Archive for Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Democratic efforts against Iraq war continue on Capitol Hill

February 7, 2007


— Democratic critics of the Iraq war seized the offensive at both ends of the Capitol on Tuesday, disclosing plans for a symbolic rejection by the House of President Bush's decision to deploy additional troops and filing legislation in the Senate to require withdrawal of U.S. military personnel.

"We're going to stand by our soldiers, but we're not going to stand by a failed policy that exposes more of our soldiers to death and suffering," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, rebutting charges that the war's critics may be undermining the morale or even the safety of U.S. forces.

Democrats pressured Bush to change course as Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers that U.S. forces might be able to start leaving Iraq before the end of the year - if daunting conditions including subdued violence and political reconciliation are met.

He also said that the buildup in troops is "not the last chance" to succeed in Iraq and added, "I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be."

The Pentagon is in the midst of implementing Bush's order to raise troop levels by 21,500, part of a plan to help quell sectarian violence in Baghdad.

New checkpoints were in evidence in Iraq's capital city, and there were reports of inspections of increased numbers of vehicles. At the same time, more than 50 people were killed or found dead during the day, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said insurgents were responding to the new security measures by killing as many people as possible.

House measure

Bush's decision to dispatch additional troops has become a flashpoint for critics of his Iraq policy in the new, Democratic-controlled Congress, whose lawmakers were elected last fall by a war-weary electorate.

Officials said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland had both pledged to the Democratic rank and file that the House would vote next week on a nonbinding measure critical of Bush's plan to add 21,500 additional forces. They also reassured lawmakers clamoring for more robust action that the vote would merely be the first attempt to pressure the president to shift course and that future legislation will be binding.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left, greets Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Capitol Hill prior to the committee's hearing on funding for the war in Iraq. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, at right, also took part in the hearing on Tuesday.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left, greets Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Capitol Hill prior to the committee's hearing on funding for the war in Iraq. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, at right, also took part in the hearing on Tuesday.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said the measure brought to the floor next week would focus on "our opposition to the surge in troops" but has not yet been drafted.

Pelosi said last month the measure would declare that the troop increase was "not in the national interest," language once included in a Senate measure, but now abandoned.

Democrats intend to allow all lawmakers time to speak on the issue across three days of debate beginning next Tuesday.

Under House rules, Democratic leaders have the authority to advance legislation to the floor for three days of debate, and there is little doubt they will have the votes to prevail.

That stands in contrast to the Senate, where Republicans have so far blocked an attempt by Democrats to hold a full-fledged debate on the war.

Numerous hearings

Apart from legislation, Democrats have embarked on an effort to undermine public support for the war by holding numerous hearings.

At a daylong session, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., accused the former U.S. occupation chief in Iraq of haphazardly doling out billions of dollars after the U.S.-led invasion.

Waxman said 363 tons of cash was loaded onto airplanes and sent into the war zone in 2003, adding that U.S. officials had "no way of knowing whether the cash would wind up in enemy hands."

L. Paul Bremer III, who was head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, said he had done the best he could to kickstart the Iraqi economy, which he said was "flat on its back" after years of rule by Saddam Hussein followed by the U.S.-led invasion. He said the money belonged to Iraqis and had come from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and from seized Iraqi assets.


Richard Heckler 11 years, 2 months ago

Cost of Troop Buildup Not in Budget

Dueling Agendas Stifle Critical Debate on War

Lieberman: Fund Wars With 'Terrorism Tax'

Proposed '08 Pentagon Earns Superlatives All Around

Military Wants More Federal Bureaucrats to Help in Iraq

Iraqi PM: Delayed Sweep Fuels Insurgents

Iran Alleges US Role in Kidnap of Official

How Sadr Plans to Ride Out the US Surge Video of US Friendly Fire Unleashes Storm in UK

Tuesday: 64 Iraqis, 3 GIs Killed; 55 Iraqis Wounded

NATO Allies Reticent on Afghan Troop Pledges

Gates Bracing for More Afghan Violence

Army Depleted Uranium Video Never Shown to Troops

Viewpoints Holding Ourselves Hostage in Iraq by Steve Chapman Making an Example of Ehren Watada by Norman Solomon Bush Pouring Gas on the Fire He Started by Gary Kamiya 12 Consequences of Attacking Iran by Jon Basil Utley Iraq Costs Lost in Fog of War St. Petersburg Times Retirement Syndrome by James Carroll

Richard Heckler 11 years, 2 months ago

Reconstruction of Iraq

Reconstruction has made scant progress in war-torn Iraq since the March 2003 US invasion. Continuing US military operations against the Iraqi resistance have destroyed urban centers such as Fallujah, Ramadi and Najaf and are likely to cause still more damage. The resistance, in turn, has sabotaged Iraq's oil installations. Though US reconstruction efforts have partly rebuilt Iraq's electricity system, Iraq's broad economy has virtually collapsed and many factories and warehouses have been sacked and gutted. In the absence of security, neither Iraqis nor foreigners are interested in investing, while the no-bid Pentagon reconstruction contracts have achieved remarkably little. Faced with resistance threats, many foreign contracting firms have left and international development NGOs have withdrawn from Iraq as well. Little foreign aid has arrived, as skeptical donor governments keep their distance. The United States, keen to improve its tarnished image, cannot spend its own reconstruction funds fast enough to make real progress. This section covers these and many other aspects of reconstruction, including Iraq's debt burden and negotiations for debt cancellation, as well as US insistence on a radically deregulated and liberalized Iraqi economy, ready for the eventual investments of the multinational oil giants.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.