US senators feel weight of Iraq vote

from the January 26, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0126/p01s02-uspo.html
The Democratic-controlled Congress must decide if resolutions opposing Bush's war strategy will be stern ... or bipartisan.

By Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON

Back in 1971, Vietnam veteran John Kerry gave a face to the antiwar movement with a single question in televised testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

This week, Senator Kerry reprised the argument before the same panel: "How many of you here at this table believe what's happening [in Iraq] is a mistake today?" he asked, as the Foreign Relations Committee took the first congressional step opposing the strategy in Iraq since lawmakers authorized the use of force in 2002.

In the end, 12 senators – all the Democrats on the panel plus one Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska – backed a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq. The vote came 16 hours after Mr. Bush appealed to lawmakers, in his State of the Union address, to give his plan to add 21,500 US troops to the forces fighting in Iraq "a chance to work."

As the resolution moves to the full Senate next week, it's clear that deep disagreements exist within each party over how best to express doubts about the Iraq war. The result is a vivid – and very public – grappling over the terms of their disagreement.

At issue is whether the new Democrat-controlled Congress should aim for the strongest resolution opposing the troop buildup, or the one most likely to draw the largest bipartisan vote.

Even Republican senators on the foreign relations panel who did not vote for the resolution expressed serious doubts about the way the president is waging the war. But these were not enough to overcome their worries that their words could have unintended consequences – from undermining US troops to further isolating a commander in chief determined to go his own way.

"The president is deeply invested in this plan, and the deployments opposed by the resolution have already begun," warned Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, the committee's ranking Republican, before the vote on Wednesday. "This resolution will increase the divide between the executive and legislative branches that is already unacceptably wide," he added, cautioning his colleagues not to give in to frustration with a White House that has not listened to the Congress in the past.

Those concerns are at the center of intense negotiations, as senators grapple with how to find words that will bring enough Republicans on board to get the attention of the White House, but not send a message of defeat to the troops.

The White House and its supporters on Capitol Hill want to avoid any language that will undercut the troops or undermine the mission of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, whom the Senate on Wednesday unanimously confirmed to command US and multinational forces in Iraq.

"The goal is to try to salvage this thing and not send additional troops over with a message of disapproval from the Congress," says Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, who supports the president on sending more troops to Iraq.

In a first move toward achieving a bipartisan consensus, the resolution's supporters agreed to drop any reference to the president's "escalating" the war in Iraq. For many Republicans, it's a loaded term that both recalls the Vietnam quagmire and appears to give Congress a claim to "micromanage" the commander in chief. Sens. Joseph Biden (D) of Delaware, Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine, and Hagel, cosponsors of the resolution, agreed to drop it.

"We can't have 535 commanders in chief, and if you think the US is doomed to fail, please remember that the enemy is listening," says Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who opposes the resolution.

In a sharp disagreement with Kerry, Sen. Jim Webb (D) of Virginia cautioned colleagues to avoid comparisons between the Iraq war and the Vietnam War. "We're losing the support of a lot of people who supported the Vietnam War and who have problems with this [war in Iraq] if we try to lump [them] together," he said.

In the Vietnam era, senators also struggled to maintain a distinction between opposing Vietnam War policy and opposing the US forces fighting it.

"The dean of the antiwar resolutions in Vietnam, [Idaho's Democratic] Sen. Frank Church, was constantly trying to make this distinction," says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University. In the congressional debate over the Iraq war, "there's a very similar rhetorical strategy now to that period," he adds.

In the next few days, sponsors of a second resolution opposing the new White House strategy on the war – especially the involvement of US forces in combating sectarian violence – will be trying to line up backers. "Our resolution does not provide a reduction of the US forces now or provide a timetable, but it calls on the president to consider all options," specifically along the lines of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, says Sen. John Warner (R) of Virginia, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

After the vote of the Foreign Relations Committee, backers of the alternative resolution – Senator Warner and cosponsors Susan Collins (R) of Maine, Norm Coleman (R) of Minnesota, and Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska – said they had five other Democratic cosponsors for it. Both resolutions could come to the floor as early as next Wednesday.

Some criticize the resolutions as soft-pedaling. "This is not a time for legislative nuancing," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin Wednesday. "This is a time to stop the needless deaths of American troops in Iraq."

How senators wrestled over the resolution on Iraq

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Wednesday, 12 to 9, in favor of a resolution denouncing President Bush's plan to build up US troops in Iraq to try to calm Baghdad and root out insurgents in Anbar Province. Before the vote, during markup of the resolution, senators on the panel made impassioned arguments about the meaning of the vote.

Here are some excerpts.

"Our resolution of disapproval is not, I emphasize not, an attempt to embarrass the president. It is not an attempt to demonstrate isolation. What it is, it's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."
– Sen. Joseph Biden (D) of Delaware, panel chairman

"It is unclear to me how passing a nonbinding resolution that the president has already said he will ignore will contribute to any improvement or modification of our Iraq policy. ... We are laying open our disunity without the prospect that the vehicle will achieve meaningful changes in policy. This vote will force nothing on the president, but it will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray."
– Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, panel's ranking Republican

"This is not a defeatist resolution. This is not a cut-and-run resolution. We are not talking about cutting off funds, not supporting the troops. This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam. Yes, sure, it's tough.... If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves, and have the courage to step up on what we are asking our young men and women to do? I don't think so.... Can't we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people?"
– Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska

"We must redeploy from Iraq so we can fight the war on terror from a position of strength. Sending more troops into the middle of a civil war is not making this country more secure. It is weakening us in our own nation. And the opinion of the countries around the world of America is sinking to new lows. And in a global economy and a global war on terror, this is dangerous for our country. The American people understand this, and that's why they voted the way they did on Nov. 7. And as colleagues have said often in the past, elections have consequences. Iraq was the most important issue, and we're dealing with it today."
– Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California

"Let me remind my colleagues on this side of the aisle: I'm so pleased we're in the majority again, but we were in the majority when this war was approved. We have a responsibility as Democrats and Republicans in the Congress of the United States to stop this thing now. And these proposals simply don't do it."
– Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin

"My big concern is not about the politics. ... My concern is what are we doing, and what impact is that going to have to the war-fighters and folks on the ground? I'm concerned about that. And I measure what I do very carefully. I don't want to undercut the effort, the commitment, the sacrifice that has been made. ... Iraq is a mess. I'm not ready to pull the plug. I'm not ready to admit that we can't have success. And I want us to ... understand the consequence of failure when we say and do what we're going to do."
– Sen. Norm Coleman (R) of Minnesota

"I know what that's like when you're sitting out on an infantry unit and seeing what you're doing interpreted politically. But ... it's an inverted political logic for people to basically say that we have to continue doing this for the good of the troops. We are not continuing this war for the troops. The troops are fighting this war on our behalf because we're continuing it. That's a vital distinction in the debate here."
– Sen. Jim Webb (D) of Virginia

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links