staunchest opponents of the war.
With votes in the House and Senate still to come, Democratic Congressional leaders jousted with the White House on Friday over Mr. Bush’s plan to add more than 20,000 troops to try to quiet violence in Iraq.
In an interview on “Good Morning America” on ABC, Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Mr. Bush of moving quickly to put the added troops in place because he knew Congress would not limit spending for military personnel in the field.
“Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm’s way,” Ms. Pelosi said, “but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can’t even see the light on this. It’s a tragedy. It’s a stark blunder.”
That drew a sharp response from the White House, where Dana Perino, a spokeswoman, called Ms. Pelosi’s comments “poisonous” and said Democrats had embarked on “sound bite war.”
“Speaker Pelosi was arguing in essence that the president is putting young men and women in harm’s way for tactical political reasons,” Ms. Perino said. “And she’s questioning his motivations, rather than questioning his policies.”
Senators Warner, Collins and Nelson, in a move reminiscent of the “Gang of 14” meetings that helped avert a showdown over judicial filibusters in 2005, began meeting this week after they saw the language of the initial bipartisan resolution. Some lawmakers who had expressed resistance to the troop increase said the wording was too partisan and went far beyond the issue of Iraq to discuss the entire Middle East, North Korea and Afghanistan.
Aides to the three senators declined to elaborate on the proposal, but all three have expressed skepticism about the administration’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. In an interview last week, Mr. Warner said Congress should move deliberately, but swiftly.
“Each of us are pained by the casualties that we are taking,” Mr. Warner said. “We cannot dither around on it.”
Mr. Biden and his allies have some advantages in making their resolution the center of the debate because he is now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and can move his resolution quickly through that panel. And the Democratic leadership, which determines the floor schedule, has indicated its support for the concept as well.
“The president’s plan will receive an up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Friday in a speech at the National Press Club. “With that vote, our hope, really our prayer, is that the president will finally listen: listen to the generals, listen to the Iraq Study Group, listen to the American people and listen to a bipartisan Congress.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/washington/20cong.html
posted by presgore19 at 10:54 PM
<< Home