thedrifter
06-19-07, 06:47 AM
Months after saying Iraq war 'drifting sideways,' Warner presents only mild challenge to Bush
By: ANNE FLAHERTY - Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- For months, Sen. John Warner has been looked upon as the man who could -- at any moment -- tip the Iraq debate on Capitol Hill because of his influence on a Republican caucus growing increasingly uneasy about the war.
But since October, when he declared that the war was "drifting sideways" and expressed grave concerns about the mounting death toll, the Virginia Republican has presented only a mild challenge to President Bush's policy. Warner has opposed binding legislation on troop deployments. And at the behest of his party's leaders, he's voted against advancing his own proposal registering skepticism on the U.S. military strategy.
His strongest action to date was legislation that would restrict U.S. aid to Iraq if Baghdad fails to implement certain political and security changes. At White House direction, Warner agreed to let the president waive the requirement.
Now, with Bush's troop buildup in Iraq not showing the results many hoped, Warner said in an interview he is willing to stick by Bush at least until August after visiting troops in Baghdad.
"Following that, I will come back and publicly more fully discuss my views," he said.
Warner's position has frustrated Republicans and Democrats alike. He is a man who thrives on nuance, avoids public conflict and parses his words carefully -- largely because he knows his view matters greatly. Conventional wisdom suggests that if Warner breaks with the president, he would provide political cover for other Republicans to challenge the war and Democrats would get the 60 votes they need under Senate rules to pass anti-war legislation.
"I think he's done everything he can to be both loyal to the White House and loyal to his views at the same time," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., longtime colleague and friend of Warner's.
If the war is going badly in September, will Warner challenge the president or stay loyal?
"I think he's going to try to do both," said Levin.
Enlisted in the Navy during World War II and a Marine Corps officer in the Korean War, Warner was Navy secretary when a young naval aviator named John McCain was taken prisoner of war in Vietnam. Now 80, after nearly three decades in the Senate, Warner is about as politically insulated as they come.
He also is one of the few senators who regularly visit the Pentagon and can often be found chatting informally with senior military officers in the hallways of the Capitol.
"On issues of war and peace, John Warner's voice is loud in our caucus," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
That was why Warner made waves in October when he returned from a trip to Iraq to declare that Baghdad was failing to take control of the country and that U.S. troops were exhausting their options.
"You just find that so many communities don't even have drinking water, don't even have proper sewage or sanitation. ... It seems to me that the situation is simply drifting sideways," he told reporters at the time.
Despite his grim assessment, Warner said he would wait until after the elections and the completion of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report to propose any change in course.
In January, after Bush ordered the deployment of thousands more troops to Iraq, Warner proposed a nonbinding resolution that expressed Senate opposition. With broad support, his measure would have been the first congressional rebuke of the president's war policies to pass since the war began four years ago.
But when Republican and Democratic leaders bickered over the rules for debate, Warner sided with his party leaders and voted against advancing his measure in what he said was in the interest of procedural fairness.
Last week, Warner said he did not think he backed down too easily and he continues to keep heat on the president's policies. He noted at least two private meetings with Bush in which he expressed his concerns about the war.
Warner also pointed to legislation he wrote, added to the 2007 war spending bill, that allows Bush to condition U.S. aid on Baghdad's ability to meet certain benchmarks, if he wants to do so.
"I think some of the steps I've taken were slightly bold," he said. "Maybe not as confrontational as some of the measures that were rejected, but I don't hesitate to take the steps that I feel are in the best interest of the country, the security of the country, and the uniformed (service members). Absolutely not."
Les Brownlee, who worked with Warner for 18 years as a staffer on Capitol Hill, said he did not think party loyalty would keep the senator from speaking out in the next few months.
"John Warner is a United States senator who just happens to be from Virginia," Brownlee said. "While parochial and partisan and other interests are important to him -- as they are to all senators -- he will always come down on what is best in the long-range interest of the United States. And that's especially true when it comes to national security."
Time will tell how far Warner is willing to go on the Iraq war debate. As he has done several times before, he indicates his patience is growing thin.
Iraq "certainly is not manifesting itself, the government in particular, in a way that in my judgment is going to help us achieve our goals," he said. "They have sovereignty, and they've got to firmly exercise those reins of sovereignty. And I do not see that being done."
On the Net:
Defense Department: www.defenselink.mil
Senate Armed Services Committee: armed-services.senate.gov/
Ellie
By: ANNE FLAHERTY - Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- For months, Sen. John Warner has been looked upon as the man who could -- at any moment -- tip the Iraq debate on Capitol Hill because of his influence on a Republican caucus growing increasingly uneasy about the war.
But since October, when he declared that the war was "drifting sideways" and expressed grave concerns about the mounting death toll, the Virginia Republican has presented only a mild challenge to President Bush's policy. Warner has opposed binding legislation on troop deployments. And at the behest of his party's leaders, he's voted against advancing his own proposal registering skepticism on the U.S. military strategy.
His strongest action to date was legislation that would restrict U.S. aid to Iraq if Baghdad fails to implement certain political and security changes. At White House direction, Warner agreed to let the president waive the requirement.
Now, with Bush's troop buildup in Iraq not showing the results many hoped, Warner said in an interview he is willing to stick by Bush at least until August after visiting troops in Baghdad.
"Following that, I will come back and publicly more fully discuss my views," he said.
Warner's position has frustrated Republicans and Democrats alike. He is a man who thrives on nuance, avoids public conflict and parses his words carefully -- largely because he knows his view matters greatly. Conventional wisdom suggests that if Warner breaks with the president, he would provide political cover for other Republicans to challenge the war and Democrats would get the 60 votes they need under Senate rules to pass anti-war legislation.
"I think he's done everything he can to be both loyal to the White House and loyal to his views at the same time," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., longtime colleague and friend of Warner's.
If the war is going badly in September, will Warner challenge the president or stay loyal?
"I think he's going to try to do both," said Levin.
Enlisted in the Navy during World War II and a Marine Corps officer in the Korean War, Warner was Navy secretary when a young naval aviator named John McCain was taken prisoner of war in Vietnam. Now 80, after nearly three decades in the Senate, Warner is about as politically insulated as they come.
He also is one of the few senators who regularly visit the Pentagon and can often be found chatting informally with senior military officers in the hallways of the Capitol.
"On issues of war and peace, John Warner's voice is loud in our caucus," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
That was why Warner made waves in October when he returned from a trip to Iraq to declare that Baghdad was failing to take control of the country and that U.S. troops were exhausting their options.
"You just find that so many communities don't even have drinking water, don't even have proper sewage or sanitation. ... It seems to me that the situation is simply drifting sideways," he told reporters at the time.
Despite his grim assessment, Warner said he would wait until after the elections and the completion of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report to propose any change in course.
In January, after Bush ordered the deployment of thousands more troops to Iraq, Warner proposed a nonbinding resolution that expressed Senate opposition. With broad support, his measure would have been the first congressional rebuke of the president's war policies to pass since the war began four years ago.
But when Republican and Democratic leaders bickered over the rules for debate, Warner sided with his party leaders and voted against advancing his measure in what he said was in the interest of procedural fairness.
Last week, Warner said he did not think he backed down too easily and he continues to keep heat on the president's policies. He noted at least two private meetings with Bush in which he expressed his concerns about the war.
Warner also pointed to legislation he wrote, added to the 2007 war spending bill, that allows Bush to condition U.S. aid on Baghdad's ability to meet certain benchmarks, if he wants to do so.
"I think some of the steps I've taken were slightly bold," he said. "Maybe not as confrontational as some of the measures that were rejected, but I don't hesitate to take the steps that I feel are in the best interest of the country, the security of the country, and the uniformed (service members). Absolutely not."
Les Brownlee, who worked with Warner for 18 years as a staffer on Capitol Hill, said he did not think party loyalty would keep the senator from speaking out in the next few months.
"John Warner is a United States senator who just happens to be from Virginia," Brownlee said. "While parochial and partisan and other interests are important to him -- as they are to all senators -- he will always come down on what is best in the long-range interest of the United States. And that's especially true when it comes to national security."
Time will tell how far Warner is willing to go on the Iraq war debate. As he has done several times before, he indicates his patience is growing thin.
Iraq "certainly is not manifesting itself, the government in particular, in a way that in my judgment is going to help us achieve our goals," he said. "They have sovereignty, and they've got to firmly exercise those reins of sovereignty. And I do not see that being done."
On the Net:
Defense Department: www.defenselink.mil
Senate Armed Services Committee: armed-services.senate.gov/
Ellie