By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
May 16, 2007
WASHINGTON - Anti-war Democrats in the Senate failed in an
attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq war on Wednesday, a lopsided
bipartisan vote that masked growing impatience within both
political parties over President Bush's handling of the four-year
conflict.
The 67-29 vote against the measure left it far short of the
60 needed to advance. More than half the Senate's Democrats
supported the move, exposing divisions within the party but
also marking a growth in anti-war sentiment from last summer,
when only a dozen members of the rank and file backed a troop
withdrawal deadline.
"It was considered absolute heresy four months ago" to
stop the war, said Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, author
of the measure to cut off funds for most military operations
after March 31, 2008.
Ironically, the vote also cleared the way for the Democratic-controlled
Congress to bow to Bush's wishes and approve a war funding
bill next week stripped of the type of restrictions that drew
his veto earlier this spring.
Democrats vowed in January to force an end to the war, and
nowhere is the shift in sentiment more evident than among the
party's presidential contenders in the Senate.
For the first time, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York,
Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois and Joe
Biden of Delaware joined Sen. Chris Dodd in lending support
to the notion of setting a date to end U.S. participation in
the war.
Clinton, the Democrats' presidential front-runner in most
early polls, has adamantly opposed setting a date for a troop
withdrawal, and she gave conflicting answers during the day
when asked whether her vote signified support for a cutoff
in funds.
"I'm not going to speculate on what I'll be voting on
in the future," she said at midday. But a few hours later
she said: "I support the ... bill. That's what this vote
... was all about."
Other Democrats were unmistakably clear.
"How many more soldiers do we have to bury? How many
more do we have to bring into our military and veterans hospitals?
How many more thousands of innocent Iraqis have to die before
we finally accept our responsibility to bring this war to an
end?" asked Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Republicans voted unanimously against the measure, and several
judged it harshly. Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting
record) of Kentucky, the GOP leader, said it fixed a "surrender
date" for the United States.
There were 28 Democrats in favor of advancing the bill, and
19 opposed.
"An arbitrary cutoff date would take away an important
negotiating tool," said Sen. Jim Webb, of Virginia, a
Democratic critic of the war elected to his first term last
November. He noted that the administration had recently taken
steps to engage Iran in diplomacy in hopes of easing the sectarian
violence in neighboring Iraq.
The vote occurred as Congress pursued multiple objectives
in connection with a war that has claimed the lives of more
than 3,400 U.S. troops.
Congressional leaders hope to send Bush legislation by the
end of next week providing more than $90 billion to pay for
the war through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, and at
least part of the reason for the day's events was to give lawmakers
an outlet for their unhappiness.
Several Republicans, led by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting
record) of Virginia, proposed legislation that threatened a
reduction in reconstruction funds if the Iraqi government fails
to make progress toward a series of military and political
goals, and provides for outside experts to report to lawmakers
on the subject.
"The Iraqi government, it strikes me, needs to understand
that they're running out of time to get their part of the job
done," said McConnell.
But the same proposal would have given Bush authority to waive
the requirement for Iraqi progress, and it drew objections
from Democrats as a result.
"It's is really very tepid, very weak," said Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record).
In the end, the vote was 52-44, more than a majority but less
than the 60 needed to advance under the rules in effect.
While Feingold's attempt to cut off funds is likely to recede
into the background, at least for the time being, the suggestion
that the Iraqis be held to account for their promises to foster
democracy and strengthen their own military has wide currency
within Congress.
Bush, too, has said he is willing to accept so-called benchmarks
within legislation that provides the funds the Pentagon needs,
although so far, he has not agreed to enforcement measures
that might reduce reconstruction funds ticketed for Iraq.
That is one of the issues that is likely to surface if it
hasn't already in secretive talks that Reid and McConnell have
held in recent days with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten
in hopes of forging a compromise war funding bill.
Warner's measure also said the United States should begin
a withdrawal if the Iraqi government requests one, another
idea that is quietly gaining support in Congress.
At the White House, deputy press secretary Dana Perino said: "The
U.N. Security Council resolution, which provides the present
basis for coalition forces in Iraq, has always been subject
to termination by the Iraqi government. So this is nothing
new."
There is relatively little controversy over the amount of
money to be provided for the Pentagon, but Bush and congressional
Republicans object to billions of dollars in domestic spending
that Democrats favor.
Of less concern to the White House is a Democratic attempt
to add a minimum wage increase to the measure. It calls for
three increases of 70 cents an hour over the next two years,
and would provide the first raise in more than a decade in
the federal wage floor.
The debate over Iraq has dominated the work of the Democratic-controlled
Congress this year, and in recent weeks, Republicans, too,
have begun to show their impatience with the war.
A group of 11 moderate House Republicans met with Bush and
several top advisers at the White House recently, bluntly telling
him that the party's political prospects in 2008 were in jeopardy
as a result of the war.
Several GOP lawmakers in both houses have said they are looking
for a significant change in the war by September, signaling
they could part company with the president as the 2008 election
year draws close.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
