Senate edges closer to confronting Bush By Susan Cornwell
Thu Feb 1, 8:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate edged closer to a showdown debate over Iraq with attacks coming from the right and left on Thursday on a proposal to reject President George W. Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to war.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada set a vote for Monday on whether to consider the measure, which would put the Senate on record against Bush's planned troop increase but not bind him to any action. Reid said he believed a majority of the chamber's 100 senators opposed Bush's plan.
Although the proposal's main author, Virginia Republican John Warner (news, bio, voting record), won the backing of key Democrats by rewriting parts of it, Reid could not say whether it had the backing of 60 senators it would need to clear it for a final vote requiring a simple majority.
"Whether we get 60, 58 or 53, we're going to be able to show the American people that the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, opposes this escalation in Iraq," Reid said.
Opponents of Bush's plan were bolstered by comments from the outgoing top U.S. military commander in Iraq, who said the five brigades Bush proposed not be needed to secure Baghdad.
"I believe that the job in Baghdad, as it's designed now, can be done with less than that," Army Gen. George Casey said. "My commanders told me that they needed two brigades to implement this plan and I asked for those forces."
But Casey said before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he did not oppose sending the additional troops.
That suggested at least a difference in emphasis from his designated successor, Gen. David Petraeus, who wants all extra forces deployed as quickly as possible. The committee was considering Casey's nomination to be U.S. Army chief of staff.
SIPHON OFF SUPPORT
Opponents of the Senate resolution -- both Democrats and Republicans -- lobbied hard to siphon off support.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) said Senate passage of the nonbinding resolution "will be perceived in the Middle East as America throwing in the towel."
Graham, fellow Republican John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, and Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), an Independent from Connecticut, sought backing for their measure urging that Iraq's government be required to meet benchmarks such as cracking down on sectarian conflict.
Some liberal Democrats split with most of their party and opposed Warner's proposal as not tough enough. Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd said the Senate should force the Bush administration to act, perhaps by capping the troop levels.
"Why not force them (the White House) to pay attention to what we say up here?" Dodd demanded. "This is the United States Senate, this is not a city council somewhere."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said it appeared the situation was in "considerable flux," but there should be concrete results from Bush's plan within months.
"I won't give you an absolute timetable, but obviously the next six to eight months are going to be times when people expect to see something happen," he said.
The Bush administration on Friday will release an intelligence report on Iraq that is expected to cast doubt on the ability of the Iraqi government to support Bush's new strategy for controlling sectarian violence, officials said.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Bush's troop buildup could cost at least double the administration's estimate and involve more than twice as many troops.
The price tag could reach about $13 billion for a four-month mission, the nonpartisan CBO said, and the combat soldiers Bush said he is going to deploy to Iraq might have to be augmented by 28,000 support troops.
In January, the Bush administration estimated a cost of $5.6 billion to dispatch 21,500 troops.
The White House said Bush will seek emergency funds next week to pay for operations in Iraq. His request for the rest of 2007 is expected top $100 billion, making it the biggest such request yet. |
