Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senate panel votes against Bush on Iraq (with text of Resolution)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 03:00 PM
Original message
Senate panel votes against Bush on Iraq (with text of Resolution)
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 03:01 PM by brooklynite
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed President Bush's plans to increase troops strength in Iraq on Wednesday as "not in the national interest," an unusual wartime repudiation of the commander in chief.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 12-9 and largely along party lines.

...snip...

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the panel's chairman, said the legislation is "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."

The full Senate is scheduled to begin debate on the measure next week, and Biden has said he is willing to negotiate changes in hopes of attracting support from more Republicans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_59


Text of Iraq Resolution:

Expressing the bipartisan resolution on Iraq.

Whereas the United States strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;

Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;

Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;

Whereas more than 137,000 United States military personnel are bravely and honorably serving in Iraq and deserve the support of all Americans;

Whereas more than 3,000 United States military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;

Whereas on January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush announced his plan to deepen the United States military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional United States combat forces to Iraq;

Whereas Iraq is witnessing widening sectarian and intra-sectarian violence;

Whereas Iraqis must reach a political settlement if there is going to be a reconciliation in Iraq, and the failure of the Iraqis to achieve such a settlement has led to the increase in violence in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on November 27, 2006, that `(t)he crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.';

Whereas an open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises and providing the personnel and resources that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;

Whereas the responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;

Whereas there have been repeated promises by the Government of Iraq to assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband militias, consider amendments to the Iraq constitution, enact laws to reconcile sectarian differences, and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people, but those promises have not been kept;

Whereas a successful strategy in Iraq is dependent upon the Iraqi leaders fulfilling their promises;

Whereas the commander of the United States Central Command, General John Abizaid, testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, that `(i)t's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future';

Whereas the Iraq Study Group suggested a comprehensive strategy to `enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly' based on `new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region';

Whereas the United States Army and Marine Corps, including their Reserves and the Army National Guard, their personnel, and their families, are under enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas the majority of nondeployed Army and Marine Corps units are no longer combat ready due to a lack of equipment and insufficient time to train; and

Whereas the United States strategy in Iraq must not compromise the ability of the United States to address other vital national security priorities, in particular global terror networks, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional stability in the Middle East, the nuclear program of Iran, the nuclear weapons of North Korea, and stability and security in Afghanistan:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that:

(1) it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by increasing the United States military force presence in Iraq;

(2) the primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq;

(3) greater concerted regional, and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation;

(4) main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, and accelerate training of Iraqi troops;

(5) the United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces; and

(6) the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. ok but what is the point of a non binding rez? toothless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Straw poll
The point is to see how many Senators are at least tentatively against the escalation and get them on the record for their position. Also, it has important symbolic value of an official rejection of Bush's policy. It is the first step toward more direct action. Also, Dems avoid being accused of not supporting troops (many of whom are already there) for cutting off funding now. Such a non-binding resolution will give them a starting place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Right and the Republicans "expressed reservations" but they still voted for it
I think this is a great idea. They really can't do anything (including cutting off the money) but they can make everyone stand up and state where they stand on this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dos pelos Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Toothless because they all feed from the same corporate hand....
Edited on Wed Jan-24-07 03:57 PM by dos pelos
Toadies working for the same employer.I can think of three exceptions at the moment: Sen. Webb(god bless him),Sen.Leahy,Sen. Kennedy.These three have spine.Three exceptions,Sen.Webb being the one exemplary FIGHTING exception in a morass of squirming invertebrates.Still nobody talks of the tools given in the constitution to deal with this problem,cutting funding and impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdrichards114 Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Waste of energy and time, unless you can put the chimperor's huevos over the fire!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demo dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. So fine ...but what are they REALLY going to do about it!!!
non-binding is a bunch of horse pucky!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzNov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes Sen. Biden, we wouldn't want to embarass the Deciderator....

we want to SAVE him from making bad mistakes......

:grr: Let's be really really nice to Bush cause we want to be respective and civilized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC