In the big defense authorization bill yesterday in the Senate, both sides voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment that requests that the WH (1) describe a concrete exit strategy from the war in Iraq; and (2) provide a report every three months of the U.S. progress towards achieving the exit goals.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...nation-big-pix
This is of course a flip-flop by the Republicans in Congress, who have been opposed to such a measure as "cut-and-run" cowardice that just encourages the terrorists. Bill Frist, for example, switched sides just in the course of a single day when he saw that his party supported the amendment.
For the democrats, however, this has been a long time coming. Although language supporting an explicit timetable was voted down, nevertheless the passed amendment contains an implicit timetable of one year to begin withdrawing.
I think the amendment is a very good idea. I think it is indefensible that there has been apparently no accountability to Congress for an exit strategy in this war after two years, with the president simply dodging the question with "we'll leave when we've accomplished the mission" (an ironic and inane comment especially given the "mission accomplished" photo-op).
Does anybody here disagree with the amendment? Regardless of what the exit strategy should be, don't you think that there should be one, and that it should be concrete so that the American people can judge explicitly how close the U.S. is to that goal? And how efficiently and successfully the administration has been moving to achieve that goal?
EDIT: here's the linked article:
Quote:
Senate seeks exit strategy
BY GLENN THRUSH
WASHINGTON BUREAU
November 15, 2005, 10:12 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- Most politicians claim they're never swayed by polls, but GOP senators yesterday said that plummeting support for the Iraq war prompted their extraordinary request for quarterly White House report cards on progress toward withdrawal.
In a symbolic move underscoring growing GOP queasiness about Iraq, the Senate passed a non-binding measure prodding the Bush administration to outline concrete goals leading to the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Earlier in the day, the GOP beat back Democratic attempts to force the administration into drafting a withdrawal timetable.
"I'm not one that follows polls, but I'm not unmindful of the polls and the polls are showing a great deal of concern by the American public," said John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who co-sponsored the reporting measure.
"Let's get the thing straightened out and make it work," he said, referring to Iraq.
The measure passed, 79 to 19, as an amendment to the defense authorization package. The amendment also calls on Bush administration officials to "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called it "a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq."
Differences between the Senate and House defense bills still must be worked out. It's not clear if the House will agree to the new reporting requirements or the Senate's creation of a limited federal court appeals process to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees to dispute their classification as "enemy combatants."
Still, senators on both sides of the aisle said yesterday's vote signals greater congressional oversight on Iraq and a far more skeptical attitude toward administration claims that progress is being made.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), perhaps his party's most influential voice on the war, voted against the amendment because he thought that language skated too close to calling for a withdrawal. Still, he endorsed the idea of demanding more accountability from the White House.
"We all know public support is slipping. We've got to start doing better in Iraq," said John McCain, a possible 2008 presidential contender. "The Congress is becoming somewhat more assertive in oversight and that's appropriate."
Armed Services Committee member Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) chalked up the vote to leadership concerns that the GOP will lose seats in next year's mid-term elections.
"I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about the public perception of how the war is going in terms of the '06 elections," said Graham, who voted no.
"To be honest with you, the war is going be going on long after '06 and I'm more worried about getting it right in Iraq than I am about the '06 elections," he added.
Earlier in the day, a nearly identical amendment sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), which included calls for the administration to set a withdrawal timetable, failed by 54 to 40. New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton supported the Feingold amendment.
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) rejected the Feingold approach as a "cut-and-run exit strategy" that would embolden terrorists.
But when it became apparent that there was significant GOP support for other parts of the measure, Frist's staff simply took out the timetable references, softened some of the language and adopted it as his own. The GOP rewrite included a call for 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," leading to a phased withdrawal.
|