Congress passes benchmark bill

"Congress sent President Bush a new Iraq funding bill yesterday that lacked troop withdrawal deadlines demanded by liberal Democrats, but party leaders vowed it was only a temporary setback in their efforts to bring home American troops.
War opponents dismissed the bill as a capitulation to Bush and said they would seek to hold supporters in both parties accountable. But backers said the bill's provisions -- including benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid -- represented an assertion of congressional authority over the war that was unthinkable a few months ago.
Bush, who had vowed to veto any legislation with restrictions on troop deployments, announced he would sign the $120 billion package.
. . . The focus now shifts to September, when the new funding runs out, and when U.S. commanders say they will be able to assess the results of an ongoing troop buildup.
. . . 'We are moving backward,' said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a war opponent. 'Instead of forcing the president to safely redeploy our troops, instead of coming up with a strategy providing assistance to a post-redeployment Iraq, and instead of a renewed focus on the global fight against al-Qaeda, we are faced with a spending bill that kicks the can down the road and buys the administration time.' "

source
Murray, Shailagh. (The Washington Post). Congress Passes Deadline-Free War Funding Bill. May 25, 2007.

posted: saturday, may 26, 2007, 11:17 AM ET

tags: iraq congress russell feingold

Sunni says US is problem; against faction meet / Anti-Shiite conspiracy, Shiite hotelier says

" 'The problem in Iraq is the American Army,' . . . [Muhammad al-Daini, a Sunni Arab member of the Iraqi Parliament] told a group of attentive American legislators. . . 'What brought terrorism, what brought Al Qaeda and what brought Iranian influence is the Americans.'
Mr. Daini, soft-spoken and generally unsmiling, has been ushered from meeting to meeting by a public relations firm paid by an American businessman who calls the Iraqi politician 'a true humanitarian.' The businessman, Dal LaMagna, says he is devoting the fortune he made selling his high-end grooming tools business, Tweezerman, to seeking an end to the violence in Iraq.
. . . The American lawmakers were polite and inquisitive but some appeared nonplussed by hints of the polarization of Iraqi views. When Representative Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, suggested that it might be valuable to get all Iraqi factions to meet for talks in the United States, Mr. Daini demurred.
. . . Mr. Daini, 35, is a member of the National Dialogue Front, a Sunni Arab political group led by Saleh al-Mutlak, a former Baath Party official who insists that the Baath Party, the party of Saddam Hussein, was the best party ever to govern Iraq." [1]

"Ayad owns a hotel in the southern city of Karbala, home to two of Shiism’s most important shrines. His wife and two daughters wear veils. He believes that the violence in Iraq is a Sunni and American conspiracy against Shiites, and he argues that Iran is the best ally of Iraqi Shiites.
. . . The Sunnis, he said, have 'oppressed us since the days of the Prophet, and now it is our chance to hit back and rule.'
According to Ayad, a Shiite takeover in Iraq would set a good model for the Shiites of Lebanon, where they number about a third of the population, and Bahrain, where they are a majority.
'Perhaps the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia will act too, rid themselves of the Sunni oppression against them, and rule or at least separate themselves from Riyadh and create their own state.'
It is exactly this possibility that has made the Sunni Arab regimes fear a Shiite regional revolt and moved some to support the Sunni insurgency in Iraq or at least to voice their resentment of the Iraqi Shiite government, which is seen as being biased against Iraqi Sunnis.
. . . 'When we fought the Persians during the 1980s, we were wrong. We’re Shiites before being Iraqis. Sunnis invented national identity to rule us.' "

Op-ed by Hussain Abdul-Hussain, "a former reporter for The Daily Star of Lebanon." [2]

Peace thru oppression?

source
[1] Shane, Scott & Wong, Edward. (The New York Times). Antiwar Iraqi in Washington Has a More Sectarian Agenda at Home. May 14, 2007.
[2] Abdul-Hussain, Hussain. (The New York Times). In Iraq, the play was the thing. May 7, 2007.

posted: wednesday, may 16, 2007, 6:14 AM ET
update: wednesday, may 18, 2007, 6:29 PM ET

tags: iraq muhammad al-daini dal lamagna tweezerman saleh al-mutlak

Bush vetoes withdrawal bill; Dems drop timeline

"President Bush vetoed a $124 billion war spending bill on Tuesday, setting up a second round in his long battle with Congressional Democrats who are determined to use the financing measure to force the White House to shift course in Iraq.
The veto was only the second of Mr. Bush’s presidency. In a six-minute televised speech from the White House, the president called the measure a “prescription for chaos and confusion,” and said, as he has for weeks, that he could not sign it because it contained timetables for troop withdrawal.
. . . Democrats concede they do not have enough votes to override the veto. But, speaking in the Capitol shortly after Mr. Bush’s remarks, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said they would not be deterred from pushing the president as hard as they could to bring the troops home.
'If the president thinks by vetoing this bill he will stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken,' Mr. Reid said. He added, 'Now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war.' " [1]

"President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
. . . 'We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. 'But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.'
Bush said he is 'confident that we can reach agreement,' and he assigned three top aides to negotiate.
But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense.
. . . House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid." [2]

sources
[1] Stolberg, Sheryl Gay & Zeleny, Jeff. (The New York Times). Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit. May 2, 2007.
[2] Weisman, Jonathan & Murray, Shailagh. (The Washington Post). Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable. May 3, 2007.

posted: sunday, may 6, 2007, 10:53 PM ET
update: monday, may 7, 2007, 12:06 AM ET

tags: iraq bush veto

2005 bill called for move to Iraqi sovereignty

"The effort to force Bush to change direction in Iraq began in late 2005, when the Senate, in a 79 to 19 vote, passed legislation that called for a 'significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty' in 2006."

source
Murray, Shailagh & Weisman, Jonathan. (The Washington Post). New Perspective, New Unity Among Hill Democrats on Iraq. March 31, 2007.

posted: monday, april 2, 2007, 3:52 AM ET
update: monday, april 2, 2007, 3:54 AM ET

tags: iraq congress

Withdrawal bill passes House; Bush says veto

"A deeply divided House of Representatives voted Friday to bring most American combat troops home from Iraq next year.
. . . The legislation aimed at accelerating an end to the war passed on a vote of 218 to 212, with all but two Republicans opposing. . . . Mr. Bush dismissed the action as 'political theater' and promised to veto attempts to manage the war from Capitol Hill.
. . . A two-thirds vote of each house of Congress would be required to override the presidential veto that Mr. Bush has threatened, and Democrats have conceded that they could not meet that target.
. . . Several lawmakers derided the total of nearly $24 billion in domestic spending — benefiting spinach growers and shrimp fishermen and peanut storage, among others — that Democrats put into the bill to make it more palatable to its members.
. . . But Democrats disagreed, saying they were simply financing projects that Republicans failed to address when they were in control of Congress. And they pointed to the money devoted to caring for troops when they return from Iraq."

source
Zeleny, Jeff. (The New York Times). House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout. March 24, 2007.

posted: monday, march 26, 2007, 8:27 PM ET

tags: iraq congress

Surge funding cut proposal by Sen. Kennedy

In a speech at the National Press Club, Senator Edward Kennedy said, "I am introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. My bill will say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President’s plan.
My proposal is a straightforward exercise of the power granted to Congress by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
. . . Congress must have a genuine debate over the wisdom of the President’s plan. Let us hear the arguments for it and against it. Then let us vote on it in the light of day.
. . . The military action authorized by Congress in 2002 was for a very different war than we face today.
. . . It authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today, Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance.
. . . My proposal will not diminish our support for the forces we already have in Iraq." [1]

"If Democrats were to pass legislation blocking the troop surge, Bush would almost certainly veto it, which means that Democrats would have to win over many Republicans to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override presidential vetoes.
Already, Republican leaders are preparing to rally their own members to oppose any effort to block funds.
. . . 'It's perfectly constitutional and legal for Congress to cut off funds for any war it doesn't want the country to fight, and it's done that before,' [Berkeley law professor John] Yoo said in an interview , referring to the cutoff of funds for Vietnam that Congress approved in 1973.
Congress was unable to muster a veto-proof two-thirds vote to cut off funds for all military action in Southeast Asia by Aug. 15, 1973, and Nixon did not challenge the law. All bombings halted in Cambodia by Aug. 14.
. . . Still, there seemed to be only a limited appetite for a showdown with the White House just days into a new congressional term." [2]

source
[1] The New York Times. Kennedy: George Bush's Vietnam. January 9, 2007.
[2] The Boston Globe. Congress could be last voice on troop surge. January 9, 2007.

posted: friday, january 12, 2007, 9:18 AM ET
update: friday, january 12, 2007, 9:58 AM ET

tags: iraq surge