|
2007.05.25 Iraq/Iran Roundup
See previous: 2007.05.24 Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/"The media sucks" Roundup
Below the fold (newest items at the top):
- Bush Signs War Funding Bill Without Troop Withdrawal Timetable
- Mookie's back
- Radical Anti-American Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Returns to Iraq
- Anti-U.S. cleric forbids his militia to fight Iraqi troops
- Sadr surfaces in Iraq, top deputy immediately killed in Basra
- Look Who's Showing His Face Again
- Funding has bigger margin than the war vote
- De Bitterness of De Foot Soldiers
- Bowing to the Inevitable
- U.S. Urges New Sanctions as Iran Stands Firm on Nuclear Policy
- Sadr Back in Iraq, U.S. Generals Say
- Bush seeks harsher sanctions on Iran
- Congress Passes War Funds Bill, Ending Impasse
- Congress Passes Deadline-Free War Funding Bill
- Congress OKs war bill sans timeline
*** *** *** Fold (but please don't spindle or mutilate) *** *** ***
Bush Signs War Funding Bill Without Troop Withdrawal Timetable
WASHINGTON — President Bush signed a bill Friday to pay for military operations in Iraq after a bitter struggle with Democrats in Congress who sought unsuccessfully to tie the money to U.S. troop withdrawals.
Bush signed the bill into law at the Camp David presidential retreat where he is spending part of the Memorial Day weekend. In announcing the signing, White House spokesman Tony Fratto noted that it came 109 days after Bush sent his emergency spending request to Congress.
The president applauded the bipartisan effort to get an emergency supplemental bill to his desk by the Memorial Day recess.
"This effort shows what can happen when people work together," Bush said after visiting wounded troops earlier at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. "We've got a good bill that didn't have timetables or tell the military how to do its job, but also sent a clear signal to the Iraqis that there's expectations here in America ... about how to move forward."
McConnell also emphasized that the Iraqis need to make progress. "We've given the Iraqi government an opportunity here to have a normal country. And so far, they've been a great disappointment to members of the Senate on both sides," he said.
The war spending bill provides about $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30 and billions in domestic projects, including more than $6 billion for hurricane relief. The House voted 280-142 Thursday night to pass the bill, followed by an 80-14 vote in the Senate.
The Senate will go first when it considers a defense policy bill authorizing $649 billion in military spending in 2008. The proposed bill, approved this week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, cut $12 billion from the administration's $142 billion war-related request to fund other programs, including an increase in the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.
The most critical votes on the war are expected to be cast in September, when the House and Senate debate war funding for 2008. The September votes probably will come after Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus tells Congress whether Bush's troop buildup plan is working. Also due by September is an independent assessment of progress made by the Iraqi government.
Mookie's back
I was up way too late last night this morning and slept in big time. To make things even better I have errands I need to run before it gets much later in the day. At least I did manage before I crashed to link the WaPo article saying al-Sadr's back in Iraq, but a lot more information has emerged since then and I'll try to get a proper post about some of it done later. For now go read these:
Funding has bigger margin than the war vote
Don Surber
On Oct. 11, 2002, the Iraq War resolution passed the Senate, 77-23.
On May 24, 2007, the Iraq War funding passed the Senate 80-14.
The last 4 months of “debate” has been Hogwash City for the Democrats as Harry “Tara” Reid has waged “war” against the president, only to surrender when the first volley was fired back. ...
De Bitterness of De Foot Soldiers
Jules Crittenden
It’s been a rough seven years. Gore. Kerry. Now this: WASHINGTON — Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress grudgingly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war Thursday night, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.
80-14 in the Senate. 280-142 in the House. Ouch. The Dems can’t muster those kind of votes. Even with graft. Hillary, who was for it before she was against it, went with Obama. That’s what you want in your commander-in-chief. A vote against troops in the field fighting al-Qaeda and anti-American Iranian stooges. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was even more emphatic. “Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush’s failed policy or we get a new president,” he said.
That has a kind of non-binding sound to it. There’s a fair amount of self-loathing going on. ...
Don't miss Jules's longer related piece at PJM: Surrender Another Day
Bowing to the Inevitable
Hatched by Dafydd ab Hugh
Big Lizards -- and a whole lot of other folks -- has said repeatedly that, in the end, the Democrats would have to give President Bush the money he needs to keep fighting the war against global jihad... and give it to him without timetables for surrender, without absurd and bogus "readiness rules" that would prevent fresh units from replacing combat-weary veterans, and without 535 "little generals" issuing tactical commands to the troops in the field.
(We tried that last during the Civil War, but it was fewer than 535 back then. Still didn't work.)
The Democrats, for their part, swore that they would never, ever pass such funding without a timeline for withdrawal -- a date certain for American defeat.
Well...
[...]
I know I already talked about this; but it's one of the most important inflection points in prosecuting the overall war, as well as the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan within it: For the first time since last November, we now know for certain that today's Congress hasn't the will to cram defeat down our throats, the way yesterday's did in 1974.
That is a monumental revelation. As much as I have always believed it to be true, it's a tremendous relief to see it verified by actions under the dome.
This also points up the huge distinction between domestic policies, like immigration -- where Congress is typically willing to compromise -- and foreign policy, especially war, where one side must win and the other must lose. As a political (not military) battle, war is a zero sum game: Either you support it, or you don't; you cannot "split the difference" and half-support it.
The congressional kabuki dance also demonstrates the immense superiority of our system of government, a constitutional republic with a strong chief executive, over that of any parliamentary democracy... a more primitive and generally failed form of government that is basically institutionalized tribalism.
To the extent parlimentarianism works at all, it only does when one party seizes so much power that the prime minister more or less apes an American president... as with Tony Blair recently or Winston Churchill during World War II.
But a president has inherent power and the "energy" (as the Federalist Papers put it) to act decisively, while Congress dithers. Even when President Bush's own party wavered, frightened and sweating, Bush stood firm; and by his own force of personality (or mulishness, as you prefer), the plenary powers of the presidency, and the "bully pulpit," he forced Congress to bow to his will. ...
U.S. Urges New Sanctions as Iran Stands Firm on Nuclear Policy
By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
President Bush said yesterday that the administration will press the United Nations to adopt new, expanded sanctions against Iran, as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran would "never retreat even one step" from its nuclear enrichment program.
The separate comments followed an International Atomic Energy Agency assessment that Iran has accelerated its enrichment program in defiance of two U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding its suspension. The IAEA report, delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, said Tehran's refusal to provide verification information had lessened the agency's ability to monitor Iranian nuclear capabilities.
Ahmadinejad ruled out even a temporary suspension. Iran's technological capabilities were reaching a "peak," he said, and "it will never retreat even one step from this path." Iran has denied charges that its enrichment program is intended to provide material for a nuclear weapon, saying that it is interested only in energy uses and that it has a sovereign right to proceed.
In a news conference, Bush said he would discuss additional sanctions with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao. "The first thing these leaders have got to understand is that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing for the world," Bush said. ...
************* Sadr Back in Iraq, U.S. Generals Say
By Thomas E. Ricks and Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post Staff Writers
BAGHDAD, May 24 -- Moqtada al-Sadr, the influential Shiite cleric and militia leader who went into hiding before the launch of a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive in February, is in the southern city of Kufa, senior U.S. military commanders said Thursday.
Sadr, who has long opposed the U.S. occupation and is ratcheting up pressure for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, has returned from neighboring Iran, perhaps as recently as this week, they said.
"He's been very quiet since he's come back," said Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division, which is spearheading the offensive in and around Baghdad, now in its fourth month. Sadr's aides said their leader has remained in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, adjacent to Kufa.
Sadr's movement is wooing Sunni leaders and purging extremists in his Mahdi Army militia in an attempt to strengthen his image as a nationalist who can lead all Iraqis at a time when antiwar sentiments are growing in the United States and Iraq's political landscape is increasingly fractured. ...
Bush seeks harsher sanctions on Iran
By Joseph Curl, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Bush yesterday demanded much tougher sanctions against Iran, which the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency says will be capable of building an atomic bomb in as little as three years. ...
Departing next month for meetings with European leaders, as well as sideline discussions with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin -- two opponents to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions -- the president said the weak U.N. sanctions against the nation have produced nothing.
"We need to strengthen our sanction regime," he said. "The world has spoken and said, you know, 'No nuclear weapons programs.' And yet they're constantly ignoring the demands. ... They continue to be defiant as to the demands of the free world."
Two rounds of U.N. sanctions in the past six months were watered down by Russia and China, and many European nations have been reluctant to join U.S. efforts to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Tensions have escalated in the region as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week vowed to continue efforts to enrich uranium.
Congress Passes War Funds Bill, Ending Impasse
By Carl Hulse, The New York Times
WASHINGTON, May 24 — Congress voted Thursday to meet President Bush’s demand for almost $100 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, providing a momentary truce in a bitter struggle over war policy.
Even before the House and the Senate acted, Mr. Bush welcomed the legislation, which does not set the timetable sought by Democrats for withdrawing troops but requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of benchmarks as a condition of receiving further American reconstruction aid.
The measure also calls for reports from Mr. Bush in July and September about how his strategy is unfolding in Iraq and requires independent assessments of the performance of the Iraqi government by Sept. 1 and the abilities of Iraqi military forces within 120 days.
“As it provides vital funds for our troops, this bill also reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America’s continued support and sacrifice,” Mr. Bush said at a White House news conference on Thursday morning.
Congress Passes Deadline-Free War Funding Bill
Measure Includes Benchmarks for Iraqis
By Shailagh Murray, Washington Post Staff Writer
Congress sent President Bush a new Iraq funding bill yesterday that lacked troop withdrawal deadlines demanded by liberal Democrats, but party leaders vowed it was only a temporary setback in their efforts to bring home American troops.
War opponents dismissed the bill as a capitulation to Bush and said they would seek to hold supporters in both parties accountable. But backers said the bill's provisions -- including benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid -- represented an assertion of congressional authority over the war that was unthinkable a few months ago.
Bush, who had vowed to veto any legislation with restrictions on troop deployments, announced he would sign the $120 billion package, which was approved 80 to 14 last night in the Senate, after a 280 to 142 House vote.
He said the 18 benchmarks should signal to the Iraq government that "it needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice." But he added, "We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months" ahead.
The focus now shifts to September, when the new funding runs out, and when U.S. commanders say they will be able to assess the results of an ongoing troop buildup. ...
Congress OKs war bill sans timeline
By S.A. Miller, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Both chambers of Congress yesterday passed a $120 billion war-funding bill without troop-withdrawal timetables for Iraq, ending a 108-day standoff with the White House as Democrats forfeited demands for a pullout.
The Democratic leadership's painful defeat in challenging President Bush on war policy was evident in the 280-142 House vote, with 194 Republicans and 86 Democrats supporting the war funding. More than half the Democratic caucus, 140 members, voted against it, as did Republican Reps. John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. of Tennessee and Ron Paul of Texas.
In the Senate, it garnered more bipartisan support to pass 80-14, winning "yes" votes from 42 Republicans, 37 Democrats and one independent, while 10 Democrats, 3 Republicans and one independent voted "no." ...
|
