Democrats confront Bush on Iraq troop surge (2nd Roundup)

US News

By Tony Czuczka Jan 17, 2007, 23:05 GMT

Washington - Democrats and a senior senator from President George W Bush's party Wednesday presented a measure opposing a US troop increase in Iraq, squeezing the embattled president over the unpopular war. The non-binding Senate resolution would symbolically disapprove of Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 more troops to Iraq, but Democrats are also proposing legislation to cap US troop levels. 'This resolution sends a powerful message not only to the president and the American people, but also to the leaders and the people of Iraq, that Congress does not support an escalation of our military presence,' Democratic Senator Carl Levin told reporters. 'It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq,' the draft says. Separately, Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a troop boost, saying the 2002 war authorization by the US Congress 'is no longer relevant.' Bush, pointing to his constitutional authority as the US military's commander-in-chief, has insisted he will stick with his plan. He can veto any bill from Congress that limits US troop deployments. The White House criticized Democrats for proposing legal limits on US troops, which currently number about 140,000 in Iraq. 'To tie one's hand in a time of war is a pretty extreme move' and success in Iraq is 'strongly in the national interest' of the US, Bush's spokesman Tony Snow said. Bush's announcement last week was part of a new US effort to quell sectarian killings. It has ignited opposition in Congress, where the centre-left Democrats control both houses after defeating Bush's Republicans in November elections. But a rebellion is also growing among Republicans. Senator Chuck Hagel, a longtime Republican critic of the invasion of Iraq, co- sponsored the non-binding resolution unveiled Wednesday. 'I think it is dangerously irresponsible to continue to put American lives in the middle of a clearly defined, tribal-sectarian civil war,' Hagel said. Democrats are lobbying Republicans to join the Senate resolution and a similar measure planned in the lower House of Representatives. Democratic leaders reportedly plan to schedule votes shortly before Bush's annual state of the union policy speech set for Tuesday. Debate over Iraq is heating up as the 2008 presidential campaign is getting under way. Former US first lady Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to run for president, joined in the attacks on the Bush administration fresh from a trip to Iraq to meet US soldiers and commanders. 'We should be beginning a phased redeployment of American troops as a way of putting pressure on the Iraqi government,' said Clinton, a US senator for the state of New York. © 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Talkback

Add your comment (no registration required)

page: 1

Oh wellJan 17th, 2007 - 23:52:03

I see they are already doing their best to lose 08.

Report this comment

excuse me...Jan 18th, 2007 - 02:16:50

Were these not the same folks wo said we didn't have enough 'boots on the ground', whatever that means...

I can't wait to see General Clinton and Genral Obama's answers on this...

SP4

Report this comment

Impeach BushJan 18th, 2007 - 03:36:13

There would be many more options open if Bush weren't so utterly incompetent. On the other hand, if he had any sense, we wouldn't be there in the first place.

There was general concern at the outset that ousting Saddam could usher in civil war with Iran as the big winner since both the majority of Iraqis and Iranians are Shiites.

Our only hope for getting out of this is to impeach Bush and Cheney and bring in somebody who is less corrupt and a lot more competent.

Report this comment

DaveJan 18th, 2007 - 14:35:46

More meaningless bells and whistles from Congress. How many of these guys are running for President? This all has less to do with what is the right thing to do than crass political opportunism. If these people really have the balls to do something to rein in the President, then they need to bring him up on articles of impeachment, convict him and remove him from office. Since trying, rightly or wrongly, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is not an impeachable offense that would be silly so we get all this grandstanding and showboating. Bush and his lackeys have made a royal mess of things and seem just as intent as their opponents to play politics with it all. I am thoroughly disgusted with them all - President, Congress, Democrats, Republicans. Is this why good people are fighting and dying all over the world? To defend this corrupt, out of touch gaggle of mediocrities?

Report this comment

U.S.Jan 18th, 2007 - 16:41:11

shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place; bush's first mistake. This mistake has snowballed and compounded itself, (with bush's help of course) into what it is today. One cane only imagine the lives saved and resources not spent if bush weren't given Cart Blanche with the United States Treasury.

Report this comment

U. S.Jan 18th, 2007 - 16:43:54

By the way Dave, your post is spectacular.

Report this comment

Get RealJan 18th, 2007 - 16:52:37

To SP4,

They said we needed more troops early on, when things hadn't yet devolved into the much more complicated, disintigrating mess it is now.

That was a totally different situation than what exists today.

Using your 'standard' how bout this ... Just last November (less than 2 months ago) Bush said more troops 'would destabilize Iraq'. Now he's flip flopped on that.

Tell me ... Was he wrong then, or wrong now?

Report this comment

page: 1

Add your comment (no registration required)

US

Democrats confront Bush on Iraq troop surge (2nd Roundup)

US News

Talkback

Similar articles

Latest Headlines in US

Latest Articles on The Tech Herald

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print