Summary Topic: New House speaker hints at denying Bush funds to send additional troops to Iraq
Date: produced on 01/08, 7:58 AM
Summary Topic: Bush's Iraq plan opposed in Congress
Date: Jan-13-2007
International: U.S. forces kill six in raids in Iraq (1:1) Home delivery Sign up for e-news Herald wireless Home > and Opinion > International E-mail Printable Popular del.icio.us U.S. forces kill six in raids in Iraq By Associated Press Friday, December 29, 2006 - Updated: 08:04 AM EST BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops killed six people and destroyed a weapons cache Friday in separate raids in Baghdad and northwest of the Iraqi capital, the U.S. military said. (1:2)
Saddam at the gallows: Related articles, multimedia and images Local Iraqis rejoice in dictator s demise My life under butcher : Ex-Iraqi government official now in Natick details regime Editorial: This cruel tyrant not worth a tear video: Raw Video: Saddam at the Gallows Media grapples with grisly images Saddam had feisty exchange at the gallows; no sign of feared Sunni uprising Iraqis gather in Saddam s hometown after his burial Iraqis in U.S. rejoice, reflect Execution of justice video: Saddam s Last Words Video: Iraq Releases Video of Execution Some military families find closure, others don t Status of some of Saddam Hussein s family members Fate of Saddam s body remains unclear World leaders welcome, condemn Saddam Hussein s execution Comments on the death penalty for Saddam Hussein Vatican spokesman denounces Saddam s execution as tragic Saddam s execution prompts joy, proclamations of martyrdom video: Military Town in Texas Weighs in on Saddam Bush: Execution will not halt violence video: Saddam s Execution: Iraqi-Americans Rejoice video: Reaction From Around the Globe A history of violence Iraqi state TV shows video of moments before Saddam s execution Ruthless leader s history of violence Military planners are reviewing the status of various units to determine which ones would be available to either go into Iraq or stay longer if needed, according to Pentagon officials. (2:3) Pentagon plans for influx of troops to Iraq if Bush requests it (3:1) Home delivery Sign up for e-news Herald wireless Home > and Opinion > National > National Politics E-mail Printable Popular del.icio.us Pentagon plans for influx of troops to Iraq if Bush requests it By Associated Press Saturday, December 30, 2006 - Updated: 12:04 PM EST WASHGTON - Extending U.S. military units already in Iraq and moving troops from other locations, including Kuwait, are among options Pentagon planners are looking at if President Bush calls for an increase in troops on the battlefront. (3:2) Military planners are reviewing the status of various units to determine which ones would be available to either go into Iraq or stay longer if needed, according to Pentagon officials. (3:3) Bush is expected to announce a new strategy in his Iraq policy early next year, and one of the key elements under discussion is a short-term surge in troops. (3:4)
Bush s Iraq plan facing uphill battle on Capitol Hill (4:1) Home delivery Sign up for e-news Herald wireless Home > and Opinion > National > National Politics E-mail Printable Popular del.icio.us Bush s Iraq plan facing uphill battle on Capitol Hill By Associated Press Saturday, January 6, 2007 - Updated: 11:39 AM EST WASHGTON - President Bush s plan to send more troops to Iraq is already running into trouble on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in raising eyebrows before the president even makes his case. (4:2) Bush, who met on Saturday with his national security team, has tapped new military commanders to lead the war effort and will disclose a new war strategy as early as Wednesday that is expected to include political, military and economic components. (4:3) The military solution, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, probably will call for an increase in U.S. troops, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to Baghdad alone. (4:4) About 140,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now. continue 1 2 Next Rate this article 1 Low High Current Rating: Your Rating: You have not rated this article yet Search the site all any relevance date Past 7 days Archives G o o g l e Order home delivery Save up to 60 ordering Boston Herald home delivery online. click here Related icles National Politics New House speaker hints at denying Bush funds to send additional troops to Iraq International Bomb and shootings kill at least 7 Iraqis Around the Nation Study: Number of wounded veterans could cripple VA International McCain s call to hike troops in Iraq can affect prez hopes Herald Columnists Two options, one choice: Lessons of history show way to right path More on: Bush Iraq Military Today's Top icles Viewed Emailed Rated Updated 7:52 AM N.E. (4:27)
New House speaker hints at denying Bush funds to send additional troops to Iraq (5:1) Home delivery Sign up for e-news Herald wireless Home > and Opinion > National > National Politics E-mail Printable Popular del.icio.us New House speaker hints at denying Bush funds to send additional troops to Iraq By Associated Press Sunday, January 7, 2007 - Updated: 12:27 PM EST WASHGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops. (5:2) If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now, she said in an interview broadcast Sunday. (5:3)
Bravado and cheers as Syrians leave Lebanon The Guardian Guardian Unlimited (8:1) Skip to main content Sign in Register Go to: Guardian Unlimited home UK news World news Comment is free blog blog Sport blog arts and entertainment blog Podcasts ---------------------- Archive search s and entertainment Books Business EducationGuardian.co.uk Environment Film Football Jobs Life and health MediaGuardian.co.uk Money Music The Observer Politics Science Shopping SocietyGuardian.co.uk Sport Talk Technology Travel Been there ---------------------- Audio Email services Special reports The Guardian The northerner The wrap ---------------------- guide Crossword / offers Feedback Garden centre GNM press office Graduate GuardianFilms Headline service Help / contacts Information our values room Notes and Queries Reader Offers Soulmates dating Style guide Syndication services Travel offers TV listings Weather Web guides Working for us ---------------------- Guardian Abroad Guardian Monthly Guardian Weekly Money Observer Public Learn Guardian back issues Observer back issues Guardian Professional / for turning the MPU off / div.hide_class visibility: hidden; height: 0px; width: 0px; display: none; / for turning the MPU on / div.mpu_display_class visibility: visible; margin-top: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; / for enclosing the MPU ad / hr.mpu background: FFF; border: 1px dotted gray; border-top:0; color: FFFFFF; mpu_ie_hack text-align: center; spacedesc_mpu_iframe margin-left: auto; text-align: left; margin: 1em auto; width: 300px; div.mpu_continue text-align: right; a.mpu_continue:link text-decoration: none; color: gray; a.mpu_continue:visited text-decoration: none; color: gray; a.mpu_continue:hover text-decoration: none; color: gray; a.mpu_continue:active text-decoration: none; color: gray; img.mpu_continue padding: 1px; Read today's paper Jobs sitesearch float: right; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Geneva; sitesearch td font-size: 75 ; font-family: Verdana,Geneva; sitesearch input vertical-align: middle; sitesearch_text width: 148px; height: 16px; background-image: none; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center center; margin-left: 6px; font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: middle; .noclass vertical-align: middle; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; Search: Guardian Unlimited Web !-- A.GULN0 font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;color: 999999;font-size:10pt; A.GULN0:visited color: 999999; A.GULN0:hover color: 000000; -- Home UK Business Audio World dispatch The Wrap blog Talk Search The Guardian World guide s Special reports Columnists Technology Help Quiz Search this site In this section Football tackles schizophrenia and depression (8:2)
BUSH SAYS HE LL SEEK LARGER MILITARY / He plans overall increase as he considers bigger force in Iraq (6:1) President Bush said Tuesday he plans to expand the overall size of the U.S. military -- a move that he said is a response to the nation's long-term needs for the global war against terrorists, but that also comes as the White House is considering sending more troops to Iraq as part of an overhaul of war strategy. (6:6)
SFGate Home Business Sports
Entertainment Travel Jobs Real Estate Cars SFGate Web by (7:2)
Canada's best source for
news continuously updated from The Globe and Mail (9:1)
News Investing Technology
Vehicles Careers Home Business National International Sports
Entertainment Comment Science and Health Travel Search Site More Search
Options/ Search Tips Privacy Policy Subscribe to Globe Breaking Home
Page Business Personal Finance Small Business National New Government
Decision 2006 Election Results International Sports Fantasy Hockey
Entertainment Style Counsel Book Club Comment Science and Health
Technology Travel Insider Home Columnists Latest GlobeEdge GlobeWatch
Special Reports RRSP 2006 New! (9:2)
|
Cluster Documents
|
| 1. International:
U.S. forces kill six in raids in Iraq [Cached] [news.bostonherald.com]
2. International: Pentagon plans for influx of troops to Iraq if Bush requests it [Cached] [news.bostonherald.com] 3. Pentagon plans for influx of troops to Iraq if Bush requests it [Cached] [news.bostonherald.com] 4. Bush s Iraq plan facing uphill battle on Capitol Hill [Cached] [news.bostonherald.com] 5. New House speaker hints at denying Bush funds to send additional troops to Iraq [Cached] [news.bostonherald.com] 6. BUSH SAYS HE LL SEEK LARGER MILITARY / He plans overall increase as he considers bigger force in Iraq [Cached] [www.sfgate.com] 7. BUSH'S TOUGH CHOICE ON A TROOP 'SURGE' [Cached] [www.sfgate.com] 8. Bravado and cheers as Syrians leave Lebanon The Guardian Guardian Unlimited [Cached] [www.guardian.co.uk] 9. Canada's best source for news continuously updated from The Globe and Mail [Cached] [www.theglobeandmail.com] |
- WASHINGTON -- Senators who back President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq tried Friday to bolster support for the unpopular strategy while Democrats plotted ways to derail the increase and force changes in war policies. (MORE...)
- For Bush, the decision to send more troops to Iraq -- rather than begin a withdrawal of combat forces as recommended last month by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- is a huge gamble. (MORE...)
- Rice calmly walked the committee through the revamped war plan while acknowledging that what has been done until now has not succeeded. (MORE...)
- "The impetus to add U.S. forces came initially from our commanders there. (MORE...)
- The group had called for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by early 2008 but said a temporary troop increase might be justified under some circumstances. (MORE...)
- A new AP-Ipsos poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq hovering near a record low - 29 percent of Americans approve and 68 percent disapprove. (MORE...)
- Anti-war activists acknowledge that the Democratic Party faces the risk of being criticized if it acts to end the war. (MORE...)
- "We have to close the prison at Guantanamo," said Murtha, who heads the House panel that controls the Pentagon's budget. (MORE...)
- The nonbinding resolutions would be a way to show opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice. (MORE...)
REFERENCES
WASHINGTON -- Senators who back President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq tried Friday to bolster support for the unpopular strategy while Democrats plotted ways to derail the increase and force changes in war policies. A day after Bush's proposal was pelted with bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008, said he supports the plan. He tried to shift the burden to war critics. [1]
The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, threatened a filibuster - a delaying tactic - to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the buildup plan. McConnell conceded that GOP lawmakers as well as Democrats are troubled by Bush's new policy, but he said, "Congress is completely incapable of dictating the tactics of the war.'' Options for critics of the war to try forcing its end are limited, given the slim margin of Democratic control, especially in the Senate.[2]
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush's revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice.[3]
Jan. 12 -- Democratic Representative John Murtha, chairman of a House subcommittee on defense spending, said he will try to block the increase of U.S. forces in Iraq and force the closing of a military prison in Guantanamo Bay by withholding funds for those operations. Murtha said his panel will draft a set of conditions to be attached to the emergency spending legislation for military operations that President George W. Bush is to submit to lawmakers next month.[4] In remarks prepared for delivery at Thursday's House Armed Services Committee hearing, Gates offered assurances that the military command stands behind the president. "Your senior professional military officers in Iraq and in Washington believe in the efficacy of the strategy outlined by the president last night," he said. Members of the panel voiced skepticism ahead of his appearance.[5]
The former maverick, who has been courting conservatives, party insiders and former Bush allies for more than a year, said the troop boost was necessary to prevent chaos in Iraq. "I believe that those who disagree with this new policy should indicate what they would propose to do if we withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos," McCain said at a hearing with new Defense Secretary Robert Gates.[6] Earlier skeptics of the proposal went on the attack. "I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said of Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to secure Baghdad in concert with Iraqi forces. "If it's carried out, I will resist it."[7] Bush, visiting with troops at Fort Benning, Ga., cautioned that the troop increase "is not going to yield immediate results. It's going to take awhile.'' His plan, outlined in a prime-time address to the nation on Wednesday, would raise troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 - from 132,000 to 153,500 - at a cost of $5.6 billion. "American patience is limited, and obviously if the Iraqis fail to maintain their commitments we'll have to revisit our strategy,'' said Gates.[2] I don't call it a win," said Warner, R-Va. "But to enable this government and its people to continue to seek their own level of democracy and freedom." Gates said he believes additional troops in Iraq might work because of promises made by Iraqis to reach a political settlement and work toward rebuilding the country. "If they fail to do those things, then I think it's incumbent upon the administration and incumbent upon me to recommend looking at whether this is the right strategy," Gates said.[8]
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 ' President Bush's top aides lobbied hostile lawmakers today on behalf of the administration's new Iraq strategy, unveiling plans to add 92,000 soldiers and marines to the United States military and help Iraqis far beyond Baghdad's city limits.[9] WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush's decision to boost U.S. troop presence in Iraq was greeted with almost universal disdain yesterday as Democrats lambasted the strategy and one senior Republican senator and war veteran termed it "the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder since Vietnam."[10] Congress voted in October 2002 by wide margins to authorize Bush to take military action in Iraq. That authority stands. Since they now run Congress, even though by thin majorities, Democrats also now share with the president some responsibility over the unpopular war. Despite their vows to carefully scrutinize Bush's troop increase, their near-term options are limited.[11]
David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said it will be difficult for lawmakers to block the policy because part of the troop increase will come from extending the tours of forces already in Iraq. "It's pretty hard to stop the president from building up with troops who are already there,'' Obey said.[4]
As today's hearing was taking place, a new poll reported that the U.S. public is overwhelmingly opposed to sending more U.S. forces to Iraq. The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 people was conducted earlier this week, as news of Bush's troop escalation plan was being reported. It showed that 70 percent of respondents oppose sending more troops, and a similar number don't think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there.[12] Defying public opinion polls and the newly empowered Democratic leadership, Bush on Wednesday moved to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq and said it was a mistake not to have had more forces there previously. He recognized the risks ahead.[11] Biden told Rice that Bush ignored sage advice from a wide range of experts -- including military, legislative, and civilian advisers -- that the way to secure Iraq was to bolster regional diplomatic efforts and draw down U.S. troops in an effort to shift more responsibility to the Iraqis.[12]
Votes stating symbolic opposition to the troop buildup, however, could embarrass many Republicans leery of supporting Bush's plan. During Thursday's hearings, Rice, Gates and Pace insisted that the Iraqi government's new political commitment to take charge of their own country was the key change.[13] Bush's new strategy, announced Wednesday in a prime-time address to the nation, increases U.S. forces in Iraq by 21,500 and demands greater cooperation from the Iraqi government. Asked how long that buildup might last, Gates told the briefing, "It's viewed as a temporary surge, but I think no one has a really clear idea of how long that might be."[5]
Gates spoke as the Bush administration worked to persuade a skeptical Democratic-led Congress to accept Bush's troop buildup as the last best chance for reversing Iraq's slide.[5] Bush struck a defiant note in an interview to be televised Sunday by CBS on "60 Minutes." Asked if he believes he has the authority to send additional troops to Iraq no matter what Congress wants to do, Bush said: "I think I've got -- in this situation, I do, yeah. I fully understand they will. they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward."[14] McCain also took a shot at Democrats who say the United States must bring some troops home within four to six months. "I believe these individuals. have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq,'' he said.[15]
The president began crying during the ceremony. It was the second Medal of Honor proceeding to come out of the Iraq war. Afterward, he traveled to Fort Benning, Ga., where he spoke to Army soldiers about the Iraq plan. He said his approach would not produce an immediate reduction in violence but represented 'our best chance for success.' Some of the troops based at Fort Benning have already served twice in Iraq and are scheduled for a third deployment.[16] The administration began laying the groundwork with Republican leaders in Congress to thwart possible attempts by Democrats to limit funding for Bush's war plan. The administration appeared caught off guard as rank-and-file Republicans denounced the proposed troop "surge,''many of them expressing their opposition publicly for the first time.[17] The consequences of failure are catastrophic in the region," said Senator John McCain, a 2008 presidential hopeful who has long advocated more troops. Bush risks losing more and more Republican support, which in turn would lessen his influence in his last two years in office. Next week's votes are, in part, a strategy to divide Republicans by forcing them to take a public stand on the war. "At this point, the battle lines have been drawn pretty deeply.[11] Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican who faces the voters in 2008, checked out in December. He called the war effort absurd and said he would never have voted to authorize combat if he had known that prewar intelligence was wrong. Other Republicans are following. Eight members of the House rank-and-file wrote Bush on Jan. 4, urging him "to reject any recommendation for either a short or long term increase in the number of U.S. troops.[18]
An architect of the Iraq war, Rice called the troop increase an augmentation, angering some senators. Senators of both parties clearly have wearied of her analyses, and, one after another, even normally quiescent backbench Republicans questioned her credibility.[7]
In a bid to rally support for the unpopular war, Bush told Americans on Wednesday night that 21,500 extra troops were needed to help "break the cycle of violence" in Iraq and hasten an eventual withdrawal.[19] A new AP-Ipsos poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq hovering near a record low - 29 percent of Americans approve and 68 percent disapprove. In his 20-minute speech, Bush took responsibility for mistakes in Iraq and outlined a strategy he said would pull it out of its spiral of violence.[5]
The administration is expected to propose a war-funding request as a supplemental budget bill next month. Murtha wants President Bush to halt the 21,500-troop increase he announced Wednesday night and start bringing American forces home. He said he wouldn't cut any funds for those already fighting.[20] Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated military tribunals at the prison, ruling that the trials fail to follow the 1949 Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Murtha said he would "just cut the money out'' of future spending bills to force its closure, along with the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which was at the center of a prisoner abuse scandal.[4] Bush's new plans have not inspired America's coalition partners to follow suit. Washington's top war partners are looking to draw down their forces. Now Britain, the chief ally of the U.S., hopes to cut its 7,000-member force in the southern city of Basra by several thousand in the first half of the year.[21]
Rice replied that the core of al-Maliki's plan had been preserved, but U.S. generals determined that U.S. forces would have to back up the Iraqis. The fabric of Iraqi society is disintegrating so rapidly, she said, that "they don't have a lot of time to get on top of it, and we don't have time to sequence our help to help them get on top of it."[7] Gates said today's "global demands" made that change necessary, but said it would "allow us to move closer to removing the stress on the total force." Asked if the new U.S. and Iraqi offensive would go after Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-U.S. radical Shiite cleric, Gates said, "All lawbreakers are susceptible to being detained or taken care of in this campaign."[5]
Gates displayed none of that prickliness Thursday. He showed deference to the 61-member committee, complimenting the panel for being a "steadfast friend and ally of our men and women in uniform and a source of support in meeting our nation's defense needs.'' Gates spoke in even, measured tones, even when repeatedly pressed on what the consequences would be for Iraqis if they fail to follow through on Bush's plan.[22] Gates and Pace on Friday assured lawmakers there were no immediate plans to attack targets in Iran. In his speech this week on Iraq, Bush vowed to disrupt Iran's aid to insurgents in Iraq and "destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."[23]
Some of Bush's fellow Republicans joined newly empowered Democrats in voicing skepticism over whether dispatching 21,500 extra troops to help Iraq's beleaguered government regain control of Baghdad would work.[24] Votes stating symbolic opposition to the troop buildup could embarrass many Republicans leery of supporting Bush's plan.[2] Democrats, who came to power in midterm elections two months ago in large part because of growing public opposition to the war, must walk a fine line between criticizing Bush's plans and appearing to be obstructionists or undermining the military. They presently rule Congress with insufficient numbers to block Bush's plan.[11] Polls show up to two-thirds of Americans oppose Bush's proposal, which comes barely two months after voters rejected Bush's Republicans and elected a new Democratic Congress in part over frustration with the war effort.[6]
"You're going to have to do a much better job'' explaining the rationale for the war, "and so is the president,'' said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. He said Bush could no longer count on his support for the war.[2] At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow opened his daily press briefing by disavowing war plans. "I want to address kind of a rumor and urban legend that's going around, and it comes from language in the president's Wednesday night address to the nation, that in talking about Iran and Syria that he was trying to prepare the way for war with either country and that there are war preparations under way, Snow said.[25] "As I look to the plan that the president presented, what we are seeing is that much different than what we have been doing in the past." The opposition extended to hawkish Democrats who have bucked their own party in the past and backed the White House.[17] Of course, McCain and fellow republicans never bothered to feel that they had a responsibility to tell us what the consequences would be for invading Iraq in the first place. Another example of the republicans bringing up a responsibility only when it's convenient. Magnum: You're equating the democrats to the terrorists just because they deliver a couple of low blows to the fascists in the white house? Your logic is shaky and that's being kind.[26]
House Republicans called an unusual "listening session" Friday to gauge the growing resistance in the party to the president's plan and to allow lawmakers to vent.[20] "There is a healthy skepticism about whether we're fundamentally changing things on the ground." Bush invited top Republican leaders from the House and the Senate to his Camp David retreat for at least part of the holiday weekend.[14]
For Bush, the decision to send more troops to Iraq -- rather than begin a withdrawal of combat forces as recommended last month by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- is a huge gamble. If it fails, he will have few, if any, options left. [11] In Baghdad, Iraq's Shiite-led government responded tepidly to Mr. Bush's announcement that he would send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq to bolster the effort to curb rampant sectarian violence.[16]
The general said the security of American troops could be protected 'by doing the business we need to do inside of Iraq,' and that there were non-military means to pressure Iran.[9] "What the president was talking about is defending American forces within Iraq, and also doing what we can to disrupt networks that might be trying to convey weapons or fighters into battle theaters within Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis," Snow said.[20] "We hoped and prayed we would hear of a plan that would have two features: begin to bring American forces home, and a reasonable prospect of leaving behind a stable Iraq," Biden said.[12]
Rice calmly walked the committee through the revamped war plan while acknowledging that what has been done until now has not succeeded. "I ask that you give it a chance to work,'' she said. [27] 'I think what occurred here today was fairly profound, in the sense that you heard 21 members, with one or two notable exceptions, expressing outright hostility, disagreement and or overwhelming concern with the president's proposal,' the committee's new Democratic chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, said at the conclusion of Ms. Rice's testimony.[16] 'Please, guys. Can I just make the rounds up here?' he said, declining to answer further questions. During their testimony, Mr. Gates and Ms. Rice declined to specify a time limit on the troop increase and were cautious about predicting rapid improvements in security in Baghdad, where most of the additional troops will be positioned, saying progress is likely to come gradually.[16] "We are encouraged by the president's statement that 'America's commitment is not open-ended' and Secretary Gate's statement that the addition of 21,000 troops would be viewed as a temporary surge,'' Baker and Hamilton said in a statement.[15] Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. "In his speech to the nation, the president threatened that starting to bring our troops home would mean new terrorist threats to our homeland,'' said Byrd. "That's exactly the same sales job that was used to justify the start of this misguided war - that Saddam Hussein was planning for the day in which he would unleash weapons of mass destruction on our cities.''[28]
'Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price,' Boxer said. I don't even need to say 'what a stupid idiot!' but I just did anyway, HA HA! This is as low a blow as I 've seen since John Kerry delivered a blow during the 2004 election to Vice President Cheney regarding his daughter Mary. Instead of asking 'Have they no shame?', I will instead declare that the Democrats live in the same culture of shame as do the Terrorists.[26] The concrete is setting," said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University. "I regard this as a last gasp for the president to try to get a successful resolution of the Iraq quagmire." Both parties are divided on what to do next.[11] Murtha said that resolutions would be "statements'' that the administration would be able to override or ignore. Spending measures are the most effective way for Congress to change Iraq policy, he said.[4] Gates insisted that Iraq is at a pivotal point and every effort must be made to stabilize it. "Whatever one's views of the original decision to go to war and the decisions that have brought us to this point, there seems to be broad agreement that failure in Iraq would be a calamity for our nation of lasting historical consequence," Gates said.[7] Gates and Rice insisted that, despite press reports from Iraq, al-Maliki's government devised the plan and already has begun carrying it out by sending the first of three new brigades to Baghdad.[7] Several senators asked Rice why the administration's new strategy didn't include a major diplomatic push, as strongly recommended by the Iraq Study Group.[12] Rice said that Bush considered all options before settling on a strategy that factored in Americans' unease with open-ended involvement and the previous failures of strategy.[12] Murtha said the best way to control what course the war takes now is for Congress to attach conditions to war-spending bills, because Bush is unlikely to veto a bill that provides money to keep fighting.[20] The Bush administration has said military the detention center is still needed. It currently holds almost 400 detainees suspected of links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.[3]
"The impetus to add U.S. forces came initially from our commanders there. It would be a sublime yet historic irony if those who believe the views of the military professionals were neglected at the onset of the war were now to dismiss the views of the military as irrelevant or wrong." Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska: "You've clearly heard the skepticism that has been expressed this morning by so many of my colleagues and for good reason - skepticism about a lot of things." [7] During a series of Capitol Hill hearings Thursday, the new strategy was slammed as desperate and even dumb, and many expressed frustration that there was no stated time limit on the build up or a defined threat that the U.S. would pull out if the Iraqis don't perform as promised.[29] The three, who are all members of armed services committees, are to meet with top Iraqi officials, U.S. military commanders, and also travel to Afghanistan.[21]
The group had called for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by early 2008 but said a temporary troop increase might be justified under some circumstances. [13] We are persuaded by all available evidence that an escalation of U.S. troop levels is not the way forward in Iraq.''[30]
A new AP-Ipsos poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq hovering near a record low - 29 percent of Americans approve and 68 percent disapprove. [2] Bush, speaking to troops at Fort Benning, Ga., cautioned that the troop increase "is not going to yield immediate results. It's going to take awhile."[31] Under the plan aimed at halting a collapse into civil war, Iraqi troops are to help sweep Baghdad clean of insurgents regardless of sectarian influences.[32] One after another offered skepticism on various points - from the rationale for the war to al-Maliki's sincerity and resolve, from the need for additional troops to the administration's ruling out talking to Iran and Syria.[2]
Anti-war activists acknowledge that the Democratic Party faces the risk of being criticized if it acts to end the war. They say they'll hold Democrats accountable if they don't use their power in Congress against the war. [33] "The Democrats may control Congress but they can't block the president this time without potentially being accused of losing the war."[11]
"We have to close the prison at Guantanamo," said Murtha, who heads the House panel that controls the Pentagon's budget. He said Democrats would decide later whether to pursue the idea. [8] Boxer talked about families losing loved ones and soldiers in hospital burn units. "These are the people who pay the price." Rice said evenly that she understands the sacrifice of service members and their families. "I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families.[34] "I repeat an offer that I have made several times, today. If Iran suspends its uranium enrichment, which is an international demand and not just an American one, then the United States is prepared to reverse 27 years of policy and I will meet with my Iranian counterpart any time, anywhere," Rice told a news conference.[19] "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region.''[15] "There have been other critical times for America, when we have united as one nation to meet great challenges. Now must be such a time, for it is a national desire and a national imperative not to fail in Iraq.'' Years of pent-up frustration in both parties spilled over. A "fool's paradise,'' was how Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, who had just announced his Democratic presidential candidacy hours earlier, described Iraq policy.[27]
The nonbinding resolutions would be a way to show opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice. [13] "Would you call it a decrease?'' Hagel asked. "I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,'' she said.[2] Collins asked Gates and Pace why the administration thinks the plan will work when past attempts have failed.[28]
REFERENCES
1. courant.com | GOP, Democrats Skirmish Over Iraq Plan
2. Bush War Plan Draws Fire on Capitol Hill | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
3. FOXNews.com - Sen. McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Plan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
4. Bloomberg.com: U.S.
5. Salt Lake Tribune - Defense Secretary Gates: No idea how long 'temporary' surge will last
6. ABC News: McCain ties 2008 fate to troops plan in Iraq
7. EVEN GOP SENATORS RIP RICE ON IRAQ / Hostile lawmakers question her credibility, blast Bush plan
8. McCain defends troop increase in Iraq - baltimoresun.com
9. Bush's Iraq Plan Meets Opposition From Congress - New York Times
10. globeandmail.com: Bush takes fire for Iraq 'blunder'
11. Taipei Times - archives
12. U.S.: Rice Feels The Heat On Bush's New Iraq Policy - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY
13. McCain defends Bush plan as president calls leaders of Egypt and Jordan - International Herald Tribune
14. Bush supporters try bolstering support for war plan - International Herald Tribune
15. McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
16. Bush's Plan for Iraq Runs Into Opposition - New York Times
17. Bush blamed in Congress for Iraq blunder
18. Democrats' delicate strategy: Blast the war plan, embrace the troops - International Herald Tribune
19. Reuters Politics Summary - washingtonpost.com
20. McClatchy Washington Bureau | 01/12/2007 | Murtha will press for closure of Guantanamo
21. People's Daily Online -- Bush's Iraq plan opposed in Congress
22. Congress Treats Gates With Kid Gloves | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
23. ABC News: McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy
24. U.S. lawmakers hammer Bush's new Iraq plan - washingtonpost.com
25. McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
26. McCain defends Bush's Iraq plan
27. Lawmakers Grill Rice Over the Iraq War | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
28. GOP, Democrats Skirmish Over Iraq Plan | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
29. McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy - Forbes.com
30. Analysis: Democrats' Delicate Strategy | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
31. Bush War Plan Draws Fire on Capitol Hill - Forbes.com
32. Senators hammer Bush Iraq plan - World - theage.com.au
33. McClatchy Washington Bureau | 01/12/2007 | Iraq plan ignites biggest foreign policy fight since Vietnam
34. AP Wire | 01/12/2007 | Congress treats Gates with kid gloves