Iraq Bill With Fewer Strings Weighed

At CQ, Josh Rogin writes:

Senate Democrats appear ready to omit Iraq withdrawal timelines from a supplemental spending bill in hopes of clearing in December funds for the troops — but House leaders have no intentions of following suit.

The next partial-year war funding bill, although by no means finalized, would still include the Democrats’ call for a change of mission in Iraq, but without controversial withdrawal dates — a move that is intended to draw enough Republican votes to advance legislation in the Senate.

That plan places Senate Democratic leaders in conflict with their House counterparts, who have gone to great lengths to assure rank-and-file members that no more war spending bills would be enacted before January.
Meanwhile, Republicans seem content to let the Democrats negotiate among themselves, waiting for them to move incrementally toward what they regard as the forgone conclusion that Congress eventually will send President Bush a “clean” supplemental bill without policy restrictions.

The Senate on Nov. 16 rejected two war funding bills — a Democratic proposal and a Republican alternative — sending leaders back to the drawing board for a plan to get money to the troops.

Two of the most powerful voices on Defense in the Senate — Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, and Daniel K. Inouye, a Democrat representing Hawaii who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee — both said Democrats would offer a less restrictive version of the their party’s bill in December.

“There’s going to be a modification of the bridge fund,” Levin said.

The war spending bill is often referred to as a “bridge fund” because it is only a down payment on the $196.4 billion Bush requested in war spending for fiscal 2008. The bridge fund is intended to keep money flowing to the troops until Congress considers the balance of Bush’s request.

Levin said one option being discussed was a bill that still would require a change of mission in Iraq but doesn’t include specific dates, something the Republicans have repeatedly focused on in their criticisms.

“These are possibilities, I’m not predicting outcomes,” Levin added.

Inouye said, “We’ve got to build another bridge.”

But the senior senator from Hawaii said he was uncertain that Republicans would buy it.

“We’ll see,” he said.

Proposals Rejected
On Nov. 16, two war funding bills fell well short of the 60 votes need to advance in the Senate.

First, a Republican bill (S 2340), which would provide $70 billion without restrictions, was rejected, 45-53.

Later, the supplemental spending bill (HR 4156) that had passed the House two days earlier fell on a 53-45 vote.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, has said she would not bring another war funding bill to the floor this year, a concession she made to liberal caucus members in order to pass the House bill.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pointedly refused to rule out a December war funding bill in the Senate when speaking to reporters Nov. 16.

“The House has made its position clear. Speaking for the Senate, we’re going to continue doing the right thing,” Reid said.

Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was aware there is a plan for the next war spending bill to lack a withdrawal timeline.

But he said his own proposal, which would provide the full $196.4 billion requested — but require a change of mission and calls for a series of reports in March — could come after that.

Nelson has been working with Susan Collins, R-Maine, on that language. He said he is waiting in line for Democratic leadership to support his idea, if and when the next plan goes down.

“Sometimes, everything else has to fail before something gets resolved,” Nelson said.

Nelson pitched his plan as a “starting point,” acknowledging that even more concessions might be necessary if Republicans reject his proposal, whenever it gets a hearing.

Democrats have been unable to strike the right tone in their legislative attempts to attract enough Republicans to achieve meaningful change to the president’s war policy.

“I don’t know what it really takes in this political, partisan environment right now to get ‘yes’ for an answer from enough people,” Nelson said.

The GOP Digs In
Senate Republicans, sensing vulnerability in the Democrats’ resolve, seemed ready to dig in their heels.

Ted Stevens of Alaska, the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee ranking Republican, reacted harshly to the idea of a modified bill that would preserve some restrictions on the president.

“That’s a non-starter!” he exclaimed.

Stevens reiterated that Republicans would support no constraints on the power of the executive to execute military policy.

“We don’t negotiate missions. That’s for the commander in chief, and that’s all there is to it,” Stevens said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared that he would not let up on his pressure to debate and pass another war funding bill next month.

“That clearly must be done some time before we adjourn . . . for this session,” he said.

Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a Senate Armed Services Committee member, indicated that Republicans would continue to point to recent successes on the ground in Iraq, attack the Democrats for seeking political gain at the expense of troops, and defer to the advice of the generals.

“We should not, as a group of politicians, take for ourselves the responsibility of mandating how we should be prosecuting this war,” Sessions said.

Meanwhile, moderates from both parties are left without support from their leadership as they try to find a middle ground that would lead to congressional unity regarding Iraq policy.

“We should be sitting down and working on a compromise,” said Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, one of only a few Republicans to vote for withdrawal timelines.

The environment on Capitol Hill is “so partisan, so polarizing, and so poisonous, that it’s impeding our ability to solve the problems of our nation, with monumental consequences,” she said.

War Funding Plan Faces Uphill Fight

Josh Rogin writes:
Democrats are poised to propose a $50 billion war funding bill that has little chance of becoming law, making it likely the military will be fighting on borrowed money into next year.

The House is expected next week to take up the new partial-year “bridge fund,” which would pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for four months. Democratic leaders, caught between the demands of liberals who want tight restrictions on war funding and members who want the troops to get whatever they need quickly, have come up with a plan that is likely to satisfy neither.

Even if the House passes the bill, it would probably stall in the Senate, where similar measures have failed to draw the 60 votes needed to reach President Bush, who would probably veto it anyway.

Moreover, since the Senate cleared the regular Defense spending bill and the next continuing resolution Thursday night, Republicans and hawkish Democrats lost their two best chances to add some war funding to another legislative vehicle this year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the details of the bridge fund on Thursday. The measure would require the immediate start of troop withdrawals from Iraq, with a goal of extricating most troops by Dec. 15, 2008. The money in the bill would be limited for the missions of force protection, counterterrorism and training of the Iraqi security forces.

It also contains several Iraq policy measures that the House has tried to enact before. The bill would mandate home stays for returning troops equal to the length of their combat deployments; prohibit the deployment of troops who are not fully trained and equipped; and extend strict rules against torture found in the Army Field Manual to all government agencies and employees.

Although the final bill has not materialized, Pelosi told reporters Thursday that the Iraqi withdrawal language was similar to the language in an early version of the fiscal 2007 supplemental (HR 2206).

That language was vetoed and Congress failed to override.

When asked whether she thought the new war funding bill had a chance of being signed by Bush, or even making it to his desk, Pelosi demurred. “We are restating the differentiation between ourselves and the president of the United States,” she said.

After initially considering a vote on the plan as early as Friday, top Democrats said the House would take it up next week, perhaps on Nov. 13.

“I think we have the votes. Now, we will have a little time to get the proper drafting and vetting on the Iraq bill,” said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.

Liberals, Blue Dogs Skeptical

Initial reaction to the proposed bridge fund among Democrats was mixed.

In a private meeting Thursday afternoon with the liberal Out of Iraq and Progressive caucuses, Pelosi pledged not to cave in and provide the war funding without strings if Bush vetoes the new bridge fund.

But even with that assurance, Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., left the meeting unconvinced. She hoped that the bill would be postponed to give members a chance to study it carefully before deciding how to vote. “We are saying we want to see it. . . . I want a much bigger commitment than that.”

Members of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition were equally skeptical but for different reasons.

Gene Taylor, D-Miss., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned the military would be placed under greater strain while Congress wrangled over the funding.

“My initial reaction is, gee, I wish they wouldn’t do this,” said Taylor, adding that planners and suppliers need to know where their funding is coming from.

James P. Moran, D-Va., a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and an outspoken war critic, was more supportive of the strategy. “Let it go to the president,” he said. “If he vetoes it, then he has no funding for Iraq,”

Few Republicans are expected to support the new bridge fund. Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, attacked the proposal, saying it was “about trying to handcuff our generals and our soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the chamber would take up the bridge fund next week, but didn’t feel confident it could muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a likely filibuster.

“It’s not a question of us finding enough votes to pass it. We support this,” he said, referring to Senate Democrats. “It’s up to the Republicans whether they will help with a few votes in the Senate.”

The Senate cleared the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriations conference report (HR 3222 — H Rept 110-434) by voice vote Thursday night, after Ted Stevens of Alaska, the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Defense panel, abandoned his bid to split the bill from the next continuing resolution (CR).

Because the new CR doesn’t contain any war funding, the Pentagon will have to borrow from its regular budget to pay for war operations beginning Nov. 17.

The House voted, 400-15, to adopt the conference report. (Appropriations, p. 3)

Overall, the conference report would provide the Pentagon $459.3 billion in discretionary funding, $3.5 billion less than Bush’s request and $39.7 billion, or 9.5 percent, more than in fiscal 2007.

It also would provide $11.6 billion in emergency spending for mine-resistant vehicles to protect U.S. forces in Iraq.

Item in War Request Stokes Fears of Iran Strike

Congressional Quarterly reports:

Some Democrats are worried that President Bush’s funding request to enable B-2 “stealth” bombers to carry a new 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb is a sign of plans for an attack on Iran.

Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon designed to destroy targets deep underground.

A White House summary accompanying the supplemental spending proposal said the request for money to modify B-2s to carry the bombs came in response to “an urgent operational need from theater commanders.” The summary provided no further details. The White House and the Air Force, in response to queries, did not provide additional clarification.

Previous statements by the Defense Department and the program’s contractors, along with interviews with military experts, suggest the weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found chiefly in Iran, which Bush suspects of developing nuclear weapons capability, and North Korea, which already has tested a nuclear device.

Bush has said repeatedly that he prefers to use diplomacy to resolve tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. But his request for funding to deliver the new bunker buster comes amid a sharp escalation of tough White House rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program in recent days.

On Oct. 18, Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Three days later, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of “serious consequences” if Tehran continued to enrich uranium.

Against that backdrop, the proposed funding for bunker busters has some in Congress worried.

James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he did not believe the MOP could be used in Iraq or Afghanistan and cited Iran as the potential target for the bomb. He said he would oppose the funding.

“That’s a clear red flag,” Moran said.

Jim McDermott, D-Wash., an outspoken critic of Bush’s war policies, said the funding request was the latest of many signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his “biggest fear between now and the election.”

“We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker buster,” he said. “They’ve been banging the drums the same way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.”

Stealth Delivery
The Boeing Co., in conjunction with Elgin Air Force Base in Florida, has been developing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator for several years and first tested the bomb in March. The 15-ton bomb would be dropped by B-52 or B-2 bombers.

In June, the Northrop Grumman Corp., maker of the B-2, won a $2.5 million contract from the Air Force to retro fit the bat-winged, stealth bombers so they could drop the new weapon. The new funding, if approved, would significantly expand that initiative.

The B-2 made its battlefield debut during the Kosovo War in 1999. It is optimal for use against sophisticated enemy air defenses because its radar-evading surface is difficult to detect.

In interviews Tuesday, military experts said the new weapon was not designed for the kind of counterinsurgency campaign being conducted by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said the MOP could prove useful against other targets, notably underground Iranian facilities that are said to be producing nuclear weapons materials.

“A weapon like this is designed to deal with extremely hard and buried targets such as you would find in Iran or North Korea,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the conservative military think tank the Lexington Institute, who is also a consultant for some defense contractors.

“Clearly, in the case of North Korea, the likelihood of military action is receding as the Pyongyang government becomes more tractable,” said Thompson, referring to recent progress in diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs.

John Pike, an expert on defense and intelligence policy with Globalsecurity.org, said the MOP could be used against Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

“It’ll go through it like a hot knife through butter,” Pike said. He noted that the B-2 would be the best aircraft to deliver the bomb “if you want it to be a surprise party.”

It is not clear how quickly the new weapon could be ready for delivery by a B-2 if the $88 million were enacted. A spokesman for Northrop Grumman declined to provide a time frame.

Not all Democratic lawmakers oppose the weapon. Non-nuclear bunker busters have emerged in recent years as favorites of Democrats concerned about Bush administration’s earlier plans to conduct research on nuclear models.

“We need to have this as a conventional weapon,” said Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “It adds to our deterrent.”

Bush Tells Congress to Act Quickly on War Funding Request

Bush sends updated Iraq supplemental to Congress

The Hill reports:

President Bush on Monday submitted a $196.4 billion supplemental spending bill to Congress that would fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008.

Of the sum, $150.5 billion had been included in a previous request, while $45.9 billion is part of an amendment. The bulk of the total funds, nearly $190 billion, would go to the Department of Defense, while the State Department would get $6.9 billion.

“Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not, and that is America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people,” Bush said.

“I know some in Congress are against the war, and are seeking ways to demonstrate that opposition,” he added. “I recognize their position, and they should make their views heard. But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed.”

Bush argued that the troops should not be “caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.,” adding, “I often hear that war critics oppose my decisions, but still support the troops. Well, I’ll take them at their word — and this is the chance to show it, that they support the troops.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urged quick passage of the supplemental.

“We cannot turn our backs on our warriors now by cutting off funds when there is still work to be done and still troops to protect,” he said. “Congress overwhelmingly passed two resolutions this year rejecting any action that would undermine our troops in the field, and Congress must now fulfill its responsibilities and send the message to our troops that we support their mission.”

However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated that Congress would give the funding bill a close look.

“President Bush wants us to rubber-stamp another $200 billion in war funds — all borrowed money, none of it paid for — for next year alone,” Reid said. “But when we sent a bipartisan SCHIP bill to his desk to provide health insurance for the children of working families, the president called it too expensive.” Reid referred to a bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed. The House failed to override the veto last week.

Reid added that Congress would take time to hold the funding request “up to the light of day and fight for the change in strategy and redeployment of troops that is long overdue.”

War Brings Death and No Taxes

American citizens have yet to pay for the war against terrorism in the Middle East.

From the Minnesotan Daily:

Last week White House press secretary Dana Perino rejected the idea of an Iraq war tax, which was proposed by House Appropriations Chairman Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.). Said Perino: "We've always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything." Yet, President George W. Bush and his administration have disregarded the Republican type of fiscal responsibility for this current war.

By the end of this year, Congress estimates the total funds appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be nearly $600 billion. A 2006 Harvard and Columbia University study estimated the eventual cost of the wars at $2 trillion. Much of the money spent has not been paid for or accounted into the U.S. deficit because war funding has been provided through emergency supplemental bills. These bills, which have been used to finance wars since the Korean War, allow the U.S. government to wage war without an immediate economic impact on the American people. As a result, a war may be fought without any sacrifice from the citizen - only the soldier.

As the Iraq war drags on, taxes have not been raised, but instead continually cut by the Bush administration and the complacent past Republican majority in Congress. A country cannot sustain itself - properly pay for scientific research, infrastructure maintenance, education development, national security, etc. - when taxes are not raised to supplement the additional costs of war. The Bush administration is the first to cut taxes during wartime in over 200 years. Therefore the cost of the Iraq war will not be paid by the men and women of President Bush's generation. The bill will instead come due for their children's generation.

Perino continued, saying a war tax was "completely fiscally irresponsible."Alan Greenspan, the personification of fiscal conservatism, recently told the Wall Street Journal, "The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize."

It is the Bush administration that is completely fiscally irresponsible. Its decisions have led to not only the countless deaths of Americans and Iraqis, but will also lead to financial hardships this country has yet to experience.

Senate to Approve More War Funding

The Associated Press reports:

Powerless in their effort to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats were on track Monday to help pass a defense policy bill that would authorize another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vote comes as the House planned to approve on Tuesday separate legislation requiring that President Bush give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the policy bill the Senate was set to approve Monday authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.

Similar attempts have been made but fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

"Many of us have reached a breaking point on this," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "I've done this for too many years. I've waited for the president to start bringing this war to an end. I'm not going to sign up for this any longer."

In the House, Democrats are pushing for a bill that would require the administration to report to Congress in 60 days and every 90 days thereafter on the status of its redeployment plans in Iraq.

The bill, sponsored by Democrats John Tanner of Tennessee and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, was initially cast aside as too mild by Democratic leaders focused on tougher proposals ordering troops home this fall.

But after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill.

"This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq," Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to the Associated Press.

In February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate's defense policy bill authorizes Bush's initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistent vehicles.

In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.

Republicans predict the bill is on track to be vetoed by President Bush because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The White House said it sees Kennedy's proposal, which would let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, as unnecessary.

The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat.

The House bill has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of provisions insisting the military rely heavily on American-made products and proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies.

Presidential Race Influencing Congress on Iraq

By the time Congress finishes a supplemental spending plan for the Iraq War, senior Democrats say, it is likely that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will have made their choice on White House hopefuls.

The “Super Tuesday” primaries probably will be over, too.

Congressional Quarterly reports:

That political calendar — combined with the reality of how hard it is for Democrats to get left and center to agree — has caused some senior lawmakers to conclude that Congress will soon end up letting the parties’ presidential candidates take the lead on Iraq policy.

“The outcome of the presidential primaries will help to bring focus to the debate on Iraq in Congress,” said Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., agreed, saying, “There’s no question that the presumptive presidential nominee will carry a lot of influence on the Iraq debate.”

Murtha, a close adviser to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said he has advised the leadership to put off the supplemental spending debate until early 2008 to allow time for Democrats to form more consensus on Iraq.

The supplemental will be the vehicle for the big showdown on whether to continue funding for the war, and “it will be decided in January or early February,” he said.

Congress has a target adjournment of Nov. 16, and there won’t be any urgency to make a decision before January, Murtha argued. “There is enough money in the pipeline until then,” he said.

The leadership is not willing at this stage to be pinned down on a timetable for the supplemental. “We will be discussing it over the next few weeks,” Hoyer said. There are a lot of factors. I don’t want to pinpoint any one factor.”

But senior appropriators James P. Moran, D-Va., and David E. Price, D-N.C., said Murtha’s opinion would carry considerable weight. “The short answer is we will probably follow Mr. Murtha’s advice,” said John B. Larson of Connecticut, vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Hoyer and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., confirmed that the supplemental had no place on the immediate floor calender and said it was unclear when it would go to the floor.

Liberals, Republicans Want Action

But the push to delay action on funding has run into flak from liberal Democrats, who fear they are losing votes for their position.

“I would like to see the showdown now, rather than waiting until next year,’’ said Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.

Some Republicans also criticized the notion.

“I’d like to see the Democrats move the supplemental as soon as possible. They should not be playing politics with this,’’ said Eric Cantor, R-Va., the chief deputy whip.

“I think it’s inane for us to wait,” said Jerry Lewis of California, ranking Republican on Appropriations.

But Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, a moderate who is not running again, predicted that many Republicans would welcome putting off further showdowns on Iraq until the winners for each party emerge from the primaries.

“Each party will be looking for its presumptive leader to begin to lead at that point,” she said. “The Democrats almost already have that in Hillary [Clinton]. I hope that the candidates for both parties will help to move us to the center.”

Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., also predicted a softening of the debate’s ideological edges.

“By early next year, there will be a coming together [for] both parties and their presidential candidates. And they will be moving to the center on Iraq and other issues. By March, it will all be about presidential politics,” he said.

February Milestone

Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said Republicans would closely watch where the front-runners for the two parties line up on Iraq after Super Tuesday, on Feb. 5.

“A lot will depend on the situation [in Iraq] at the time. And a lot will depend on what the presidential candidates are saying about Iraq after Feb. 5,” Blunt said.

Clinton, New York’s junior senator and the front-runner so far for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on “Meet the Press” on Sept. 23 that she would vote against the next supplemental “because I think that it’s the only way that we can demonstrate clearly that we have to change direction.”

But she has also distanced herself from proposals that would rapidly reduce troop levels and end the war next year.

At the Democratic presidential debate in Hanover, N.H., on Sept. 26, she said it would be “my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term.”

But she and the two other Democratic front-runners, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina (1999-2005), declined to promise that all troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of their first term.

The leading GOP presidential candidates — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson (1995-2003) of Tennessee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — have allowed little daylight between themselves and Bush on the war. Only Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who trails in polls, has taken a strong anti-war stand with his proposal (HR 2605) to end the authorization for the war (PL 107-243).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he believed that the Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate — who also include Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut — were already having a big impact on the Iraq debate by promoting their own initiatives.

Reid said he had made no decision on when the supplemental would move but added that the emergence of a presumptive Democratic nominee would help build consensus on Iraq.

Plus, he said, “It will take a lot of attention off of me, which will be nice.”

Military Funding Bill Includes Benchmark For Giving Up Oil Rights

Bangor Daily News reports:

For the first time, Congress has put conditions on its approval of funding for the war in Iraq. Although the president has leeway in meeting these conditions, this is an important step in better assessing progress in Iraq, which in turn should lead to a clearer understanding of how long U.S. troops should remain there.
The House and Senate on Thursday approved more than $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some domestic projects. The bill did not include a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops — the reason President Bush vetoed an earlier funding bill. But it does include provisions from Sens. Susan Collins, John Warner and Ben Nelson to set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in order to receive U.S. reconstruction funds. It is the first time Congress has supported economic consequences if the Iraqis do not meet certain benchmarks.

The benchmarks include increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently, enactment and implementation of de-Baathification legislation, enactment of constitutional and electoral reforms, and passage of legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of oil revenues.

The legislation also requires the president to submit reports — in July and September — on whether the Iraqis are making satisfactory progress.

"This sends a very strong message to the Iraqi leaders that the status quo is not acceptable," Sen. Collins said. "It also tells the Iraqis that our presence and our commitment in Iraq is neither open-ended nor unconditional."

It also mirrors the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. When it was released six months ago, the report landed with a thud. Its recommendations for incentives to encourage the Iraqi government and talks with Iraq’s neighbors were largely ignored as focus remained on military action. As the Bush administration and Congress struggle to find a new direction for Iraq, it is not surprising that they are following the advice of the study group since few other options exist.

The group’s call for a diminished U.S. military presence, greater Iraqi government authority and regional diplomacy is as relevant today as when it was first issued in December. The question remains, however, how to implement such a policy as Iraq descends further into sectarian chaos.

Requiring reports from the president and tying financial assistance to the Iraqis meeting benchmarks they had devised, although small steps, set the stage for a fuller debate on the U.S. role in Iraq.

The debate will become more serious this summer after Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of American forces in Iraq, issues his report. After that, expect more focus on benchmarks and diplomacy as military options are exhausted.

Senate Passes Interim Iraq War Funding Bill

Reuters reports:
The U.S. Senate on Thursday passed an interim Iraq war funding bill that promised support but gave no specific dollar figure, enabling congressional negotiators to begin work on a compromise they hope to send to President George W. Bush next week.

By voice vote, the Senate approved vague language expressing the need to support U.S. troops. The measure reflected the Senate's inability to bridge differences between Democrats and Republicans on war funding legislation that Bush would sign.

On May 10, the House of Representatives passed a bill Bush has promised to veto because it only guarantees $42.8 billion, enough new money for the war in Iraq for the next two or three months. Anti-war Democrats pushed the measure through the House with a provision that holds back an additional $52.8 billion, pending progress reports from Bush.

With Thursday's Senate vote, the two chambers can now formally begin negotiating a compromise bill in the hope of passing it next week, before a Memorial Day holiday recess.

"Democrats' commitment to bringing this war to a responsible end has never been stronger," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Republicans have signaled their support for the war might erode by September or October unless there is progress toward ending sectarian violence and U.S. casualties. But so far they have stuck with Bush and accused Democrats of backing "surrender dates" for the war.

Bush vetoed a war-spending bill on May 1 that would have given about $100 billion to the Pentagon to continue fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September 30. But Democrats attached troop withdrawal deadlines that Bush would not accept.

White House aides also have been meeting with Senate leaders in an attempt to end the deadlock.

One possible compromise could involve providing $100 billion in new war money and adding "benchmarks" to measure progress in Iraq.

It was still unclear whether Democrats will be able to force consequences, like curtailing reconstruction aid, if Iraq's government fails to improve its country's political stability and military readiness.

While closed-door negotiations continued, Democrats kept up the pressure on Bush. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a vocal opponent of the war, said Bush "appears to see no value in anything except continuing his quixotic mission impossible." He added that the 4-year-old war was "turning the sands of Iraq blood-red."