Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
July 6, 2007
G.O.P. Support for Iraq Policy Erodes Further
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, July 5 Support among Republicans for President Bushs Iraq policy eroded further on Thursday as another senior lawmaker, Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, broke with the White House just as Congressional Democrats prepared to renew their challenge to the war.
We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress, said Mr. Domenici, a six-term senator who has been a steadfast supporter of the president....
Bush is going to lose this battle in the end...
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/w...&ex=1184385600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
July 6, 2007
Domenici Wavers...Strategically, Domenici sounds a little incoherent. Where in Iraq would he like the troops moved to get out of "combat operations"? If so, why not just opt for an immediate withdrawal instead of just leaving them as sitting ducks, a la Beirut 1983? They're safer engaging the enemy on their own terms, rather than waiting for the enemy to attack them.
Politically, however, he sounds more coherent. He joins other Republicans, like John Warner and George Voinovich, who want Iraq off the table for the 2008 elections. He has endorsed a bill that would require the implementation of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations sponsored by Ken Salazar and co-sponsored by Republicans such as Robert Bennett, Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, and John Sununu. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee was the original co-sponsor of the bill.
All of this adds up to a real problem for Bush when the Senate reconvenes. Clearly his party caucus has begun to collapse on the war, and not even Joe Lieberman can save him through a cloture vote on some demand for change. The Salazar bill would not require an immediate withdrawal, but a quick perusal of the ISG's recommendations makes it clear that the bill would force some fundamental changes, some of them fairly divorced from reality. Given its reliance -- as a prerequisite for other actions -- on the benevolence of Iran and Syria, it's a plan that cripples the US and Iraq from the start.
The ISG billt will have quite a bit of opposition, however, and not just from the Republicans determined to remain firm on the war. Democrats will likely form a majority of opposition to it as well, thanks to the ISG's warning on precipitate withdrawal, which it notes would "almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions." It would create a clear propaganda victory for al-Qaeda, and even more importantly, leave them Iraq as their new base of operations. If Salazar's bill actually follows the ISG recommendations, then it means American troops will remain in Iraq for quite some time, if not in the numbers presently seen -- and Democrats will not agree to that. It would kill them in the next election, possibly splitting the anti-war activists off to support third-party candidates.
This sounds like a recipe for stalemate. In fact, it looks like another immigration-reform debacle, with the center getting squeezed by both sides. If that happens, the President may get his extension by default, as Congress runs out of time again for retooling the war before the funds for the deployed troops run out.
Im just wondering why the entire republican party has not broken from Bush's Policy yet. Do they see progress or something? I guess its just the deep pockets of the white house, keeping every republican on payroll.
I don't think the White House's pockets are very deep. On the other hand, I do think there is worry that slapping them the way they deserve will cost the GOP in the next cycle.
I disagree, we need to cut the White House off quicker than they are us.
At this point, I think the white house should be re-located to the moon. Thats how far off they are with the rest of congress and the American People.
I thought the point of winning the white house was to follow the agenda of your party, and get stuff passed. When you cant even agree with your own party, or any party for that matter.....there is really no need for the executive branch, because nothing gets done.
