Democrats reject general's Iraq plan

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WASHINGTON - A day before President Bush's war address, Senate Democrats rejected a four-star general's recommendation to keep some 130,000 troops in Iraq through next summer and sought legislation that would limit the mission of U.S. forces.

Their proposal was not expected to set a deadline to end the war, as many Democrats want, but restrict troops to narrow objectives: training Iraq's military and police, protecting U.S. assets and fighting terrorists, Democratic party officials told The Associated Press.

The goal is to attract enough Republicans to break the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to end a filibuster. Democrats have proved unable to do that since they took control of Congress eight months ago.

"I call on the Senate Republicans to not walk lockstep as they have with the president for years in this war," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said at a news conference. "It's time to change. It's the president's war. At this point it also appears clear it's also the Senate Republicans' war."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_308

[GaryC 7]

They rejected it before they even heard it. They just cannot give what they consider a win for the republicans even if it means going against the very General they unanimously approved to run the war.

[GaryC 7]

To them it's a Dem vs Rep issue rather than a win or lose for the USA issue.

Democrats scramble for Iraq strategy

By: Martin Kady II and Daniel W. Reilly

Sep 11, 2007 06:56 PM EST

Democrats are scrambling to deal with a new dynamic on Capitol Hill.

In public, Democrats maintained a brave front, dismissing recommendations from Army Gen. David Petraeus as too little, too late and suggesting he was the puppet of an unpopular president.

Behind the scenes, though, Democrats are scrambling to deal with a new dynamic on Capitol Hill — they’re the ones who are trying to come up with a new political strategy on the war.

Definitive timetables for ending the war are dead on arrival in the Senate, yet embracing Petraeus’ partial withdrawal would give Republicans a significant victory.

So Democrats in the Senate, where critical votes are expected next week on the war, spent much of Tuesday trying to finesse legislative language that mandates a withdrawal that’s faster and more robust than what Petraeus wants, yet lacks a requirement for total withdrawal.

Call it Petraeus plus.

“The pace of his withdrawal is unacceptable,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). “There will be proposals that bring us beyond where Gen. Petraeus wants to be.”

Yet, like many Democrats, Durbin acknowledged that his party hasn’t settled on a proposal to counter the apparent momentum that Petraeus’ recommendations have given Republicans.

The calculus in the Senate remains where it has been all along for Democratic leaders: crafting something strong enough to keep Democrats on board while luring a handful of moderate Republicans worried about how the war is playing back home.

“We are working on a number of different ideas,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who added that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was “reaching out” not only to Democrats but Republicans in search of a proposal that will receive the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters in the Senate.

The problem for Democrats is that Petraeus’ call to bring 30,000 troops home by next summer injected a dose of nuance into the end-the-war versus stay-the-course delineation Democrats have thrived on.

A debate about the pace of withdrawal may not please the anti-war base, but it’s the hand Democrats have been dealt at this point.

Republicans have also shown a little more spring in their step this week as Petraeus has dominated the news cycle. President Bush will certainly try to capitalize on that with his endorsement of Petraeus’ recommendations in a national television address expected on Thursday.

“It has to take a lot of steam out of the Democrats,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said of the testimony of Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. “They were calling for a withdrawal, and now they are backing off and asking for more time.”

Democrats, of course, could refuse to compromise and offer stringent troop withdrawal legislation sure to be vetoed by President Bush.

But even if Democrats in Congress are unified in their desire to force an orderly end to the war, they are more divided post-Petraeus than at any other point this year over exactly how to proceed when it comes to real votes.

With Democratic leaders contemplating their next step, the various factions in the party fought to position themselves.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who was among the first lawmakers to call for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, said he expects that the Petraeus report will actually have the opposite effect, pushing Democrats toward an even more robust withdrawal proposal.

“I am picking up from my colleagues today a sense of exasperation and the feeling that they ... are not being fooled by this claim of real progress,” Feingold said.

Feingold predicted that his colleagues may join his call for a quick withdrawal “just in time for the vote.” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he won’t support such a plan and placed himself in the compromise camp.

“I personally don’t think, militarily, it’s wise to set a specific deadline for leaving,” Conrad said. “I do support a goal for redeployment, ... but we need more than what Petraeus has called for.”

Schumer brushed aside suggestions that Petraeus’ report is dividing his caucus, saying, “We are pretty good at unity.”

The retooling by Democrats, though, shows how quickly things can change in the political debate over the war.

Last week, Democrats were moving toward a compromise engineered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to mandate the beginning of a withdrawal but abandon the required completion date.

Now that plan sounds a lot like Petraeus’ recommendations, so Democrats are searching for something that sounds stronger.

“We need to tweak it and give it more teeth, while still picking up more Republicans,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, who will ultimately decide which Democratic proposal sees a vote next week. “Sen. Levin is working hard to satisfy as many parties as possible.”

Republicans in Congress who were worried about continued defections of their party’s moderates have suddenly found a certain comfort zone in endorsing Petraeus’ partial withdrawal while goading Democrats into bringing up legislation that is bound to fail.

“I feel a strong need to do nothing,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said when asked what the Senate should vote on next week. “We should get out of the way.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) added that “the status quo is just fine with us.”

In fact, Republicans may not even need to come up with an alternative plan as Democrats bring the war debate back to the floor of the Senate. They may just let Democrats scramble for consensus.

Asked what the Democrats’ next move on Iraq will be, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “You will see,” with an emphatic fist pump, before turning back to a reporter and saying with a laugh, “That’s assuming we know.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5785_Page2.html

[Ban Hammer 14,794]

the democratic party motto - we don't have a better idea, we just want to b!tch about something.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I watched yesterday's hearing where many Republicans and Democrats asked pointed questions to General Petraeus. There are some crucial questions that he could not answer - will his recommendations be successful? How long will it take or even what kinds of benchmarks should look for to determine that it's a failure? Will it make America safer?

I don't see that as partisan at all, and I don't find fault in the General's inability to answer those questions. Given that, I think the Democrats believe that we can continue on with the current course. Regardless of what we do at this point, we've lost.

[GaryC 7]

I watched yesterday's hearing where many Republicans and Democrats asked pointed questions to General Petraeus. There are some crucial questions that he could not answer - will his recommendations be successful? How long will it take or even what kinds of benchmarks should look for to determine that it's a failure? Will it make America safer?

I don't see that as partisan at all, and I don't find fault in the General's inability to answer those questions. Given that, I think the Democrats believe that we can continue on with the current course. Regardless of what we do at this point, we've lost.

Will you listen to yourself? They asked "will his recommendations be successful?" What is the General, a clairvoyant?

I mean really, Unless you saying the the General is just a Bush stooge how can they even expect him to answer these questions? This is a war, things change on a daily basis. The senate approved this guy with a 100% vote. He came in and gave his report, but even before he gave it the dems were blasting him because they didn't like what they knew they would hear. It's playing politics with our national security and the dems should be ashamed of themselves.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I watched yesterday's hearing where many Republicans and Democrats asked pointed questions to General Petraeus. There are some crucial questions that he could not answer - will his recommendations be successful? How long will it take or even what kinds of benchmarks should look for to determine that it's a failure? Will it make America safer?

I don't see that as partisan at all, and I don't find fault in the General's inability to answer those questions. Given that, I think the Democrats believe that we can continue on with the current course. Regardless of what we do at this point, we've lost.

Will you listen to yourself? They asked "will his recommendations be successful?" What is the General, a clairvoyant?

I mean really, Unless you saying the the General is just a Bush stooge how can they even expect him to answer these questions? This is a war, things change on a daily basis. The senate approved this guy with a 100% vote. He came in and gave his report, but even before he gave it the dems were blasting him because they didn't like what they knew they would hear. It's playing politics with our national security and the dems should be ashamed of themselves.

Gary, did you listen to any of the hearing yesterday? It wasn't all Democrats asking him pointed questions or expressing doubt as to whether we should continue down this path. It's not unheard of to speculate as to whether a military strategy will be successful or at least speculate on the likelihood of success. General Petraeus was put in place to do the best job that he could of trying to make progress in Iraq. He even admitted that the political aspect of it, which is fundamental to the success is not being met by the Iraqi government.

How long do you think we should keep a large number of troops in Iraq?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree that the overall policy goes above the Generals remit, which is primarily security-related.

[almaty 19]

agreed, plus the general is toeing the line of his commander in chief