By Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters
Roll Call
Thursday 15 February 2007
As leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Out of Iraq Caucus, we are proud that the House has begun to take up the moral dilemma of our times - our continued military occupation of Iraq. Congress finally will have the opportunity to express its disapproval of President Bush's escalation plan, a flawed strategy piled on a 4-year-old failed policy.
By deepening our engagement, escalation will further stoke the fires of civil war in Iraq while increasing the cost to Americans in lives, limbs and treasure.
The political battle lines are clear: On one side we have a bipartisan Congressional majority, roughly two-thirds of the American people, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Iraq Study Group and former military leaders such as Colin Powell. On the other: an unpopular, lame-duck president; too many Congressional Republicans; and the editors of The Weekly Standard - all of whom are willing to accept more American casualties in the name of a policy that is making us less secure and damages our standing in the world.
Last month, in announcing his decision to raise the ante in Iraq, the president announced that "America's commitment is not open-ended." So we hold out hope that Friday's vote of no confidence will compel him to re-evaluate his Iraq policy and heed the calls of the American people. But if not, Congress must be prepared to go beyond nonbinding resolutions. We will not be content with a statement of disapproval that is limited to the escalation gambit. Continuing the current policy is unacceptable, as is escalating the war. Maintaining more than 130,000 brave Americans in Iraq as it plunges deeper into chaos and mayhem is simply unconscionable. If the president will not take steps to end this war, Congress must take responsible action.
Contrary to Republican claims that Democrats have no alternative plan for Iraq, there are in fact several on the table. Our own comprehensive bill, the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act, would complete a fully funded military withdrawal from Iraq within six months while ensuring that our troops and contractors leave safely and accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces.
In addition, our bill would remove the specter of an endless occupation by preventing the establishment of permanent military bases and reiterate our commitment, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to working with the international community to assist Iraq in its reconstruction and reconciliation efforts. We also would stand ready, if asked by the Iraqis, to participate in an international stabilization force. Our bill also ensures health benefits for all of our military personnel.
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) has indicated that he will hold hearings on various legislative proposals on Iraq, including our bill, next month. The nation certainly will benefit from a robust debate on alternatives to the president's failed stay-the-course policy.
It has been a long road from marginalization to the mainstream for those of us who oppose this war and always have. While the temptation of an extended "we told you so" is there, it is suffice to say that the anti-war position turned out to be the correct one. We are focused solely on bringing our troops home.
If the president doesn't change course, if he persists in his contempt for the electoral verdict rendered in November, then this week's resolution will be just the beginning. A bloody military entanglement that does not enjoy popular support is ultimately unsustainable, and Congress would be derelict if it did not assert its legitimate war powers as a coequal branch of government. Using our authority to challenge and even forestall the Iraq occupation is not only constitutionally appropriate; it is a moral imperative.
Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) co-chair the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) chairs the Out of Iraq Caucus.
12 Republicans Break Ranks on Iraq Resolution
By Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times
Thursday 15 February 2007
Washington - A dozen Republicans arrived in the House chamber on Wednesday to set aside their party allegiances and lend their names to a resolution intended to rebuke President Bush for his Iraq policy.
Representative Howard Coble of North Carolina said that Iraqis had their chance at freedom, but chose civil war. Representative Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio argued that troop buildup was a tactic that had already failed. And Representative John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee suggested that military contractors had profited mightily at the expense of the American treasury.
As they spoke in the capital on the second day of an extensive debate over the Iraq war, Mr. Bush called a White House news conference to defend his plan to send more troops to Baghdad. He said that there would be more violence, but that the plan would provide breathing space to the Iraqi government as it worked to stabilize the country.
"They have every right to express their opinion," Mr. Bush said of the debate in Congress. Yet he warned lawmakers against taking additional steps to limit war financing when they considered his military budget request next month, saying, "They need to fund our troops."
Democratic leaders, even as they condemn the president's Iraq strategy, have vowed not to cut financing for the troops already in Iraq. But pressure is increasing inside the party for more scrutiny on war spending when the administration's military budget request is considered by Congress next month.
The proceedings on Capitol Hill foreshadowed challenges to come in both parties as Republicans seek to persuade fiscal conservatives to invest more money in the war and as Democrats determine whether they intend to take a stand to limit financing of the war.
"I insist that we do not maintain an eternal presence in Iraq," Mr. Coble said, "if for no other reason than the cost to taxpayers, which has been astronomically unbelievable."
Congressional debate this week is largely revolving around a resolution intended to express support for troops and oppose the president's plan to expand the military operation in Iraq. Even though most Republicans oppose the proposal, the testimony from a handful of Republicans on Wednesday suggested that the deliberations were no longer unfolding along partisan lines.
Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina opened the debate on Wednesday by reading a newspaper clipping from before Mr. Bush was elected. It was 1999, and the topic was a Congressional debate over military escalation in Bosnia, which Republicans sought to quash by sending a nonbinding resolution to President Clinton.
Holding a sheet of paper, Mr. Jones quoted Karen Hughes, a chief adviser to Mr. Bush, who declared, "If we're going to commit more troops, we want to be sure they have a clear exit strategy." The message, Mr. Jones argued, could apply to the current Iraq debate.
For a time on Wednesday, an unusual scene played out on the House floor, with some Republicans coming forward one by one to speak against the Iraq policy while fellow party members argued against them.
"We need to tell all these defense contractors that the time for this Iraqi gravy train, with their obscene profits, is over," said Mr. Duncan, the congressman from Tennessee. "It is certainly no criticism of our troops to say that this was a very unnecessary war. This war went against every conservative position I have ever known."
Representative Ric Keller, a Florida Republican who said he was simply passing along common-sense advice from his constituents, compared the Iraqi government to an ungrateful next-door neighbor.
"Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist, so you decide you're going to mow his lawn for him every single week," Mr. Keller said. "The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn for ever?
"Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn?" he added. "Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow your own lawn or there's going to be serious consequences for you."
A majority of House Republicans have assertively defended the administration during the Iraq debate, accusing their Democratic rivals of being a weak link in the fight against terrorism. Those accusations seemed to soften a bit on Wednesday, when suddenly the person on the other side of the argument was another Republican.
Representative Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican, said she opposed the troop increase in Iraq but declined to support the resolution. She infuriated Democrats when she hinted that their party was considering plans to limit war financing.
"What about the five brigades of young Americans who are now preparing their families and packing their gear to deploy?" Ms. Wilson said. "What about them? What are you saying to them? Will we buy body armor for them? Will we have armored Humvees for them?"
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, rushed to the House chamber and delivered a sharp rebuttal to Ms. Wilson. "If the commander in chief has sent them there, we will support them," he said.
The House is scheduled to conclude the debate Friday. The Senate intends to consider a similar resolution when it returns from next week's Congressional recess. Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine urged Senate leaders late Wednesday to cancel the recess so the Iraq debate could proceed.
Earlier this month, when the Senate had intended to take up an Iraq resolution, a procedural and political stalemate stymied debate. As deliberations stretched on into the night, the themes of the debate carried a familiar ring as each member of Congress was given at least five minutes to speak. Nearly every Democratic speaker rose to assail Mr. Bush, while Republicans came to his aid. Even Mr. Coble, who delivered one of the day's most stinging assessments of the administration's Iraq policy, said he liked Mr. Bush.
"Some Americans - and some in this body - oppose the Iraqi operation because they dislike President Bush," Mr. Coble said. "I, however, do not march to that drum. I am personally very high on President Bush, but on the matter of troop escalation, I am not in agreement."
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment