|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
April 26th,
2007 - Senate Passes Iraq War Bill Requiring Pullout |
|
Senate Passes
Iraq War Bill Requiring Pullout By Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny New York Times April 26, 2007 Washington, April 26 - The
Senate narrowly passed a $124 billion war spending bill early this afternoon
after an emotional debate about the best way forward in Iraq. The vote will
send the measure to President Bush, who has vowed to veto it because it would
require American troops to begin withdrawing by Oct. 1. The 51-46 vote, far short of
the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Mr. Bush’s veto,
came after a morning-long debate in which supporters of the bill called it a
way to make the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security, while
opponents called it a blueprint for defeat. But the outcome was regarded
as certain all along, with the White House saying the president might not
even comment on it today, given the absence of suspense. Still, there was plenty of
feeling in evidence in the Senate as it debated the bill, which the House of
Representatives narrowly approved on Wednesday. Senator Harry Reid of
Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, called the bill one that “we can and
will proudly send to the president,” and one that charts a new course in Iraq
while honoring America’s fighting forces. Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Democrat of Massachusetts, said the measure is “the only way to make Iraqis
take responsibility” for their own destiny. Mr. Kennedy said the president
has been wrong all along on Iraq. “Now, he is wrong to threaten to veto this
bill,” the senator said. “We cannot repeat the mistake of Vietnam.” Another Democratic
supporter, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said the conflict is “a war
that never should have started, and on this president’s watch may never end”
without a timetable for American withdrawal. But Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who lost the Democratic nomination
last year at least partly because of his support for the war, called the bill
“a deadline for defeat” and said it would have “exactly the opposite effect
that its supporters expect” because it would discourage the Iraqis. And Senator James M. Inhofe,
Republican of Oklahoma, said it was high time to “look beyond the politics of
this thing, and do the right thing” by letting Gen. David H. Petraeus, the
American commander in Iraq, a chance to finish the job. General Petraeus himself
acknowledged this morning that the situation in Iraq is “exceedingly complex
and very tough.” “Success will take continued
commitment, perseverance and sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity
for the all-important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-term
solutions to Iraq’s many problems,” the general said at a Pentagon briefing. Two Republican senators who
have been critics of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and
Gordon Smith of Oregon, voted for the measure. Senator Lieberman joined 45
Republicans in voting against it. (Two other Republican senators, Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, and one Democrat, Tim
Johnson of South Dakota, did not vote.) At the White House,
meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the president, Dana Perino, said that Mr. Bush
would veto the measure “very soon,” so that “we can take the next step.” The
next step, presumably, would be more back-and-forth between the White House
and the Capitol, since backers of the bill have nowhere near the two-thirds
majority required in each chamber to override a veto. Asked if Mr. Bush planned to
comment, Ms. Perino said, “Look, this is a little bit of a foregone
conclusion, a little bit anti-climactic,” she said. The veto will be the second
of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and the first since Democrats gained control of
Congress. Last year, Mr. Bush vetoed a stem-cell research bill. On Wednesday, only hours
after General Petraeus told lawmakers he needed more time to gauge the
effectiveness of the recent troop buildup there, the House approved the
measure by 218 to 208. “Last fall, the American people voted for a new
direction in Iraq,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “They
made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do their jobs,
but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely, and soon.” Republicans accused
Democrats of establishing a “date certain” for America’s defeat in Iraq and
capitulating to terrorism. “This bill is nothing short
of a cut and run in the fight against Al Qaeda,” said Representative Harold
Rogers, Republican of Kentucky. On the final vote, 216
Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the bill; 195 Republicans and 13
Democrats opposed it. The legislation provides more than $95 billion for
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30, with the money
conditioned on the administration’s willingness to accept a timetable for
withdrawal and new benchmarks to assess the progress of the Iraqi government. Democratic leaders plan to
send the bill to the White House early next week - coinciding with the fourth
anniversary of Mr. Bush’s May 1, 2003, speech aboard an aircraft carrier,
when he declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, under a banner
that said “Mission Accomplished.” With the outcome essentially
preordained, advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were readying
campaigns to try to shape public opinion as the showdown unfolds. Groups aligned with the
Democrats plan to capitalize on the connection between the veto and the
“mission accomplished” anniversary. Americans United for Change has produced
a television commercial that replays scenes of Mr. Bush on the carrier and
says: “He was wrong then. And he’s wrong now. It’s the will of one nation
versus the stubbornness of one man.” Allies of the president are
mobilizing as well. The conservative Web site Townhall.com was organizing an
online “no surrender” petition, and urging visitors to the site to tell the
Democratic Party’s “rogues’ gallery that we will not stand for their
defeatism,” adding, “While they may lack courage, our troops do not and they
deserve the resources needed to win this war.” With the vote barely behind
them, House Democrats were already considering how to respond legislatively
to Mr. Bush’s veto. Though there are differing ideas, Representative John P.
Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, said
his preference would be to “robustly fund the troops for two months,” and
include benchmarks but no timetable for withdrawal. In addition to General
Petraeus, lawmakers in the House and Senate heard on Wednesday from Deputy
Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of State John D.
Negroponte and Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. As they walked into the
House briefing, the officials were greeted by about a dozen war protesters,
some of whom shouted: “War criminal! War criminal!” One woman walked
alongside the general, urging him in a softer tone to consider her point of
view. After the briefing, whose
substance was classified, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the
majority leader, disputed criticisms that Democrats were trying to end the
war before giving the administration’s plan a chance to succeed. “Nobody is saying, ‘Get out
tomorrow,’” Mr. Hoyer said, noting that the legislation would allow American
troops to remain in Iraq to battle terrorist groups. He and Representative John
A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, differed on what emerged from the
briefing as the most significant cause of violence in Iraq. Mr. Hoyer
attributed it to sectarian strife, while Mr. Boehner cited Al Qaeda in
Mesopotamia, calling the group “the major foe that we face in Iraq today.” Democrats sought to portray
their approach as reasonable and called for Mr. Bush to reconsider before
sending the bill back to Congress. “I believe that this
legislation, if people were to just take their time and read it, is the exit
strategy that the president ought to be pleased to receive,” said
Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip. But Republicans called it a
dubious attempt at micromanaging the war and said Democrats were also seizing
the opportunity to stuff the bill with home-state spending. The president’s allies,
aware of public dissatisfaction with the war, acknowledged the difficulties
on the ground in Iraq while portraying the Democratic approach as a
prescription for defeat. “It’s been ugly, it’s been
difficult, it has been very painful,” said Representative David Dreier,
Republican of California. “We all feel the toll that has been taken and are
fully aware of the price we are paying, especially in a human sense. But we
do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning the mission.” The House vote on Wednesday
and the preceding debate closely resembled those of one month ago, when the
House passed its initial version 218 to 212. David Stout and Brian
Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington. Copyright 2007 The New York
Times Company External link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/26cnd-cong.html |