Senate Iraq Battle Nears Showdown
Multiple Resolutions On Bush Troop Buildup To Be Debated Next Week
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Iraq War Debate Grows Louder
As support for Sen. Joseph Biden's symbolic Iraq resolution proposal dies, opposition resolutions from Republicans are gaining momentum. Sharyl Attkisson reports.
-
Video
Capitol Bob On Iraq Opposition
CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of "Face The Nation" Bob Schieffer chats with Harry Smith about the Senate's ongoing opposition of President Bush's new Iraq plan.
-
Video
Congress Versus The President
Congress is unhappy over President Bush's plan for Iraq. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican, said that Mr. Bush is not the "sole decider" on war issues. Sharyl Attkisson reports.
-
Photo
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, left, and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., listen to testimony on Congress' constitutional power to end a war, Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)
-
Interactive
New Plan For Iraq
Key elements of the plan, excerpts from the president's speech, reaction and more.
-
Interactive
110th Congress
The balance of power shifts and new leadership takes control as the latest session convenes.
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
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:
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 162 CommentsInstead of concentrating on this, they should be dealing with health care, energy conservation, reduction of dependence on foreign oil sources, and the corruption in thier own houses. These people we elect to be in congress and the senate are not military genious', they are lawyers and politicians. They need to take responsibility for what they can, not try to dictate to the President and the Military how they want the war to be run.
They were not elected as Commander in Chief.
The President was, and is.
Congress on votes to start wars, not stop them in the middle.
The President of the United States IS answerable not only to Congress but to the people. Now its time you pulled your head out and started waking the heck up.
I believe we are at the beginning!
Bush has several other countries in this region to attack & occupy. (and he only has two years)
Posted by mocaleo at 11:18 AM : Jan 31, 2007
That is correct. He only has two years left. So many countries to attack... so little time.
The US troops can't tell enemy from foe in Iraq - shiia from sunni - iraqi from iranian. We don't speak the lingo, we don't know the cultures and we don't know the people. That is why we are failing in Iraq. Bush's daddy was smart enough to NOT put ground troops in Iraq - if only his son had been half-as-smart.
Bush and Cheney seem to be trying to push the world into another world war - they look to be trying to set in motion an iranian military action that will then escalate into world war.
Posted by pwrslm at 11:04 AM : Jan 31, 2007
Bush was not 'elected' Commander in Chief - he was appointed the first time, and cheated in Ohio the second time.
If this congress does not do something more than a
non-binding resolution to halt our participation in this war -- they will feel American's wrath in 2008.
70% of the population says ENOUGH!!!!
Did you not get your kid to read the article to you?? It said BOTH DEMS and GOP were against Bush with this resolution. HEL-LO?? Knock Knock - anyone home?? Or is your head completely empty??
Posted by b48151 at 11:29 AM : Jan 31, 2007
Hell no, we want to stay over there and kill a few thousand more innocent people and get rid of some more soldiers.. got too many. In fact, we want to invade another country and kill off a few thousand of their women and children.
The problem with people like you is that you think that the ONLY way to support the troops is to rally behind the president and wave the flag, no matter how stupid or useless the war. You are narrowminded and blindly patriotic without any thought of what REAL patrioism is. Real patriots think about what is BEST for the USA and killing our troops and breaking the bank on a PERSONAL AGENDA of the president is NOT PATRIOTIC.
As for embolding the enemy, don't you think that the enemy is going to be a lot MORE embolded when US forces are totally ground into the dust of Iraq instead of withdrawing? Because, you surely know, there is NO WAY to win victory in Iraq. We are NEVER going to defeat the insurgents the way we did Germany or Japan. And you are a FOOL to think so.
Take off the rose glasses, clean out your ears from Rush speak and take a good hard look at the REAL SITUATION.
(I realize this is impossible for you, but I can hope...)
Congress voted, and approved, sending our troops t Iraq. Its beyond thier means to change that. The Constitution does not vest any authority in Congress to go any further.
The Constitution vests that authority in one place, the President. The People of the USA elected Bush, so the opinions of Democrat or Republican party officials has no meaning here...
It doesnt matter if Congress diagree's with what the will of the people is, Congress' authority ends at the vote to send the troops.
Posted by pwrslm at 11:46 AM : Jan 31, 2007
I think you're fixin' to find out that you are wrong. (You are, by the way) The American people and Congress are pissed. If this boils just a little more we might see some action. And, Yes, Congress has the power to end this war.
Posted by b48151 at 11:51 AM : Jan 31, 2007
BRILLIANT!!
Ok so at least you admitted that Iraq and 9/11 were not connected. I agree with you about the stakes in Iraq now but the present plan looks like another failure in the making. This war has been so incompetently handled that we have run out of good solutions. We will soon run out of bad ones too if we don't get some real leadership.
Posted by grumpas at 11:45 AM : Jan 31, 2007
Same as Democrap...or democrat..or what ever you call yourself these days.
LOL You poor fascist can't seem to get over the fact that your "Hero" is getting the Whoopin of the century or maybe in history. He's lied to you and hasn't accomplished anything but still you blame and bash your neighbors and Fellow Citizens. No wonder Jefferson called you wack jobs unworthy of our system. By the way how can anyone contiue to support a dictator in America?
Posted
Posted by b48151 at 11:47 AM : Jan 31, 2007
+ report this comment
So now we're going to blame those who TOLD you moron's what would happen and refuse to listen to them? The PEOPLE who have been right about Iraq from day one We aren't going to listen to but we are going to bash and misrepresent, yet again, what they say? You know you people are about as smart as a box of rocks!! The Democrats AND the Baker Commission say as clearly as it can be said that the SOLUTION to Iraq IS NOT involved with the Military. You can NOT build a bigger Bomb or a Faster Jet and defeat a Religious Terrorist. You can NOT establish self government by using the Military. God but you poor people are simple minded....
Posted by b48151 at 12:03 PM : Jan 31, 2007
Wanna buy a 'George W. Bush' doll, when wind it up it runs in circles, then falls on it's face and points at the Clinton doll.
Posted by bluestardad at 12:13 PM : Jan 31, 2007
It seems to have begun... in Congress.
Posted by b48151 at 12:13 PM : Jan 31, 2007
Right! Simple solutions from simple minds. YOU ARE LOSING STUPID!! Now you can either change course or continue to LOSE!! Didn't Russia try your way? ROFLMAO As a Combat Vet of Vietnam I can tell you without doubt that this plan like everything else the fascist have tried will fail... they can't win and they are bankrupting America.
Posted by b48151 at 12:19 PM : Jan 31, 2007
YOU'RE AN IDIOT!! Enough said.
bush says the constitution doesn't mean anything it's just a godd dammm piece of paper.
Posted by dallison7 at 12:20 PM : Jan 31, 2007YOU'RE AN DEFEATIST!!!!!!ENOUGH SAID
Posted by b48151 at 12:22 PM : Jan 31, 2007
What about the WILL of the PEOPLE? IF the American PEOPLE do not want to continue to "Give" Iraq our form of Government, why should our representatives continue to send our kids out to die in a civil war? You fascist keep talking like this is something else and it ISN'T. This is a war between Shiite's and Sunni's that has been going on now for 2000 years. God how dumb can you be? Bush has been and continues to LIE to you fools and you continue, despite SEEING the truth with your own eyes, to lap it up! I mean it's not like it hasn't been PROVEN over and over and over again that Bush is a LIAR and is totally INCOMPETENT!! Geezzzz how about caring just a wee bit about the nation and NOT your party!!
The remaining GOP congressmen are looking to 08 and are no longer willing to rubber stamp every every rediculous thing Bush rolls out.
We must not let the shia's turn the middle east into the ottoman empire (islamic state) which is what these radicals want to do. I hate bush with a passion, but a lot of us needs to actually listen to what "radical islam" is all about. One religion, one law, anybody that doesn't convert must be killed. They want to take over the globe and are doing it slowly under the radar.
This is an impressive crowd %u2014 the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base. George W. Bush, 2000
We're going to get [Bin Laden] Dead or alive.
George W. Bush, 2001
So I don't know where [Bin Laden] is..You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
George W. Bush, 2002
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. G.W Bush, 2003
No President has ever done more for human rights than I have. G.W. Bush, 2004
It was the insurgents, it was the dead-enders, it was the foreign fighters in Iraq, it was the militias, it was the enemies of democracy, it was something called "al Qaeda" which is an Arab entity, it was something called "al Quida" which was a Somalian entity not related to Arabs, it was Bin Laden, then it wasn't Bin Laden, it was Saddam Hussein who is now dead .... ?
Leaves the surrender-monkeys totally confused, who can they surrender to? The most brilliant war strategy in history, change enemies every week.
George W. Bush, 2005
But I%u2019m the decider, and I decide what is best.
George W. Bush, 2006
I've listened a lot to members of Congress. I've listened carefully to their suggestions.
George W. Bush, 2007
Posted by b48151 at 12:03 PM : Jan 31, 2007
Clinton went after him twice and was told by the republicans in the House and Senate that he was just trying to draw attention away from that joke of a "scandal" about him getting a BJ. Bush on the other hand sat on his as*s, in spite of being repeatedly warned by the out-going administration, until bin Laden hit us on 9-11. Bush dropped the ball big time. Besides I doubt that there were few people in the world as delighted at the 9-11 attack as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. This was the "Pearl Harbor type event" that'd been praying for to give them an excuse to go after Iraq. In spite of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with it. I'm sure they were dancing with joy as the towers fell.
Posted by RandalDS at 12:47 PM : Jan 31, 2007
Harsh but true Randal. People all over the arab world danced for joy with them, including in saudi arabia, until their governments made them stop because it made the world realize just how barbaric and primitive they actually were.
Posted by jerryomara at 12:55 PM : Jan 31, 2007
You're forgetting his mistress, Condi Rice. Though I'm not sure if even she'd do that.
Posted by dallison7] Too funny!
I'm sure Barbara Bush is still pro-choice, and is in fact considering making abortions legal retroactively up until age 60.
Posted by jerryomara at 12:53 PM : Jan 31, 2007
Monica?...Is that you?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 162 Comments