February 11, 2009 4:33 PM

2 Key GOP Senators Challenge Bush On Iraq

(CBS/AP)  Two prominent Republican senators have drafted a bill that would require President Bush to come up with a plan to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Mr. Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.

"Given continuing high levels of violence in Iraq and few manifestations of political compromise among Iraq's factions, the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future," the Warner-Lugar proposal said.

"They have performed reasonably well in the Baghdad operations of recent, but not, I think, up to the full expectations we had in January," Warner told CBS News.

Although the measure requires President Bush to present Congress with a plan to start a troop drawdown, it does not require the plan to be executed, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

The measure would declare the initial congressional approval for the war "obsolete" and require the administration to report to Congress on plans to get combat troops out of the role of policing sectarian violence and starting to withdraw them.

Mr. Bush has asked Congress to hold off on demanding a change in the course of the war until September, when the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, delivers a fresh assessment of its progress.

Warner, R-Va., and Lugar, R-Ind., are well regarded within Congress on defense issues. Warner was the longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee before stepping down last year, while Lugar is the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The Warner-Lugar proposal states that "American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top."

Accordingly, Warner and Lugar say the president must draft a plan for U.S. troops that would keep them from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and focus them instead on protecting Iraq's borders, targeting terrorists and defending U.S. assets.

At the Pentagon, meanwhile, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the number of battle-ready Iraqi battalions able to fight on their own has dropped to a half-dozen from 10 in recent months despite heightened American training efforts.

Without providing numbers, the White House had acknowledged in its report to Congress on Thursday that not enough progress was being made in training Iraqi security forces — an issue that determines to a large extent when the United States may be able to reduce its forces there.

Pace, however, also said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be "overly concerned" about because the problem is partly attributable to the fact that the Iraq units are out operating in the field.

Appearing at a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pace said that "as units operate in the field, they have casualties, they consume vehicles and equipment."

The Warner-Lugar proposal is the first major legislative challenge to Mr. Bush's Iraq policy endorsed by the two senators — and lent a more bipartisan imprint to congressional dissatisfaction with the war now in its fifth year.

Earlier this year, both Lugar and Warner expressed grave doubts about Mr. Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq. But both have been reluctant to back binding legislation that would force the president's hand.

The legislation the pair is working on would direct Mr. Bush to present the new strategy to Congress by Oct. 16 and begin implementing it by Dec. 31.

The proposal also would seek to make Mr. Bush renew the authorization for war that Congress gave him in 2002. Many members contend that authorization — which led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 — was limited to approval of deposing dictator Saddam Hussein and searching for weapons of mass destruction.

© 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 455 Comments
by antoniof123 July 16, 2007 11:18 AM EDT
Sad people are dying and the only thing some can do is spew forth hate. In the end we all die and go to the same place the grave.
Reply to this comment
by undermyboot July 15, 2007 6:13 AM EDT
Too late do a few old guard Republicans speak out against the insane babble of the war mongering morons who took us into this mess and still support it with blind ignorance. Anyone who thinks invading Iraq was a good idea is just a sh*t kicking fu*k who is the product of back- water incest. They are nothing but the last vestiges of the worst of humanity, and deserve nothing more than the cold last feel of my 9mil against their head. Good f'ing riddance. click. bang. gone. Just like the lame horses we used to put down back home. No longer of any use.
Reply to this comment
by randalds July 15, 2007 3:02 AM EDT
Ya see, I believe there is justice in our hearts.
Posted by donnie900

"Vengence is Mine Saith the Lord".
Posted by mudrose at 02:10 PM : Jul 13, 2007

Donnie900 and mudrose, a marriage made in heaven.
Posted by robertr121 at 04:29 AM : Jul 14, 2007

Where are they registered? Walmart? Target? 99 cent store? I want to get them a nice set of His and His towels for the wedding gift.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 July 14, 2007 4:36 PM EDT
Reporters asked Bush why this would work this time and he said because the Iraq PM gave him assurances. I do not know if that was an excuse or a reason. It is very unlikely that Iraq or their government will become stable any time soon. So, we have to be realistic about what we intend to do and our expectation on the outcome.

Usually, people start making up their own policy guesses when they lose faith in the decisions being made, then micro management sets in. You are starting to see that now. Not many have a lot of faith in the decision makers so far and they want a change for the better.

I can recall after Viet Nam, Republican politicians were always talking about an "exit strategy" being necessary before taking on any war in the future. So what happened to that here? That only applied when a Democratic president takes us to war? They thought it would be such a walk in the park that they did not need one?

G.W. Bush said that we "would not stay any longer than necessary" in Iraq. That statement really says very little, but seemed to satisfy some people at the time. The question you need to ask is who decides what is necessary and when is that over with? Is it over with when the crime, assault and murder rate per capita is similar to other cities and nations?

Reply to this comment
by likeitis5050 July 14, 2007 4:12 PM EDT
Earlier this year, both Lugar and Warner expressed grave doubts about Mr. Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq. But both have been reluctant to back binding legislation that would force the president's hand.

Their guts are telling them he's nuts but they hate the idea of not being in the 'big dog' club anymore if stand up to him. What to do...what to do...tick tick tick.
Reply to this comment
by lars008-2009 July 14, 2007 3:08 PM EDT
OK THE WHAT IN THE HELL ARE WE STILL THERE
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 09:59 AM : Jul 14, 2007

yah... what are we still doing in bosnia...
korea... japan... germany...
Reply to this comment
by lars008-2009 July 14, 2007 3:05 PM EDT
Demonic-rats vote for war with iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seen looking for a spider hole...

hahahahahahahaha

Senate Shows Support In 97-0 Vote
Lieberman Leads Way In Warning To Iran
The Senate Wednesday put aside a growing schism over the conduct of the Iraq war and rallied around a strongly-worded warning to Iran authored by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

The measure, an amendment to the defense spending bill, illustrates both growing concern lawmakers have about Iran's aggression and uncertainly about what to do. It passed in a 97-0 vote after Lieberman agreed to include a provision that nothing in his measure "shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of armed forces against Iran."
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-iran0712.artjul12,0,3251634.story
Al-Qaeda %u2018planning big British attack%u2019
AL-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first %u201Clarge-scale%u201D terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687360.ece
We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PWIBPXU2BZARZQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/05/16/wbolton16.xml
'Military plan against Iran is ready'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181228588702&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Reply to this comment
by SIDNEYWILLIAMSMD July 14, 2007 1:56 PM EDT
congress and all media should be pounding what he has stated on tv many many times..put this in his face all day and night
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 09:59 AM : Jul 14, 2007

Good point but consider the heavy concentration of Al Qaeda in one place with no where to run. Maybe we should consider this an opportunity to mop up and kill these little maniacs, and let them collect their virgins. As long as it is a killing field and the Iraqi's do not tell us to leave...why not?
Reply to this comment
by SIDNEYWILLIAMSMD July 14, 2007 1:53 PM EDT
Jesus, Mary Mother of God: These two senators look like they died some time ago. Please someone inform them that they need better morticians. They do not look very natural. Suggest Pantene, botox, and maybe a little testosterone. What difference does it make if these guys are re-elected. Suggest the republicans deny them the nomination based on their geriatric status.
Reply to this comment
by forthepeopl1 July 14, 2007 12:59 PM EDT
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

OK THE WHAT IN THE HELL ARE WE STILL THERE, AS THE PRESIDENT HAS STATED ONCE AL-MALIKI TELLS US HE DOESN'T WANT US THERE WE WILL LEAVE.

ITS TIME FOR OUR SEN/REPS TO REMINDE HIM OF WHAT HE HAS STATED..NOW LETS GET THE F/U/C/K/ OUT OF THERE.

so how about looking up how many times this dirt bag of a president and his side kick cheney has told all america that if they say they dont need us than we will leave.

so how about it mr president you said many times we will leave if they dont need us. so how about it..

congress and all media should be pounding what he has stated on tv many many times..put this in his face all day and night
Reply to this comment
See all 455 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook