Dodd, Lott Discuss The War

On "Face The Nation" The Two Senators Talk About Resolutions, Iran

(CBS)  Democrat Chris Dodd and Republican Trent Lott, appearing on Face the Nation, continued the partisan fighting over Congress' role in managing the Iraq war that has stalled several resolutions in the Senate.

As the fighting continues in Iraq and the Bush administration ratchets up the blame on Iran for fueling some of the violence, Republicans stymied the Senate's debate of the Iraq resolutions with a procedural move.

"None of these resolutions could garner barely 50 votes, and so we ended up sort of competing about debating over debating," Dodd, D-Conn., said.

But Lott, appearing separately on Face the Nation told Bob Schieffer, "We didn't block debate – actually, the vote was to continue debate." Lott said that Republicans are insisting on a "debate, not a mandate."

"All we were asking was that we have an opportunity to have an open debate, offer more than one resolution, but at least have a vote on whether or not we support funds for the troops that are in Iraq," he said. "Isn't that an important part of the debate? That's all it was really about. And we were told 'no, no, no,' we don't want you to have a vote on we support funds for the troops in the field, because that would have been the top voting issue, and the Democrats did not want that."

But Dodd, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, said debating the war's funding was a separate issue.

"The next issue will come along on funding, and I believe Congress has got to step up to the plate here," Dodd said. "We've got to answer the question about whether or not you're going to continue a policy that, I think, is causing us great harm both at home and abroad all over the region, all over the world."

Lott said that those who oppose the president's plan have simply not offered a good alternative. The president, he said, at least has proposed a course of action and the Congress should not undermine it.

But even in Lott's own state, Mississippi — perhaps the most conservative in the nation – patience with the war is wearing thin and people are growing wearing of their National Guard troops being sent back to fight again and again.

"They want a different situation, but they want a reasonable result," he said. "That's the difference. They're not willing just to say, 'OK, cap the troops, pull the troops out, retreat back to the borders.' My question is, if you go to the borders, which way do you shoot?"

Dodd favors withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq because he thinks that the security situation cannot get any worse without them there. The White House, and some Republicans in Congress, has said that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists if American forces pull out now.

"Sixty percent believe it's appropriate to shoot and kill Americans who are there," he said. "How do you sustain a policy when the very people we're trying to help are opposed to our being there?"

Changes, Dodd said, are only going to come if the president changes his mind on his own or if Congress forces him to change it. "We could veto the legislation," Dodd said, "but I think we've got to stand up and offer real legislation with real teeth and real accountability, or the American public are going to be very, very disappointed to put it mildly."

Dodd also attacked the president for posturing to go to war with Iran rather than listening to the Baker-Hamilton report which recommended engaging in talks with Iran and Syria.

"Clearly, Iran is a problem, there's no question about it," Dodd said. "But they were going to be a problem under the present policy anyway, and it seems to me, until we engage them some way on a multiple of issues, including this one, it's only going to get worse."

Lott said there is no reason to assume that the White House is laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran.

"I mean, if they were trying to make a case, I'm sure they'd be talking about it a lot more aggressively," he said. "As a matter of fact, this report that indicated that these devices perhaps were coming from Iran actually got out before the briefings were given even to members of Congress."

[b0bc0x]

According to the Jeruldaem Post, Iran approached the US to initiate discussion on Jun 22, 2003

My reference is:
ISRAELI PAPER: US rejected Iranian overtures in 2003"Jerusalem Post" -- -- Officials in US President George W. Bush's administration turned down a 2003 Iranian offer to begin talks with the US, recognize Israel, and end support of Palestinian terror organizations.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13689.htm

I have not been able to confirem this by checking the archives at Jerusalem Post. However, if it is true, the US is not negotiating in good faith.

[grumpas]

"Lott said there is no reason to assume that the White House is laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran." That is a out and out lie! The national guard in my state have been notified that Iran is the next on the agenda! They expect to be called any day to go back!

[bluestardad]

Hey guys lets make it count! I have written all the senators except Carl Levin cause I can't figure how.This is the contact address for your Senator! Send them a message of your opinion. All Class Two Senators are up for Reelection in 2008. firststatehttp://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[frankly6]

wsamuel

Well said.

[clemenhagen1]

The Bush administration absolutely must increase the cadence of drumbeats with respect to expanding the war into Iran. They have nothing at home to sell, despite their vain attempts to convince the struggling middle class that the economy moves along swimmingly. Our mortgage payments, health insurance premiums, tuition rates, and other basic costs tells us something different. Their ace-in-the-hole, the war on terror, has disintegrated into the ashes of the bonfire that is Iraq. What would a fascist do? Saddam long gone - Osama in hiding and dangerous to bring back up because it begs the question why haven't you found him yet? Let's dust off the Iranians as the "new" threat, point out that they are arming Shiites. Of course, we'll ignore the Shiites also happen to comprise the government we want to succeed. When creating demons, keep it shadowy and simple. It worked before, right?

[gdmoore2]

The Bush administration is not laying the groundwork for war? Senator Lott is not telling the truth.

Newsweek reports a 3rd carrier strike force heading for the Persian Gulf. Troop levels have been increased. There are daily comments from the Bush administration ratcheting up the pressure. DoD makes public accusations of Iranian weapons in Iraq. And there are no direct diplomatic talks with Iraq. We have seen this pattern from Bush before.

The neocons probably believe that military action against Iran will cause their poll numbers to improve.

[cruzn66]

For Heaven's sake...can anyone truly identify who our friends are and who we are actually fighting with??? My scorecard is getting full and the bench is getting awfully empty!!!!

[cruzn66]

OK, let's keep this in perspective.... the Iranians are sending explosives to Iraq.....we keep sending more troops to Iraq........more troops will mean more explosives.......more explosives then leads to more troops, possibly going to Iran......hmmmmmm, how about we send less troops to Iraq??? We can't fight for a people who won't fight for themselves, especially if they don't like the system they are fighting for in the first place. Any idiot can tell you that the Mosques will run Iraq, not the "puppet government" of the United States in absentia.

[inventagod]

It's not just the White House planning an Iran invasion. PNAC set that country in it's sights long before they invaded Iraq. PNAC has run America's military plans since Cheney and Rumsfeld took over the 'think tank'...

[dallison7]

Lott said there is no reason to assume that the White House is laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran.

in the words of George W. Bush: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me... fool me twice... [pause] We can't get fooled again!"

[wsamuel]

Lott has a point. The Democrats are not solidly anti-war, and the Republican approach would make that show. Unfortunately, every Democratic Senator favors the war system. They so buy into war in general that they are afraid to really oppose a particular war. So they want to dance around with ambiguous resolutions like the Warner one and avoid anything meaningful. The people don't control the Congress; the military-industrial complex does.

[dallison7]

"I mean, if they were trying to make a case, I'm sure they'd be talking about it a lot more aggressively," he said. "As a matter of fact, this report that indicated that these devices perhaps were coming from Iran actually got out before the briefings were given even to members of Congress."

IT'S CALLED LEAKING YOU DUMBAZZ, IT'S THE ONLY THING THE BUSH GANG DOES WELL!!