Bush moves ahead with plans for continued military precense in Iraqma

In brief: President Bush is trying to push foreward his agenda forperminent millitary precence in Iraq through a proposed agreements with Iraq Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.


Maliki announced in Baghdad on Monday that the United Nations mandate setd 2008 as the final year for US-led forces to operate in Iraq . Malki then said that the UN mandate will be replaced by a new bilateral arrangement with Washington formalising US-Iraq economic, political, and security relations including American military presence in the country beyond 2008.

The nonbinding statement sets out the framework for talks on a formal pact. Those talks will address thorny issues such as what mission U.S. forces in Iraq will pursue, whether they will establish permanent bases, and what kind of immunity, if any, should be granted to private security contractors such as Blackwater Worldwide. Lute said a special negotiating team would seek to craft such an agreement by July 31.

A new agreement would not signal an end to the U.S. mission here. But it could change the rules under which U.S. soldiers operate and give the Iraqis a greater role in determining the troops' mission. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000. The statement/pact envisions Iraq emerging from the oversight of the Security Council for the first time since Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. Many Iraqi leaders bristle that their country still falls under what is known as a Chapter 7 designation as a threat to international peace and security.

This could provide a windfall for U.S. investors if Iraq could achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

Hillary Clinton and Nacy Pelosi Speak out against the Pact

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the Democratic-led House of Representatives on Monday condemned Bush over the pact. "President Bush's agreement with the Iraqi government confirms his willingness to leave office with a US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit strategy from Iraq," she said.



Democratic presidential front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton on Tuesday warned President George W. Bush a proposed pact with Iraq on extending the US troop presence was "dangerous."


Clinton wrote to the president to express her "great concern" about a statement of principles between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki made public on Monday.

The letter came as Democrats, who have spent months demanding troop withdrawals from Iraq, face shifting political sands on the war amid signs of US military progress.

Clinton asked Bush to clarify his statement with Maliki, to confirm that there were no plans to permanently station US forces in Iraq.

"To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage US interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts."

Clinton also reminded Bush that the purpose of his troop surge strategy announced earlier this year was to provide space for political reconciliation in Iraq.

"By any meaningful measurement, that political reconciliation has not yet occurred," Clinton wrote.

Iraqi leaders blast new US troop pact

Iraqi political and religious leaders on Tuesday blasted Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s agreement with Washington to negotiate a possible extension of the US troop presence in Iraq beyond 2008. The country’s hardline Sunni religious body joined MPs in condemning the agreement by Maliki and US President George W. Bush to consider replacing a UN mandate for foreign forces with a bilateral US-Iraq pact after 2008.

“The Muslim Scholars Association denounces the agreement as the occupier will continue to kill, demolish and humiliate Iraqis,” the Sunni body, which allegedly has links with anti-American insurgent groups, said in a statement. “This will provoke our people who will look at those who signed as collaborators with the occupier.”

Sumaysim’s colleague from the Sadr bloc, Falah Shanshal, said the agreement failed to offer a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. “They must set a schedule for the departure of the US forces from Iraq instead of affirming their presence on Iraqi soil,” he told AFP. “We have said that 2008 must be the last extension for the occupation forces and in that year a schedule must be set for the overall leaving of occupation forces from Iraq.”



Sunni lawmaker Dhafir al-Ani from the main National Concord Front, the main Sunni political faction in parliament, said the pact would give US the right to “interfere” in Iraq for a long time.

“We have reservations on the agreement as it is signed between non-equal parties. It will give the US a chance to interfere in different aspects” of Iraq, he said.


Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarraie, head of the Sunni endowment in Iraq – which controls religious shrines across the country, said US forces should leave only after the local forces are fully trained. “The US forces have to build an Iraqi police and army force that is balanced,” he told AFP. Several Sunni leaders are hoping that the thousands of Sunni men who have joined a US programme of training up neighbourhood watch-type guards will be later absorbed in the legitimate Iraqi forces. Around 70,000 Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, have joined the “concerned local citizens” groups formed by the US military to fight al-Qaeda and to guard local infrastructure.

Liwa Sumaysim, an MP from the political group of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, insisted that Maliki stick to his pledge that parliament have the final say on any deal reached with the United States. “We have strong reservations on the pact, although it is a non-binding one. The Iraqi parliament must have the final word on it,” he said.

Sumaysim’s colleague from the Sadr bloc, Falah Shanshal, said the agreement failed to offer a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. “They must set a schedule for the departure of the US forces from Iraq instead of affirming their presence on Iraqi soil,” he told AFP. “We have said that 2008 must be the last extension for the occupation forces and in that year a schedule must be set for the overall leaving of occupation forces from Iraq.”

Iraq War : Is it Time for a Time Table? The arguments from both sides

In a cliffhanger vote — 218 to 212 — the House of Representatives defied a White House veto threat and passed an emergency war-funding bill requiring that most U.S. forces be out of Iraq no later than August 2008.


Just an hour after the bill passed, President Bush fired back from a White House event, where he stood ringed by military veterans. He derided the House vote, calling it an act of political theater.

Senator Trent Lot Critical of Timetable Plan

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized Democrats
in the House of Representatives for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are
there on the ground with the men and women," said Senator Trent Lott,
(R-Miss.). "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally
irresponsible."

Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile because Bush has made
clear he will veto any such legislation.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explains her view of the situation

1. Returning Soldgiers poorly cared for: "And when they come home, they are not being honored as the heroes they are. The revelations of appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital and VA facilities across the nation remind us once again that our troops have been sent into war with no plan to care for them when they come home."

2. Bush is NOT listening to his commanders on the ground :"Our commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, recently said: 'There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.' "The Department of Defense has finally admitted that 'elements of a civil war do exist in Iraq.' In fact, it is even worse than that.

Yet the President's response to escalating levels of violence is to deploy more troops -- a strategy that has been tried without success on three previous occasions .

3. Troops Not Ready: "The admission by General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, that he is "not comfortable" with the readiness of Army
units in the United States.

4. US war effort marked by poor planning, coordination and oversight. "The
conclusion by the special inspector general that the failure of the reconstruction effort in Iraq was caused by a lack of planning, coordination and oversight.

Senator Chuck Hagel stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some legislators viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed - if a president really believes that, then . . . there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

Bush is Accountable

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice-President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face of danger.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement.

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some legislators may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Senator Dianne Feinstein - the people have spoken

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said "People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

House votes against troop surge in Iraq & Tim Ryans speach

In this post we have the Washington post on the House of Representatives Historic nonbinding but symbolic vote of NON CONFIDENCE in the President's plan forward in Iraq.

And, my favorite speech from the debate from Tim Ryans (D). Who points out that sending in these troops would mean sending in men and woman who would not have the equipment necessary to do their job. He points out that the administration has a poor record for carrying for our troops.



House votes against troop surge in Iraq
By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 17, 2007


The Democratic-led House yesterday voted against President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a nonbinding but symbolic action that Republicans said is defeatist and a step backward in the war on terrorism.

"Today we have had an historic victory for the American people," said House Speaker , who voted against the war in 2002.

The 97-word resolution, which opposes sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, passed 246-182. The vote was preceded by 44 hours and 55 minutes of debate over four days. Seventeen Republicans voted for the measure, and two Democrats voted against it.

The president's spokesman said the resolution won't change Mr. Bush's plan, adding that early signs of its success would leave those who voted for the resolution having to explain themselves later.

"Members of Congress have taken their own gamble here. They're gambling on failure -- some members, at least," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

The White House is downplaying yesterday's House vote -- and one planned for today in the Senate on another Iraq war resolution -- arguing that the more important votes were last month's Senate confirmation of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to command U.S. forces in Iraq and an upcoming vote on an emergency spending bill to fund the war on terrorism.
Meanwhile, House Republican leaders are vowing to defeat Democratic plans to begin slowly choking off funding for the war. Democrats intend to introduce legislation next month that they hope will limit the president's use of money in the supplemental war-funding request.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, said the resolution "is clearly the first step toward defunding the troops and the war against Islamic totalitarianism."

Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, said Thursday that he hopes to require certification for adequate training and equipment for any deployed troops, and to place caps on how long those troops can serve and be enlisted.

"They won't be able to do the deployment," said Mr. Murtha, who voted in favor of authorizing the war.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, denounced the plan "to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way."

Democrats insist the best way to "support the troops" is to take them out of what they say is a civil war in Iraq.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, who voted for the war, said it "has weakened our fight against al Qaeda. In fact the war has enhanced the group's recruitment."

Republicans insist that Iraq is a hard but necessary fight against terrorists and insurgents backed by Iran and Syria, and that the conflict is part of the country's broader fight against terrorism.

The four-day debate, in which 392 of 434 House lawmakers participated, came to a dramatic conclusion yesterday afternoon.

Republicans sent Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, a prisoner of war in Vietnam for almost seven years, to the House floor as their last speaker.

"Let my body serve as a brutal reminder that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past," said Mr. Johnson, 76. "We must not cut off funding for the troops."

Republicans gave Mr. Johnson a two-minute standing ovation and were joined by the smattering of Democrats in the chamber.

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri closed the debate for the Democrats. Mr. Skelton, who voted to authorize the war, said that sending more troops "will embroil [them] more deeply in a sectarian conflict [that] cannot be won militarily."

Immediately after the resolution passed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, sent out a release that said the Senate "must join the House and vote on the escalation."

Mr. Reid has taken the unusual step of bringing senators in for a weekend vote today on closing off amendments to an anti-surge resolution identical to the House bill.

Democrats say Republicans are avoiding an up-or-down vote on the surge, but Republicans say they want to vote on alternative resolutions, one of which would guarantee no funding cuts for the military.

"Senate Republicans want a vote in support of funding for the troops," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who said he expects to defeat Mr. Reid's attempt to stifle debate on other resolutions.

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this article.


Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) delivers his speech on the Iraq War Resolution during Thursday's debate on the floor of the house.

House members joust over Iraq war policy

By ANNE FLAHERTY,

House members fiercely debated Iraq war policy Tuesday in an emotional and historic floor faceoff over a conflict that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) lambasted as a U.S. commitment with "no end in sight."

The confluence of arguments came as the war nears the four-year point with over 3,100 American deaths, billions spent and lawmakers grappling what position to take on President Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops into battle.

"The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of action in Iraq and they are demanding a new direction," said Pelosi, a California Democrat who became the first female House speaker after her party took control of both the House and Senate in the fall elections.

A resolution putting the House on record as against Bush's expansion of troop strength was expected to be approved by week's end. It was nonbinding, but nevertheless unmistakable in its message. "No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq," Pelosi declared.

Countered White House press secretary Tony Snow: "Members of the House and members of the Senate have the freedom to go ahead and write their resolutions, and do what they want with them. The one thing we do expect is, we do expect those who say they're going to support the troops, to support them."

Republicans, now the minority party on the Hill for the time in 12 years, issued impassioned warnings of the consequences of undermining the president's policies in Iraq. "We will embolden terrorists in every corner in the world. We will give Iran free access to the Middle East," said Republican leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "And who doesn't believe the terrorists will just follow our troops home?"

Boehner teared up before reporters as he listened to Rep. Sam Johnson (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, describe being a prisoner of war in Vietnam and learning of U.S. protests back home.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., insisted that they had no intention of impeding the mission of those in Iraq. "There will be no defunding of troops in the field. There will be no defunding which will cause any risk to the troops," he told a news conference.

The House rejected, on a 227-197 vote, a Republican procedural attempt to force a vote on a proposal that would have barred Congress from cutting off funding for American troops in harm's way.

Democrats expressed confidence the measure would prevail and said they would attempt to use it as the opening move in a campaign to pressure Bush to change course and end U.S. military involvement in the war. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died in nearly four years of fighting.

Democrats called on several freshmen who served in the military to make their argument against further commitments in Iraq.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a captain in the Army 82nd Airborne, said that "three years after I left Iraq, Americans are still running convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi street corners."

But Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., stressed that "we go to war to win, we go to war with a mission." He said "we dishonor the lives of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice if we in fact abandon that mission. .... We have a duty to pursue nothing less than victory."

Republicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen members of the GOP were likely to break ranks and vote for it.

It was the first debate about the war in either house of Congress since November's midterm elections, when public opposition to the conflict helped power Democrats to control of the House and Senate.

Bush's decision last month to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to help stop sectarian violence has quickly become a flashpoint for critics of the war in Congress. There are currently about 141,000 American troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan.

The nonbinding measure states simply that the House "will continue to support and protect" troops serving in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the troop buildup.

While such legislation can neither force Bush's hand nor bring the war to a close, the vote could be a politically embarrassing rejection of his Iraq policy and help Democrats reassert congressional oversight of the war.

Each of the House's 435 members and five delegates were being allotted five minutes to speak on the issue. Democratic leaders said Monday they planned to restrict members to a single vote by week's end, barring any amendments or a GOP alternative — a tack Republican leaders decried as unfair.

"After promising to make this Congress the most open and honest in history, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi has effectively shut out both Republicans and Democrats from substantively debating the most important issue of our time," said Rep. John Shadegg (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

Pelosi and other Democrats said restricting debate to one measure will force members to go on record on the war without hiding behind political ploys.

This week's debate will be in sharp contrast to the one in 2002, which authorized Bush to use force if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. That debate resulted in solid margins of support from Republicans and Democrats.

In October 2002, just over half of the public — 52 percent — approved of Bush's handling of Iraq in Gallup polling. But Bush now faces a new political landscape. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died and the justification for the invasion has been discredited with a majority of the public.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Video: Pelosi warns Bush shouldn't 'abuse power' on troop escalation

Pelosi warns Bush shouldn't 'abuse power' on troop escalation
- Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Monday, January 15, 2007

(01-15) 12:37 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, returning to her hometown of San Francisco, strongly warned today that President Bush "should not abuse his power" with regard to troop escalation in the Iraq war and said it is the duty of Congress to "exercise oversight over his power.''

"If the president doesn't have a plan, Democrats will hold him accountable," Pelosi said in her first public appearance outside Washington since her election as speaker Jan. 4.

Regarding Bush's decision to push ahead with an escalation of about 21,500 troops in Iraq, she said, "Congress also has its role, and neither of us should abuse our power.''

The speaker's remarks, before an enthusiastic audience of 1,000 at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day breakfast at the Hilton Hotel in San Francisco, came just one day after the president and Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on talk shows maintaining the administration would forge head with the troop escalation despite strong opposition from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress and in the face of overwhelming public sentiment against the plan.

Bush, appearing Sunday on "60 Minutes," was asked about the opposition of the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

"I fully understand they could try to stop me,'' he said. "But I've made my decision, and we're going forward. I'm not going to try to be popular and change principles to do so."

Cheney was even sharper, telling Fox News that "you cannot run a war by committee," and pointedly suggesting the Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq.

"We have a plan, and he knows it," Pelosi said today as she was mobbed by well-wishers following her keynote address at the 22nd annual holiday breakfast.

Pelosi, addressing the crowd on themes regarding King's life, raised the issue of Iraq repeatedly and noted that America's troops in Iraq have shown themselves to be brave heroes and an example the nation -- just as King had.

She said that in the last election, "the American people spoke out for change," and "nowhere was that voice more clear than in the war in Iraq.'' Today, "Democrats oppose the escalation of the war," she said to cheers. "Let me repeat that: Democrats oppose the escalation of the war.

"We have said to the president ... we want you to have a plan, and this is what we suggest," said Pelosi, "a redeployment of our troops out of Iraq" to help "make the region more stable and make America safer.''

More than 3,000 Americans have died in the war, she added, and "as the numbers grows so, too, does the need for a new direction.''

With the nation spending about $2 billion a week on the Iraq war, "the costs in the readiness of our military" are becoming unacceptable -- and possibly dangerous to the country's safety, Pelosi said.

"Our troops are being overused in Iraq," she said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Republican, appeared after Pelosi at San Francisco event and did not mention Iraq in his remarks, although this past weekend during appearances on talk shows he had supported the troop increase.

"We should give it everything in order to be victorious." Schwarzenegger said, adding that he does not want the U.S. to "pull out of this war as losers," because to do so would be "disastrous" for the region.

Schwarzenegger also repeated support for a "timeline" for U.S. troop withdrawals, saying that Iraqis have "got to be independent."

The California governor was greeted with a standing ovation, though there were scattered shouts of "Stop the War" as he took the podium.

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/15/MNGLGNIVNT9.DTL