February 11, 2009 5:25 PM

Senate Iraq Battle Nears Showdown

(CBS/AP)  The political battle over the war in Iraq continued Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where at least seven resolutions are on the table in response to President Bush's plan for a troop buildup.

With a Senate showdown just days away, No. 2 GOP leader Trent Lott of Mississippi said he had concerns with each of a host of the resolutions introduced so far. If Republican leaders do not rally behind a single proposal, the party could avoid taking a clear, united stance on the widely unpopular Iraq war – a consequence Lott suggested he wouldn't mind.

"To herd the cat sometimes you have to let them stray," he said. "Think about that. Keeping them together by letting them stray."

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday became the latest senator to offer a resolution.

"It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy, it's time to give Iraqis their country back," said Obama, D-Ill. His plan called for all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by March of next year.

It appears the original Iraq resolution, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Joe Biden and endorsed by Republican Chuck Hagel, is losing steam, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports. It expresses symbolic opposition to the president's troop increase.

"It's dead, politically," said one Republican source.

Gaining steam are a similar bipartisan proposal from Repubican Sen. John Warner and a new alternative being drafted by Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

CBS News has learned the McCain-Graham resolution would "allow Republicans cover" by "admitting that the past strategy has failed." But it would support the president's troop surge. It would require Iraqi benchmarks like disarming the militia, allowing local community elections. It would not set out consequences because that, says one person close to the negotiations, "would empower the enemy."

The buildup to the vote on the Senate floor – which will probably be sometime next week – included a half dozen Congressional hearings Tuesday. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Feingold, a Democrat who chaired the hearing, said he wants to block all funding for the war.

"Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to," said Feingold, D-Wisc., to a round of loud applause.

You don't usually hear cheers like that in Senate hearing rooms, reports Attkisson. You also don't often hear Republicans openly questioning the authority of a president of their own party.

"I would suggest, suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee's ranking Republican. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

Nerves were raw all over Capitol Hill. War protesters surged into Sen. Hillary Clinton's office, demanding she take an even stronger stand against the war. Police had to break things up.

Over in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, just back from visiting troops in Iraq, gave her assessment.

"The situation in Iraq is catastrophic. Let's make no mistake about that," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer says Republicans may be using delaying tactics to postpone votes on the war resolutions as long as possible, the idea being the longer they can put those votes off, the better chance the Republicans will have to make them less critical of the president. Republicans deny all this, but they have managed to get the votes postponed until the middle of next week at the earliest.

Schieffer says he expects that "something is going to pass. Just how critical it's going to be, we don't know yet. But so many Republicans want to put some distance between themselves and the president that something is going to pass.

"These Republicans have read the polls," Schieffer said. "They're under enormous pressure, and they know it.

Here's a look at the proposals the Senate is expected to consider:

  • Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.: A nonbinding resolution stating the troop buildup is "not in the national interest."

  • Sens. John Warner, R-Va., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.: A nonbinding resolution stating Senate opposition to the hefty buildup, but remaining open to a small number of additional forces and explicitly noting the president's authority over U.S. forces.

  • Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: A nonbinding resolution that would express support for the added troops, but outline benchmarks the Iraqi government should meet.

  • Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: Legislation demanding U.S. combat forces leave Iraq by spring 2008, but would not cut funding.

  • Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.: Legislation requiring congressional approval if troop levels exceed levels before the troop buildup, or around 130,000, but would not cut funding.

  • Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.: Legislation pulling funding for the war after six months.

  • Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: A nonbinding resolution stating support for the presidenth's plan, provided that the Iraqi government "makes substantial progress toward meeting the commitments it has made" including assuming control by November 2007.

  • Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.: Legislation protecting war funds from being cut.
  • © 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    Add a Comment See all 149 Comments
    by chamangas February 2, 2007 3:36 AM EST
    Iraq Problem Solved.....Let's fight there like a WAR to win. Not another 'NAMn where politics lost it for us.
    Kick butt win the war and get our troops home.
    Reply to this comment
    by cantshutup February 1, 2007 3:22 AM EST
    THE DRAFT IS HERE. Universal Nat'l Service Act of 2007.
    NOT TO ALARM YOU OR ANYTHING. Just passing this along.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/
    query/z?c110:H.R.393:

    Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
    HR 393 IH
    110th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. R. 393
    To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    January 10, 2007
    Reply to this comment
    by upsetagain February 1, 2007 12:23 AM EST
    It's simple..........bring our BOYS home THIS SUMMER!!!!!!!!!!! FOR ONCE, let's do what's good for AMERICA. Iraq does not want to be "saved". We have so much that needs to be corrected and funded INSIDE of our borders. If HALF of the Iraq dollars were spent on the general USA population, wouldn't this be a fantastic place?
    Reply to this comment
    by nyckate January 31, 2007 11:06 PM EST
    Is Senate/Congress unable to talk honestly and openly? Isn't the fact that nobody believes Bush or in him any longer? That we don't and can't trust him to act for the best regarding Iraq?

    Its not like a whole lot of us even here in America are thinking it so what's wrong with Congress/Senate saying it?
    Reply to this comment
    by j-whitman January 31, 2007 10:07 PM EST
    Goldie,,, I just saw that, amazing isn't it Bush loves proxy wars,, he should be stopped. More damage to our national security.
    Reply to this comment
    by j-whitman January 31, 2007 9:33 PM EST
    pwrslm,,,,, Take a drive to Bessemer, Alabama -- They are losing thier jobs & steel manufacturing to Communist China - Bush's people are making millions.
    Reply to this comment
    by goldesprit January 31, 2007 9:25 PM EST
    Now the Iraqi Prime Minister --forbids the U.S.--to conduct fighting against Iran from our hard won (American lives spent)footing in Iraq.

    This is supposed to be the best Iraqi leader-- the right man for the right job--or at least the best that could get elected, according to the Bush Administration.
    Now he is elected. Lets go him one better.

    We can't just replace this fellow. He is their Prime Minister--he is voted in by his people according to the Bush administration.

    So...If we shouldn't fight Iran from our hard won footing--because Iraq says so-- lets get the hell out of there and let them defend (or fail to defend) their own country.

    There are obviously a large number of identity challenged individuals and countries in this region. Let them work that out before we decide to try and marry each one!!!

    DUH!

    Out of Iraq! NOW. NOW. NOW.
    Reply to this comment
    by pwrslm January 31, 2007 8:10 PM EST
    "It's the continuing rhetoric from you Bushies & Bush's losing the Iraq war which fuels most of this. "

    Lost a war? Dream on.
    Reply to this comment
    by pwrslm January 31, 2007 8:08 PM EST
    Reagan didnt put Saddam in charge of Iraq.

    Thats nothing more than right wing gossip.
    Reply to this comment
    by j-whitman January 31, 2007 8:06 PM EST
    Mbcsmith,,, I wish I worked for CBS, without them you wouldn't have a forum to comment on...

    It's the continuing rhetoric from you Bushies & Bush's losing the Iraq war which fuels most of this.
    Reply to this comment
    See all 149 Comments
    .
    Scroll Left
    Scroll Right More »
    CBS News on Facebook