thedrifter
01-18-07, 10:37 AM
Iraq bills could cap troop strength, cut funds
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 18, 2007 5:43:06 EST
Iraq-related legislation is popping up on Capitol Hill about the same speed as presidential candidates.
On Wednesday, three Democrats — each with their toes in the ring for a 2008 presidential bid — unveiled their plan for dealing with the Bush administration’s proposal to send 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq, most of them to Baghdad..
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., just back from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, proposes to cap U.S. troop strength in Iraq at its Jan. 1 level and cut off funding for Iraqi forces if they do not meet certain conditions, while leaving funding for U.S. troops untouched.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proposes to cap troops at the Jan. 20 level and deny any increase by prohibiting funding for additional U.S. troops.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he is working on a bipartisan and nonbinding resolution that expresses congressional opposition to an increase in troop levels but would not restrict any funding.
Clinton, Dodd and Biden are not the only ones with ideas.
In the House, a group of anti-war lawmakers has developed a plan that could immediately cut off funds related to U.S. troop deployments in Iraq for everything other than veterans’ programs. At the other end of the political spectrum, conservative Republicans have written their own legislation that would prohibit cutting off funding for any deployed troops.
None of the proposals will come to a vote any time soon, as lawmakers seem to have agreed to wait until next Tuesday’s State of the Union address by President Bush before scheduling and taking a recorded vote on any resolution or legislation opposing Bush’s plan.
At a Wednesday press conference, Clinton seemed to sense some futility in the current congressional maneuverings, since deployments of additional troops to Iraq are already under way. She acknowledged that Congress is unlikely to be able to agree on a bill that could pass the House and Senate and arrive on Bush’s desk in time to change the deployment plans.
Clinton said she decided to push the troop cap “based on what I saw and what I did not see” while in Iraq. The key missing ingredient, she said, was “tangible successes” by the new Iraqi government. If funding is released only if milestones are met, perhaps the Iraqi government could be forced to do more, she said.
Dodd said Tuesday that having a quick vote is imperative in order to make a difference. “I know that enacting legislation to stop the president from the course he has chosen will not be easy,” he said.
Biden, appearing at a press conference along with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, one of the few Republicans to announce he will vote to oppose the Bush plans, said the resolution that has been crafted “says that we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in agreement on that deepening America's military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence is a mistake.”
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, the chief sponsor of the legislation that would prevent Congress from cutting off funds for deployed troops, said protecting morale is part of his goal. “Our troops, who are currently in harm’s way, want, need, and deserve our support,” Johnson said. “As a former fighter pilot who served in two wars, I know that the full support of the nation is critical for troop morale and mission success.”
Johnson was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the former House Armed Services Committee chairman who has formed an exploratory committee for his own possible presidential bid as a Republican candidate, said: “I stand beside Sam Johnson in his efforts to block any reprehensible attempts to cut off or block reinforcements from being sent to our forces in Iraq.”
Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., the former House armed services military personnel subcommittee chairman who traveled with Clinton to Iraq and Afghanistan, said he shares concerns about the future of Iraq because the new government has shown neither the will or willingness to end sectarian strife. But, he added, any act of Congress — whether a binding bill or a nonbinding resolution — is going to be viewed by deployed troops as criticism of the war effort.
“They are not stupid,” he said.
Ellie
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 18, 2007 5:43:06 EST
Iraq-related legislation is popping up on Capitol Hill about the same speed as presidential candidates.
On Wednesday, three Democrats — each with their toes in the ring for a 2008 presidential bid — unveiled their plan for dealing with the Bush administration’s proposal to send 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq, most of them to Baghdad..
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., just back from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, proposes to cap U.S. troop strength in Iraq at its Jan. 1 level and cut off funding for Iraqi forces if they do not meet certain conditions, while leaving funding for U.S. troops untouched.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proposes to cap troops at the Jan. 20 level and deny any increase by prohibiting funding for additional U.S. troops.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he is working on a bipartisan and nonbinding resolution that expresses congressional opposition to an increase in troop levels but would not restrict any funding.
Clinton, Dodd and Biden are not the only ones with ideas.
In the House, a group of anti-war lawmakers has developed a plan that could immediately cut off funds related to U.S. troop deployments in Iraq for everything other than veterans’ programs. At the other end of the political spectrum, conservative Republicans have written their own legislation that would prohibit cutting off funding for any deployed troops.
None of the proposals will come to a vote any time soon, as lawmakers seem to have agreed to wait until next Tuesday’s State of the Union address by President Bush before scheduling and taking a recorded vote on any resolution or legislation opposing Bush’s plan.
At a Wednesday press conference, Clinton seemed to sense some futility in the current congressional maneuverings, since deployments of additional troops to Iraq are already under way. She acknowledged that Congress is unlikely to be able to agree on a bill that could pass the House and Senate and arrive on Bush’s desk in time to change the deployment plans.
Clinton said she decided to push the troop cap “based on what I saw and what I did not see” while in Iraq. The key missing ingredient, she said, was “tangible successes” by the new Iraqi government. If funding is released only if milestones are met, perhaps the Iraqi government could be forced to do more, she said.
Dodd said Tuesday that having a quick vote is imperative in order to make a difference. “I know that enacting legislation to stop the president from the course he has chosen will not be easy,” he said.
Biden, appearing at a press conference along with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, one of the few Republicans to announce he will vote to oppose the Bush plans, said the resolution that has been crafted “says that we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in agreement on that deepening America's military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence is a mistake.”
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, the chief sponsor of the legislation that would prevent Congress from cutting off funds for deployed troops, said protecting morale is part of his goal. “Our troops, who are currently in harm’s way, want, need, and deserve our support,” Johnson said. “As a former fighter pilot who served in two wars, I know that the full support of the nation is critical for troop morale and mission success.”
Johnson was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the former House Armed Services Committee chairman who has formed an exploratory committee for his own possible presidential bid as a Republican candidate, said: “I stand beside Sam Johnson in his efforts to block any reprehensible attempts to cut off or block reinforcements from being sent to our forces in Iraq.”
Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., the former House armed services military personnel subcommittee chairman who traveled with Clinton to Iraq and Afghanistan, said he shares concerns about the future of Iraq because the new government has shown neither the will or willingness to end sectarian strife. But, he added, any act of Congress — whether a binding bill or a nonbinding resolution — is going to be viewed by deployed troops as criticism of the war effort.
“They are not stupid,” he said.
Ellie