In This Article
Subscribe to International Updates
President Bush Signs Bipartisan Troop Funding Bill
May 25, 2007 01:46 PM
by
findingDulcinea Staff
The troop withdrawal timetable sought by many Democrats falls by the wayside; Republicans fail to block the $8 billion earmarked for domestic spending initiatives.
30 Second Summary
On May 25, President Bush signed a bill providing an additional $120 billion for the Iraq war effort.
Forged over nearly three months of bitter confrontation between congressional Democrats and the White House, the legislation passed by an overwhelming 80-14 majority in the Senate.
Although the bill has garnered bipartisan support, there remain a number of skeptical politicians from both sides of the aisle who are still unhappy with the legislation.
Democratic presidential hopefuls Obama, Clinton, and Dodd were among the 14 senatorial nay votes. They argued that the bill needed a withdrawal timetable to help redirect American strategy in Iraq.
Republican leaders also found fault with the legislation, decrying the addition of $8 billion in domestic spending measures added to it during congressional debate. The measures include provisions for government aid to farmers, hurricane victims, and health care for low-income children.
Forged over nearly three months of bitter confrontation between congressional Democrats and the White House, the legislation passed by an overwhelming 80-14 majority in the Senate.
Although the bill has garnered bipartisan support, there remain a number of skeptical politicians from both sides of the aisle who are still unhappy with the legislation.
Democratic presidential hopefuls Obama, Clinton, and Dodd were among the 14 senatorial nay votes. They argued that the bill needed a withdrawal timetable to help redirect American strategy in Iraq.
Republican leaders also found fault with the legislation, decrying the addition of $8 billion in domestic spending measures added to it during congressional debate. The measures include provisions for government aid to farmers, hurricane victims, and health care for low-income children.
Reactions
President Bush issued a statement on May 25, regarding the passage of the funding bill: “Rather than mandate arbitrary timetables for troop withdrawals or micromanage our military commanders, this legislation enables our servicemen and women to follow the judgment of commanders on the ground.”
Source: The White House
Anti-war groups were scathing in their condemnation of congressional Democrats who voted for the funding bill, according to the Baltimore Sun. The liberal organization MoveOn.org ran radio ads “chastising” the Democratic House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer for not opposing the legislation.
Source: The Baltimore Sun
Presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement: “Washington failed America today. Congress should immediately use its funding power to cap troop levels in Iraq at 100,000, stop the ongoing surge, and force an immediate drawdown of 40–50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year.”
Source: John Edwards
Win Without War is a coalition of organizations petitioning for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and “advocating that international cooperation and enforceable international law provide the greatest security for the United States and the world.” Win Without War responded to the passing of the funding bill by issuing a statement that “Congress defied the majority of Americans who are fed up with the war.”
Source: Win Without War
The bill is an improvement on the earlier draft, which was vetoed by President Bush, according to globalization think-tank the Heritage Foundation. The first defense supplemental bill, vetoed on May 1, was “larded with pork for domestic programs” and the pullout it required “would have led to a disastrous defeat in the war against al-Qaeda, with a cascade of dangerous consequences for regional stability.”
Source: The Heritage Foundation
Support for the Administration's Policy in Iraq
“The reality is that foreign fighters are flowing into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans … This means that our victory there will be an important victory in the larger struggle against terrorism––and our defeat there would embolden and empower our enemies.” So reads the op-ed article on the bill published by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), a think-tank dedicated to “American freedom and democratic capitalism.”
Source: The American Enterprise Institute
“The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results,” writes presidential candidate John McCain. “But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war.”
Source: The Washington Post
At the end of March, 2007 Jeff Jacoby, in the Boston Globe, condemned a “Munich” mentality in Congress as Democrats mobilized support for the removal of U.S. troops. Jacoby wrote that in the weeks after the troop surge, “There had been noticeably less bloodshed and chaos … while the number of suspected terrorists captured had soared tenfold.”
Source: The Boston Globe
Legislation and Congressional Debate
GovTrack.us provides the unabridged text of the troop funding bill, the full title of which is the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (H.R. 2206).
Source: GovTrack.us
The Senate passed the Iraq troop funding resolution on Thursday, May 24, 2007 with an 80-14 majority. Among the 14 “nay” voters were Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd. The Library of Congress provides the voting roll call.
Source: The Senate
Sen. Russ Feingold (D–Wis.)
Sen. Russ Feingold was one of the 14 voters who opposed the Iraq war funding resolution. On the floor, Sen. Feingold told the Senate that they were “ignoring the will of the American people,” and went on to say that “if the American people cannot count on the leaders they elected to listen to them and to act on their demands, then something is seriously wrong with our political institutions or with the people who currently occupy those institutions.”
Sen. Russ Feingold was one of the 14 voters who opposed the Iraq war funding resolution. On the floor, Sen. Feingold told the Senate that they were “ignoring the will of the American people,” and went on to say that “if the American people cannot count on the leaders they elected to listen to them and to act on their demands, then something is seriously wrong with our political institutions or with the people who currently occupy those institutions.”
Sen. Edward Kennedy voiced his objection to the bill on the Senate floor and derided the President’s judgment throughout the war: “The President was wrong to get us into this war, wrong to conduct it so poorly, wrong to ignore the views of the American people, and wrong to stubbornly refuse to sign legislation requiring a timetable for the orderly and responsible withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq.”
Source: Sen. Edward Kennedy (D–Mass.)
Sen. Charles Grassley expressed his opinion that the legislation should never have combined an appropriations bill with a finance committee bill: “Just take a look at the bill, and you will find a patchwork of unconnected provisions in the Finance Committee jurisdiction that is not even mentioned in the title.”
Source: Sen. Charles Grassley (R–IA)
Although West Virginia’s Democratic senator Robert Byrd voiced some criticism of the bill, he weighed in as one of the overwhelming majority of supporters. In comments on the floor, Byrd told the Senate that it was “committed to protecting our men and women in uniform,” and that the “legislation provides the funding to do just that.”
Source: Robert Byrd (D–W.Va.)
Background
According to a May 10, 2007 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the conflict in Iraq “has moved far beyond a Sunni Islamist or Ba’ath–driven insurgency. It is already in a state of limited civil war, and may well be escalating to the level of a major civil conflict.” The author is a former director of intelligence assessment in the office of the U.S. secretary of defense. The CSIS is a foreign policy think-tank and one of the co-sponsors of the Iraq Study Group.
Source: The Center for Strategic and International Studies
Chattam House Iraq Report
A May 2007 report from London-based think-tank Chattam House depicts the Iraq conflict as not simply a civil war, “but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power.” According to Middle East expert Gareth Stansfield, the Iraqi government is largely powerless to change the situation, and Iraq’s neighbors benefit from the continuing turmoil.
A May 2007 report from London-based think-tank Chattam House depicts the Iraq conflict as not simply a civil war, “but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power.” According to Middle East expert Gareth Stansfield, the Iraqi government is largely powerless to change the situation, and Iraq’s neighbors benefit from the continuing turmoil.
The Iraq War Resolution
The Iraq War Resolution, or to give it its full title the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114), was issued in October, 2002. It gave the president the authority to use the U.S. military to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
Source: The White House: Resolution Text
The Iraq War Resolution was passed in the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296–133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77–23. CNN reported on the resolution's passage into law: “The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of UN resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons.”
Source: CNN
Source: Roll Call of House Votes
President Bush made a statement on passing the Iraq War Resolution: “The United States is committed to a world in which the people of all nations can live in freedom, peace, and security. Enactment of H.J. Res. 114 is an important step on the road toward such a world.”
Source: The White House
Iraq Study Group Legislation
Eight senators at present support a bill, due to go before congress in June, calling on the U.S. government to adopt the findings of the Iraq Study Group report.
One of the sponsors of the proposed legislation, Sen. Robert Casey (D–PA), spoke before the Senate on May 24, 2007: “The detailed recommendations contained in this bill … were issued in December 2006, over 5 months ago, but, if anything, their utility is even more apparent today.”
Source: GovTrack.us
The full text of the proposed bill is available at the Web site of Sen. Lamar Alexander, one of its sponsors.
Source: Full Text of the Proposed Bill
“There are no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq,” begins the Iraq Study Group report. “Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable.”
Source: The Iraq Study Group Report
The Iraq Study Group report recommended a plan for American forces to begin pulling out, whether the Iraqis are ready or not, as explained in this summary of the report’s findings. The announcement of a fixed deadline for withdrawal would, according to the study group, signal to the Iraqis that Washington will not indefinitely supply military support for the Iraqi government.
Source: The New York Times
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group comprised ten public servants––five Democrats and five Republicans––who received no payment for their work. The United States Institute for Peace facilitated the Iraq Study Group Report, and its Web site provides an overview of the project.
Source: The United States Institute for Peace
Opinion on the Iraq Study Group
“Not everything dies when it should,” say authors at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the resurgence of interest in the Iraq Study Group “is a grim example.” The CSIS authors say that the report’s “key recommendations never made sense. For example, there was never any chance that the development of the Iraqi Army could be rushed forward … and recent months have made it all too clear that the Iraqi Army needs more time, more aid, and more U.S. embeds and support.”
Source: The Center for Strategic and International Studies
According to the Nation, the “good news” about the report was that it recommended America immediately begin withdrawing from Iraq, give up on any idea of permanent U.S. bases in the region, and talk to the insurgency’s leaders. “It’s hard to imagine a more sweeping rebuke to the President’s disastrously misguided policy,” writes the Nation. But the report includes one “fatal flaw,” namely “that the United States can somehow support the nonexistent Iraqi government and bolster its viciously sectarian armed forces.”
Source: The Nation
The Bush Administration is reportedly trying to involve Syria and Iran in calming the situation in Iraq. Washington is inviting the UN to play a greater role, and as the military operations wind down, the U.S. military will increasingly become involved in training and advisory missions. “If any of these steps sound familiar, it’s because many of them were recommendations from the Iraq Study Group report,” states an article from the independent think-tank the Council on Foreign Relations.
Source: The Council on Foreign Relations
Reference Material
A recent CBS poll found that only 35% of Americans felt that their country did the right thing by invading Iraq; 61% thought the United States should have stayed out.
Source: CBS Poll
American-led forces had toppled Saddam Hussein’s government by April 9, 2003. This interactive BBC timeline follows the course of the campaign to rebuild Iraq.
Source: The BBC––Iraq after Saddam
What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite? Sunnis represent about 85% of the Muslim world, and form the majority of the population in Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In Iraq and Iran, Shiites are in the majority. These two sects came into being as the result of an Islamic schism in 632CE, when a disagreement arose over who should succeed the prophet Mohammed: the leader thought most likely to be true to the faith or the prophet’s descendant. Sunnis favored the former; Shiites the latter.
Source: The New York Times: Sunnis and Shiites
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the main theological difference between Shiites and Sunnis is that most Shiites believe in the freedom of human choice whereas Sunnis believe in predestination.
Source: The Council on Foreign Relations
© 2010 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
