lily
01-31-2007, 11:26 PM
I don't care which resolution they pic, Democrat or Republican, just as long as the message gets out. We the people do not agree with this surge. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000456.html?referrer=email)
For GOP, Discord In Dissent On Iraq
Senators With Doubts Over Bush Troop Plan Debate 5 Resolutions
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page A01
Republican misgivings over President Bush's new war strategy are
increasingly dividing the GOP as the Senate moves toward a showdown over the
deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
Republican strategy had envisioned a single resolution that would allow the
party's senators to express doubts about the plan without stating their
outright opposition. Instead, Republicans appear to be balkanizing, with at
least five GOP drafts now in play and more Republicans stating their
reservations.
"We're all looking for a plan that will work," said Sen. Arlen Specter
(R-Pa.). "The current plan is not working, and 21,500 additional troops --
it's a snowball in July. It's not going to work."
Vice President Cheney and senior military officials attended a Republican
policy lunch yesterday, which turned into a raucous debate about the various
resolutions, according to a party leadership aide. Bush will meet with GOP
senators on Friday as the White House continues to try to tamp down
opposition.
But Republican misgivings are not subsiding. "This war has been mishandled.
No one doubts that mistakes have been made in Iraq," Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.), long a supporter of Bush's war policy, told Adm. William J.
Fallon at Fallon's confirmation hearing to become the top U.S. commander for
the Middle East. "I have to tell you, this committee did not get candid
assessments in the past, and I view that with deep regret."
Having chastised Democrats for not showing unity on Iraq, Republican leaders
have decided they need a resolution of their own when the Senate begins
debate on nonbinding resolutions of opposition next week.
Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, pushed
back against Bush's claim he is the "decision maker," saying the White House
needs to accept Congress's role in shaping war policy.
"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole
decider," Specter said during a hearing on Congress's war powers. "The
decider is a shared and joint responsibility."
Republican leaders had hoped to divide Senate opinion largely along party
lines, to allow Bush to argue that any outright statement opposing his plan
was politically motivated partisanship. A resolution by McCain and Sen.
Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) demanding tough benchmarks for progress in Iraq
was supposed to garner overwhelming Republican support, being a more
palatable alternative to language by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) that would
state opposition to the troop buildup.
Instead, rival measures continue to proliferate. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
said he is circulating language that would forbid a cutoff of funding for
troops in the field under any circumstance, similar to another proposal by
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) is shopping around a measure that would demand
that the president's policies be given a chance to work while calling for
the reversal of perceived war-related mistakes, such as the wholesale
purging of Baath Party members from the Iraqi government and the failure to
ensure equitable oil-revenue sharing among Iraqi groups.
"Resolutions are flying like snowflakes around here," Specter said.
Meanwhile, the two camps promoting competing resolutions of opposition --
one headed by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
and the other by Warner -- have not agreed on common language that could win
a clear majority.
"This isn't about party loyalty. This isn't about presidential politics.
It's about policy," said an exasperated Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who
has been urging Warner to negotiate an agreement to meld his language with
the Democratic-driven resolution approved last week by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. "What America is desperately thirsting for is for the
United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives to come
to terms with where we are in Iraq."
One group of ruminating Republicans is made up of the 20 GOP senators who
will face voters in 2008. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) said she plans to
support at least one of the measures -- but first "I've got to study them
all." Sen. John E. Sununu (N.H.), whose state is strongly against the war,
reiterated his concerns about a troop buildup even as he refused to commit
to any resolution.
The Warner measure has attracted at least three potentially vulnerable
Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Gordon
Smith (Ore.).
Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), another Republican whose term will expire in
two years, said he was speaking for many of his GOP colleagues in asserting,
"I'm not persuaded that sending 21,500 troops into a civil war in Baghdad is
a good idea, but I haven't found a resolution I can support."
Pressed on what he is looking for, Alexander replied: "I'd like to express
my unhappiness with the way this war is being conducted, but also my support
for the troops. I think that's what we all want."
Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.), the GOP whip, said most Republican senators believe
they must support some statement about the war, given the public's growing
concerns. But he noted: "I am actually reading all the different
resolutions, and each one of them does have critical differences." He added
that he is leaning toward the Cornyn measure, which offers the fewest
objections to Bush's plan.
He said he will not try to rally Republicans around a single approach but,
rather, will urge them to "vote their conscience."
The multiplying factions raise the prospect that no measure will garner
substantially more than 50 votes next week. That would represent something
of a victory for the White House, which has argued that even nonbinding
action by the Senate would "embolden the enemy," as Defense Secretary Robert
M. Gates told reporters last week.
"The worst thing would be for the Senate by 60 votes to express disapproval
of a mission we are sending people to lay down their lives for," said Sen.
Jon Kyl (Ariz.), a member of the Republican leadership.
Democrats, who are united in their desire to stop the escalation, are
regarding the Republican divisions with some glee. "You cannot have a
resolution that is both meaningless and undercuts the troops. That's
impossible. Their position is totally inconsistent," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel
(Ill.), a member of the House Democratic leadership.
The House is expected to embark on a similar debate in the coming weeks.
For GOP, Discord In Dissent On Iraq
Senators With Doubts Over Bush Troop Plan Debate 5 Resolutions
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page A01
Republican misgivings over President Bush's new war strategy are
increasingly dividing the GOP as the Senate moves toward a showdown over the
deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
Republican strategy had envisioned a single resolution that would allow the
party's senators to express doubts about the plan without stating their
outright opposition. Instead, Republicans appear to be balkanizing, with at
least five GOP drafts now in play and more Republicans stating their
reservations.
"We're all looking for a plan that will work," said Sen. Arlen Specter
(R-Pa.). "The current plan is not working, and 21,500 additional troops --
it's a snowball in July. It's not going to work."
Vice President Cheney and senior military officials attended a Republican
policy lunch yesterday, which turned into a raucous debate about the various
resolutions, according to a party leadership aide. Bush will meet with GOP
senators on Friday as the White House continues to try to tamp down
opposition.
But Republican misgivings are not subsiding. "This war has been mishandled.
No one doubts that mistakes have been made in Iraq," Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.), long a supporter of Bush's war policy, told Adm. William J.
Fallon at Fallon's confirmation hearing to become the top U.S. commander for
the Middle East. "I have to tell you, this committee did not get candid
assessments in the past, and I view that with deep regret."
Having chastised Democrats for not showing unity on Iraq, Republican leaders
have decided they need a resolution of their own when the Senate begins
debate on nonbinding resolutions of opposition next week.
Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, pushed
back against Bush's claim he is the "decision maker," saying the White House
needs to accept Congress's role in shaping war policy.
"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole
decider," Specter said during a hearing on Congress's war powers. "The
decider is a shared and joint responsibility."
Republican leaders had hoped to divide Senate opinion largely along party
lines, to allow Bush to argue that any outright statement opposing his plan
was politically motivated partisanship. A resolution by McCain and Sen.
Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) demanding tough benchmarks for progress in Iraq
was supposed to garner overwhelming Republican support, being a more
palatable alternative to language by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) that would
state opposition to the troop buildup.
Instead, rival measures continue to proliferate. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
said he is circulating language that would forbid a cutoff of funding for
troops in the field under any circumstance, similar to another proposal by
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) is shopping around a measure that would demand
that the president's policies be given a chance to work while calling for
the reversal of perceived war-related mistakes, such as the wholesale
purging of Baath Party members from the Iraqi government and the failure to
ensure equitable oil-revenue sharing among Iraqi groups.
"Resolutions are flying like snowflakes around here," Specter said.
Meanwhile, the two camps promoting competing resolutions of opposition --
one headed by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
and the other by Warner -- have not agreed on common language that could win
a clear majority.
"This isn't about party loyalty. This isn't about presidential politics.
It's about policy," said an exasperated Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who
has been urging Warner to negotiate an agreement to meld his language with
the Democratic-driven resolution approved last week by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. "What America is desperately thirsting for is for the
United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives to come
to terms with where we are in Iraq."
One group of ruminating Republicans is made up of the 20 GOP senators who
will face voters in 2008. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) said she plans to
support at least one of the measures -- but first "I've got to study them
all." Sen. John E. Sununu (N.H.), whose state is strongly against the war,
reiterated his concerns about a troop buildup even as he refused to commit
to any resolution.
The Warner measure has attracted at least three potentially vulnerable
Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Gordon
Smith (Ore.).
Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), another Republican whose term will expire in
two years, said he was speaking for many of his GOP colleagues in asserting,
"I'm not persuaded that sending 21,500 troops into a civil war in Baghdad is
a good idea, but I haven't found a resolution I can support."
Pressed on what he is looking for, Alexander replied: "I'd like to express
my unhappiness with the way this war is being conducted, but also my support
for the troops. I think that's what we all want."
Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.), the GOP whip, said most Republican senators believe
they must support some statement about the war, given the public's growing
concerns. But he noted: "I am actually reading all the different
resolutions, and each one of them does have critical differences." He added
that he is leaning toward the Cornyn measure, which offers the fewest
objections to Bush's plan.
He said he will not try to rally Republicans around a single approach but,
rather, will urge them to "vote their conscience."
The multiplying factions raise the prospect that no measure will garner
substantially more than 50 votes next week. That would represent something
of a victory for the White House, which has argued that even nonbinding
action by the Senate would "embolden the enemy," as Defense Secretary Robert
M. Gates told reporters last week.
"The worst thing would be for the Senate by 60 votes to express disapproval
of a mission we are sending people to lay down their lives for," said Sen.
Jon Kyl (Ariz.), a member of the Republican leadership.
Democrats, who are united in their desire to stop the escalation, are
regarding the Republican divisions with some glee. "You cannot have a
resolution that is both meaningless and undercuts the troops. That's
impossible. Their position is totally inconsistent," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel
(Ill.), a member of the House Democratic leadership.
The House is expected to embark on a similar debate in the coming weeks.