Security Politics
Posted: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:08 AM by Huma Zaidi
Filed Under:
Security
"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options," Politico reports. The effort will seek to "limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict," and will "be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable." Democratic lawmakers hope the strategy will help "circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field."
The Chicago Tribune looks at how the White House has "downplayed the significance of the (House) resolution, although historians say congressional admonition of a president during wartime may be unprecedented.”
USA Today covers the front-and-center involvement of the military veterans in both parties' ranks during the House debate. "By letting combat veterans take a lead role on the opening day..., Democrats were directly confronting Republican accusations that any debate about the war will undercut U.S. servicemembers... Republicans will counter on Thursday, when Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas leads a group of GOP veterans speaking against the resolution."
The Democratic Senate campaign committee plans to start running print ads on Friday in New Hampshire and Oregon attacking GOP Sens. John Sununu and Gordon Smith for their procedural votes against the resolution opposing Bush's troop increase. "Democrats, retired Generals, and the majority of the American public stand opposed to George Bush's Iraq escalation," one of the ads will say. "But Sen. Sununu is taking orders from President Bush and blocking Senate debate on Iraq. Maybe it's time Sununu starting representing New Hampshire."
The California Senate yesterday approved a resolution "calling for a halt to boosting the number of troops in Iraq or spending any more taxpayer dollars on the war without explicit approval from Congress." The resolution now heads to the state Assembly.
The Los Angeles Times notes that Giuliani, while campaigning in California, "has framed Iraq as a battle in the war on terrorism without addressing questions on its original rationale."
In "discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr. Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further," the New York Times points out. "And he has put the strategy in a broader context that plays down the importance of Iraq… ‘Giuliani may be in the best position of any of the Republican primary candidates on this because he uses very strong language in support of the war and its goals, but he doesn’t have to take simple up-or-down votes, like McCain does,’ said Dan Schnur, a Republican political consultant… ‘He can voice the same ambivalence the voters feel.’”
Bloomberg points out that the accord just struck by the Administration "to limit and eventually dismantle North Korea's nuclear program resembles one signed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, a deal [Bush] denounced... Bush's spokesman, Tony Snow, asserted the newest agreement was stronger than Clinton's two-way accord because it includes China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and holds North Korea to short-term benchmarks for compliance. [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice echoed that position."
