 |
|
|
 News from Around the Americas | March 2007 
Senate Debates US Troop Withdrawal Measure
 Anne Flaherty - Associated Press
Washington - Breaking a parliamentary roadblock, the Senate on Wednesday began its first formal debate on the Iraq war since Democrats took control of Congress, taking up a measure calling for President Bush to withdraw combat troops by the end of next March. The White House swiftly issued a veto threat.
The 89-9 vote paved the way for consideration of the Democratic legislation, which would start troop withdrawals within four months and calls for - but does not require - the complete removal of combat troops by the end of March 2008. The vote came after many Republicans abandoned the tactic they had used earlier this year to twice prevent the Senate from considering legislation aimed at forcing an end to the war.
Despite the vote, most Republicans opposed the Democratic bill and it was expected to eventually fall short of the 60 votes it will need to pass. Even so, the debate would give Democrats a chance to put Republicans on record as opposing a timetable on the war at a time when most American voters oppose the conflict.
"This is the message the American people delivered to Congress on Nov. 7, 2006, and this is the message we must send to President Bush," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to an election day in which Democrats captured both chambers.
The Senate breakthrough came after Republicans abandoned demands for assurances that a debate on the war include consideration of various GOP proposals, including a resolution vowing to protect funding for troops. Fearful such a measure would undercut the anti-war message Democrats wanted, Senate Democrats had refused.
But confident the latest Democratic proposal would fail, Republicans agreed to let debate begin. Republicans have argued that Congress should give the troop increase Bush ordered in January time to work. Bush says the increase - 21,500 combat troops plus thousands of additional support troops - is needed to help stabilize Iraq, where U.S. forces are now commanded by Gen. David Petraeus.
"It is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate only recently gave to Gen. Petraeus," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., contrasting the Democratic measures with the chamber's recent approval of Petraeus' nomination as commanding general of the Iraq war.
The resolution language states that "whereas United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution ..." the president "shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces" no later than four months after enactment of the resolution, "with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008."
The White House said the resolution "infringes upon the constitutional authority of the president as commander in chief by imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat," according an administration statement.
Forty Republicans, 47 Democrats and two independents voted to begin debate, while nine Republicans opposed. Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and the ailing Tim Johnson, D-S.D., did not vote.
Even before that vote, senators argued the merits of the war. Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, delivered an angry rebuke of what he said was Bush's blatant incompetence.
"You're leading us off a cliff," Biden, D-Del., said of the president.
Sen. John McCain, an ardent supporter of Bush's new Iraq strategy, said if Democrats oppose the war as much as they claim, they should vote to cut off funds for the war. Democrats have been reluctant to take such a politically unpopular step.
"When we authorize this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure (troops) could prevail," said McCain, R-Ariz.
The Senate measure is weaker than legislation being considered by House Democrats that would demand troops leave before September 2008. However, several Senate Democrats have been reluctant to impose a strict deadline on the president.
In the House, Democratic leaders continued to try to rally members behind spending legislation aimed at ending the war. The House passed a nonbinding resolution in February stating opposition to Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
The $124 billion measure would includes $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The money for the Defense Department is $4 billion more than the president requested - extra money intended to enhance operations in Afghanistan and pay for added training and equipment and improved medical care for U.S. troops.
Meeting early Wednesday with reporters, Gen. James Conway, the Marines commandant, said "it would be very disruptive" to commanders and troops in Iraq if there was a sudden move to stop the troop buildup now and begin a withdrawal. Conway did not mention Congress.
It is still not clear if Bush's troop increase will be a short-term boost or a longer-term requirement, Conway said. He said that decision needs to come from Petraeus, who is making battle plans based on promised troop levels.
"I think he would say ... don't jerk the rug out from under me before I've had a chance to do what I was sent here to do," said Conway.
Senate Iraq Resolution
Associated Press
Text of the Democratic-written resolution the Senate debated on Wednesday on the Iraq War:
hereas Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq;
Whereas the circumstances referred to in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) have changed substantially;
Whereas United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution; and
Whereas United States policy on Iraq must change to emphasize the need for a political solution by Iraqi leaders in order to maximize the chances of success and to more effectively fight the war on terror: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "United States Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007."
SEC. 2. PROMPT COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ.
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (b).
(b) Commencement of Phased Redeployment From Iraq - The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
(c) Comprehensive Strategy - Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
(d) Reports Required - Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made in transitioning the mission of the United States forces in Iraq and implementing the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq as required under this section.
Eds: The bill is S.J. Res. 9. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us