Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:53 am Post subject: White House hangs veto over pullout plan |
 |
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
White House hangs veto over pullout plan
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
AP via Yahoo - Mar 8, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq
White House hangs veto over pullout plan
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders vowed Thursday to pass legislation
setting a deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, for the withdrawal of U.S. combat
troops from Iraq, a challenge to President Bush's war policy that drew a
blunt veto threat in return.
"It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it's safe
to say it's a non-starter for the president," said White House spokesman
Dan Bartlett.
Little more than two months after Democrats took control of the House and
Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California said
the bill would set "dates certain for the first time in the Congress for
the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq."
Officials said the deadline would be accelerated -- possibly to the end of
2007 -- if the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki failed to
meet commitments for taking over security operations, distributing oil
revenue and opening his nation's constitution to amendments.
Pelosi said Democrats would add their war-related provisions to the
administration's request for nearly $100 billion to pay for the fighting in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The plan is to bring the bill to a vote by the end of the month, making it
the first major test of the Democrats' power since they rode a wave of
anti-war voter sentiment to midterm election victories last fall.
Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats readied a less sweeping challenge to
the commander in chief.
Their version would set a target date of March 31, 2008, for the withdrawal
of combat troops -- but no deadline. The measure says U.S. forces could
stay beyond that date only to protect U.S. personnel, train and equip Iraqi
forces and carry out counterterrorism operations. "We can't stay in Iraq
forever," said Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., the
majority leader.
Reid has considerably less leeway than Pelosi, since Senate rules give
Republicans greater power than their counterparts have in the House.
Presidential politics also figure in his calculations. Illinois Sen. Barack
Obama (news, bio, voting record), a candidate for the White House, told
reporters the measure includes some of the key provisions of a bill he
introduced earlier this year setting a March 31, 2008, target for
withdrawal. "It expresses the central insight that we can't have our troops
policing a civil war," he said.
Of the 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, roughly 60,000 are combat forces and
the rest are support troops.
Bartlett attacked the House measure in comments to reporters aboard Air
Force One as Bush flew to South America. "Obviously, the administration
would vehemently oppose and ultimately veto any legislation that looked
like what was described today," he said.
Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the House Republican
leader, led the GOP counterattack.
"General (David) Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what
happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha (news, bio,
voting record)," Boehner added, referring to the Pennsylvania Democrat who
has been heavily involved in crafting legislation designed to end U.S.
participation in the war.
Pelosi and other Democratic leaders 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.
Democratic aides said their greatest concern was persuading liberals to
come aboard, and they were hoping anti-war organizations would come out in
favor of the House measure.
Liberal Rep. Maxine Waters (news, bio, voting record) of California said
she told Pelosi she intended to vote no, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (news,
bio, voting record) of Texas said she "would have a very difficult time"
supporting it.
At the same time, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (news, bio, voting record) of
California said a meeting of moderate and conservative Democrats produced
strong expressions of support. "I think that this legislation gives the
generals adequate flexibility to do what they need to do on the ground," he
said. "At the same time it gives a certain finality that is being demanded
by the American people."
Officials said a Wednesday night meeting of first-term Democrats produced
little opposition. "For me it supports the troops, supports the veterans
and holds the president accountable," said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (news, bio,
voting record) of Colorado.
Democrats can afford only 15 defections and still be assured of passing
their legislation in the House. Few Republicans are expected to vote in
favor.
Seeking support, the leadership added $1.2 billion to Bush's request for
military operations in Afghanistan and $3.5 billion for veterans' health
care and medical programs at facilities such as the recently criticized
Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.
Domestic spending would rise $12 billion over the administration's request
- -- and there apparently were no plans to offset the spending to prevent
increases in the deficit.
Searching for votes elsewhere, Pelosi signaled she was considering adding a
House-passed minimum wage increase to the military spending bill, along
with $1.3 billion in tax cuts that cleared earlier in the year.
A provision to require Bush to get authorization from Congress to take major
military action against Iraq ran into turbulence from lawmakers concerned
about the implications for Israel.
As described by Democrats, the legislation would require Bush to certify by
July 1 and again by Oct. 1 whether the Iraqi government was making progress
toward providing for the country's security, allocating its oil revenues
and creating a fair system for amending its constitution.
If Bush certified the Iraqis were meeting these benchmarks, U.S. combat
troops would have to begin withdrawing by March 1, 2008, and complete the
redeployment by Sept. 1.
Otherwise, the deadlines would move up.
If Bush cannot make either certification, the law requires a six-month
withdrawal to begin immediately.
The legislation also requires 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. Bush would have authority to
waive these standards, though, meaning they could not be used to prevent the
buildup of troops in Baghdad that the president ordered in January.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFF8cKriz2i76ou9wQRAhHcAKCUfakc5zkVXiPa5U6gJq1ZERhReQCcCL4+
4CibBwqYiIBM8Bv5hM+O6nQ=
=+8dL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
