Thursday, February 01, 2007

Democrats and Republicans unite on challenge to General Petraeus' plan

Isn't it great, all this bipartisanships that's going on in the Senate! Aren't we so proud that they can put aside their differences and come together in a show of unity against the man that they just confirmed? Isn't it lovely that we have such brave leaders who will stand up to the president and tell him in a nonbinding way, "We don't like what you're doing, so there!" And the height of irony and an embarrassment to all Republicans is that they aren't going unite behind the Biden resolution, they are uniting behind the Warner resolution. Wouldn't Lincoln be proud of his party if he were alive today?

Democratic and Republican opponents of President Bush's troop-buildup plan joined forces last night behind the nonbinding resolution with the broadest bipartisan backing: a Republican measure from Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced the shift, hoping to unite a large majority of the Senate and thwart efforts by the White House and GOP leaders to derail any congressional resolution of disapproval of Bush's decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500.

The revised resolution would express the Senate's opposition to the troop increase but would vow to protect funding for the troops. The resolution does not include the Democratic language saying the Bush plan is against the national interest, but it also drops an earlier provision by Warner suggesting Senate support for some additional troops.

"It's been a hard work in progress," Warner said of the revised resolution, which will require the support of at least 60 senators to prevent a filibuster.

After reviewing the Warner revisions, Reid decided the new text would take the place of the original resolution, by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). He said the Senate will begin debating the resolution next week, provided Democrats and Republicans can agree on a way to overcome some procedural hurdles.
Bitter? Why yes,could you tell? I hear that people have started a draft Tony Snow movement to challenge Warner for his seat. If I lived in Virginia, I would join them. I hope the NRSC has resigned themselves to getting less money then they did this election cycle because this vote will seal their doom.

And then there's this:
House Democratic leaders reached the same decision, ordering committees to draft a resolution next week patterned on Warner's language. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went further, publicly hinting she will push binding legislation that would begin bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. "I believe that you'll see initiatives on the floor to this effect: that we have this year in which we should be able to drastically reduce the number of troops," she said in an interview broadcast on National Public Radio yesterday.

In the House, Pelosi suggested yesterday that the chamber may consider binding legislation. In comments aired yesterday by National Public Radio, Pelosi said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had told her during her visit to Baghdad last week that, with sufficient funds, his government could stabilize Iraq in four to six months and allow 50,000 U.S. troops to be deployed out of hotbeds of sectarian violence.
Again with the empty threats. That won't get very far in the senate, they had a had enough time voting for a nonbinding resolution, you think they'll make the commitment to vote for resolution that would actual do something?

But let's give it up for the sneakiness of the House Democrats:
But Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of Murtha's subcommittee, said the parameters of the legislation are already coming together. Legislative language, to be attached to a forthcoming "supplemental" war spending bill, would stipulate that only troops deemed fully trained and ready could be deployed to Iraq, and that National Guard and reserve troops could be deployed only for about a year. Such language would initially restrict Bush's ability to fully man his planned troop increase and over time would force troops to come home.
Here we go again, wasn't Vietnam enough for you people? Why are you trying to micromanage another war? (BTW, this seems kind of empty because how do you measure readiness?)

Another proud moment in the history of Congress, don't you think? I don't see how either side can be happy with what Congress is doing. But then, what else is new?