Society Issues Talk

Hawkeye · Guest

By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent
© 2007 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats
are advancing legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat
troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.

Democratic officials who described the measure said the timetable
would be accelerated - to the end of 2007 - if the government of Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not meet goals for providing Iraq's
security.

The conditions, described as tentative until presented to the
Democratic rank and file Thursday, would be added to legislation
providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested
for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The officials who described the measure did so on condition of
anonymity, saying they were not authorized to speak until after it was
presented to the Democratic caucus. They also stressed the provisions
were tentative until then.

Underscoring the debate among Democrats, several opponents of the war
issued a statement late Wednesday saying they "have had a constructive
dialogue with members of our party's leadership. ... However, at this
time, we have not reached any final agreement."

The statement was issued in the name of Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara
Lee and Diane Watson of California; Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York;
Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas and Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

Even so, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office announced plans for a
Thursday news conference to unveil the measure, providing no details.
The announcement said she would be joined by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.,
and other key lawmakers. Murtha is chairman of the subcommittee with
jurisdiction over the Pentagon's budget and is among the House's most
outspoken opponents of the war.

Pelosi and the leadership have struggled in recent days to come up
with an approach on the war that would satisfy liberals reluctant to
vote for continued funding without driving away more moderate
Democrats unwilling to be seen as tying the hands of military
commanders.

The decision to impose conditions on the war risks a major
confrontation with the Bush administration and its Republican allies
in Congress.

But without a unified party, the Democratic leadership faced the
possibility of a highly embarrassing defeat when the spending
legislation reaches a vote, likely later this month.

To make the overall measure more attractive politically, Democrats
also intend to add money to Bush's request for military operations in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban is expected to mount a spring
offensive.

The bill also will exceed Bush's request for veterans' health care and
medical programs for active duty troops at facilities such as the
scandal-scarred Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

Democrats also are including funds for a health care program for low-
income children. The program is popular among governors of both
political parties, but the Bush administration has not signaled its
acquiescence to the additional money.

The Democrats worked on their legislation as Defense Secretary Robert
Gates announced approval of an extra 2,200 military police to help
deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the new Baghdad
security crackdown.

The New York Times reported on its Web site Wednesday night that the
day-to-day commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno,
has recommended that the higher troop level be maintained until
February 2008 to support a sustained effort to win over the Iraqi
populace.

Democrats familiar with the emerging legislation in the House said the
bill would require Bush to certify whether the Iraqi government was
making progress toward providing for his country's security,
allocating its oil revenues and creating a fair system for amending
its constitution.

They said if Bush certified the Iraqis were meeting these so-called
benchmarks, U.S. combat troops could remain until September of next
year. Otherwise, the deadline would move up to the end of 2007.

The legislation also calls for the Pentagon to adhere to its existing
standards for equipping and training U.S. troops sent overseas and for
providing time at home between tours of combat.

Yet it also permits Bush to issue waivers of these standards.
Democrats described the waiver provision as an attempt to embarrass
the president into adhering to the standards. But they concede the
overall effect will be to permit the administration to proceed with
plans to deploy five additional combat brigades to the Baghdad area
over the next few months.

The measure emerged from days of private talks among Democrats
following the collapse of Murtha's original proposal, which would have
required the Pentagon to meet readiness and training standards without
the possibility of a waiver.

Murtha said its implementation would have starved the war effort of
troops because the Pentagon would not be able to find enough fully
rested, trained and equipped units to meet its needs.

Several moderate Democrats spoke out against it, though. And
Republicans sharply attacked it as the abandonment of troops already
in the war zone.

ekrubmeg · Guest

They better be working on a story to prove the pending attack on the
US by Moslem extremists was due to something the Republicans did, Why
the explosion in the NY subway is dick Cheny's fault, why 35 children
killed at a Miami school by a bomb was due to a "failed Bush
policy". This will all happen on the Dems watch, they better be
working on the excuse now. I'm not saying what the Repubs are doing
is right, I'm saying politics in the US has gotten to the extreme and
you are all losing sight of reality.