House To Confront Bush On Iraq Next Week

With Senate Debate Stalled, House Plans Vote On Measure Opposing Troop Buildup

(CBS/AP)  The Democratic-controlled House is planning to vote next week on opposing President Bush's Iraq troop buildup in a wartime clash between Congress and commander in chief.

The precise nature of the nonbinding measure remains to be determined, officials said Tuesday, although Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said it would focus on “our opposition to the surge” in troops.

CBS News has been told to expect a straightforward resolution – just an up or down vote on whether or not each member supports the president's troop increase.

The Pentagon is in the midst of implementing Mr. Bush's order to raise troop levels by 21,500 as part of a plan to help quell sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Across the Capitol on the Senate side, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that U.S. forces might be able to start leaving Iraq before the end of the year — if daunting conditions including subdued violence and political reconciliation are met.

In Iraq, however, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the Baghdad security operation that the buildup was designed to help was starting slowly and insurgents were responding by killing as many people as possible.

New checkpoints were up, and there were reports of increased vehicle inspections and foot patrols, but violence continued.

The U.S. announced two American deaths — a soldier killed Tuesday at a security post southwest of Baghdad and a Marine who died Monday in Anbar province — and eight Iraqis were killed by car bombs in Baghdad. In all, more than 50 people were killed or found dead in Iraq.

President Bush's revised strategy has sparked strong opposition among Democrats, and officials said that Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., had both pledged to their rank-and-file that next week's vote would merely be the first attempt to pressure the president to shift course in the war. Other legislation will be binding, they said.

Under House rules, Democratic leaders have the authority to advance a measure to the floor for three days of debate and a vote.

That stands in contrast to the Senate, where debate on the war has stalled.

House Democratic leaders charted their course as Gates told lawmakers the buildup in troops is "not the last chance" to succeed in Iraq and "I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be."

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said, "We at this point are planning for success."

Gates and other administration officials have been sharply critical of efforts to pass legislation expressing disapproval of the increase in troops, even if the form is nonbinding.

That has had no noticeable impact on Democratic critics of the war, though. Some of them argue that President Bush's policies have led to a situation in which U.S. troops are thrust into the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

Even as the Democratic leaders mapped plans to take symbolic votes against Mr. Bush's policy, two bills were unveiled during the day to force the president to move toward a troop withdrawal.

"The only people who believe there is a workable military solution for the conflict in Iraq is the Bush administration," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in announcing legislation that would require the president to "complete the redeployment" of American troops within a year.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic presidential hopeful, joined two other lawmakers in proposing a measure to block Mr. Bush from implementing his planned troop increase, and to begin a withdrawal by May 1.

[clemenhagen1]

The Iranian president and his radical regime benefited directly from Bush invading Iraq. The regime had clearly lost favor with the public, especially the population under 25 that had been born after the Iranian revolution of 78. What President Bush did by bumbling into Iraq is push the Iranian public to embrace their radical regime once more. Very smooth.

With respect to Syria, the war has been a disaster for them. The refugees flooding across the border have not exactly been a welcome problem for the Syrians.

By blindly dismissing any regional conference or diplomatic efforts that might include the Iranians or the Syrians the Bush Administration stubbornly refuses to engage the one political option that might help orchestrate some resolution to this disaster of a foreign policy. Simplistic sloganeering such a "victory against the terrorists" works to an extent here in the U.
S. where the vast majority of the people possess little understanding of the complexity of the Middle East political situation. But any administration serious about resolving this conflict would be engaging in honest diplomacy. A president who utters ridiculous phrases like "crusade" and "evil-doers" seems fundamentally incapable of such high level behavior.

[docpeter-2009]

Instead of posting here I recommend that you contact your Republican Senator with an e-mail telling him/her to approve a resolution of non-support for sending more of our American family members to Iraq. I already have. Now it is wait and see who I vote for next term.

[neojoker]

What is it about, "we the American people don't want a troop buildup", do they not understand?

[wayfedup]

CHARGES - Treason, Cowardice, Betrayal, Bigotry and Just Plain Blame America BS from Botox face, Prune Face Harry, Benny Arnold Kerry, Ku Klux Klan Byrd, the Drunk Intern Killer, the Cuckolded Shrill Shrew, Mad Boy Webb, and Steppin Fetchit Osama, oops, Obama.

Not to mention Jimmy Carter, Coward and Bigot and the worst U.S. President in History, and the Dem Neo-Fascist Surrender Monkeys' best Republican boys - Oilcan Baker and Chuckie the Stooge Hagel.

Osama doesn't need Al-Zawahari - he's has the Dems in the Senate and Congress to win his war for them.
Posted by lieberman18 at 12:11 AM : Feb 07, 2007


All of this from the Limbaugh/O'Reilly institute's Brainwash School of Stupidity star student: LOSERMAN18
Congratulations, ***! You have removed ANY DOUBT from anyones head who is the STUPIDEST Person to EVER post here!

[gdmoore2]

You are correct, RandalDS. The military tried to tell the Bush Administration, but Bush and Cheney were pushing that neocon nonsense. They did not listen, and here we are.

[gdmoore2]

quote..."The point is, though it took all of us 20 years to fully absorb the lessons of Vietnam, we learned them. The stunning and absolute victory of Desert Storm was no accident. It was based squarely on the lessons of Vietnam: before you commit U.S. troops, know and isolate your enemy, precisely define military success, precisely define how and when you will disengage U.S. troops and, most importantly, whenever possible obtain U.N. sanction and long-term, multinational, multiorganizational support to share the burden...
All that is why what is now occurring in Iraq is so profoundly and viscerally offensive to those of us who thought we had moved past this point in American history. It is simply inconceivable to me that a U.S. administration could have made so many of the same mistakes made by the Johnson-McNamara group of thirty years ago. In a word, I%u2019m outraged. This is the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. And this Administration should be held responsible for its conduct in the next election. Once again, the politicians have handed the military the nightmare scenario."

2004. Col Mike Turner, USAF (ret). Assistant to Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, and Air Operations Briefing Officer, Operation Desert Storm. cited in part.

[randalds]

This is not Vietnam

Posted by SHURCH4TRUTH at 01:46 PM : Feb 07, 2007

You're right again S4T, it's much worse. Losing Vietnam was a bloody embarrassment. Losing this war (and we lost it the day we started it) will cause a region-wide civil war in the most explosive region of the earth. Bush has tossed a hand grenade into a box of nuclear dynamite. It is unforgivable. He will be directly responsible for the slaughter of millions of human beings.

[bm6005]

Fartnocker; You still believe those right wing fairy tales? Just like the GI's were spit on by Americans upon their return from Nam. Give it a break. Who do you get to read this pap to you? Tell me all about the "domino theory" while you're at it.

[aaabee-2009]

Jam your senators and legislators with letters and emails. Let's get them off the stick!! There is power in numbers!

It isn't Dems blocking debate. It isn't Dems blocking justice. It isn't Dems blocking investigations and oversight. Dems have been out of power for these 6 years. It isn't Dems who've lied and misrepresented truth to the American people for war, it isn't Dems who, for 6 years have filled their pockets with someone else's money, it isn't Dems who use the Bible as a sheild, it isn't Dems that blame the ruin of the world on other groups of people (liberals) while they themselves make war on someone elses country for oil.
The Limbaugh brainwashing needs to stop, the lies need to be called out, the Dems in WA need to know where the American people stand so they can act. Tell them where you stand!!

[panhandlpete]

This non-binding resolution should be shelved, and replaced with a BINDING resolution worded, MR. PRESIDENT, I SUPPORT THE ESCALATION OF THIS WAR BY SENDING IN MORE TROOPS, and get a YES or NO vote. If the DEMS have the majority, they can then have their message sent to the DECIDER, and no one hides behind a "toothless" effort. Senator Warner voted against having HEARINGS on the very resolution he helped to draft as a bi-partisan effort.

This 363 tons of cash could have "conveniently" disappeared as part of a sinister plan to fund the insurgency. Unless and until HEARINGS are held and persons are put on the hotseat, speculations are all that comes forth. Just another example of what an Administration unaccountable to no one can and will do.

Ditto on your posts sky!!