Conflict In Iraq

[stephanie]

I'm off to Go Fucking PuKe now.......Thats all...

Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief

Sunday, January 7, 2007
(01-07) 04:00 PST Washington -- President Bush and the new Congress are on a collision course over Iraq that could overshadow the Democrats' "100-hour agenda'' and end up defining Rep. Nancy Pelosi's tenure as House speaker.

Even as the House takes steps this week to raise the minimum wage, expand stem cell research, strengthen homeland security and lower prescription drug prices -- an ambitious lineup -- much of the nation's focus will be on Bush, who is expected to deliver a major address to outline the future of American involvement in Iraq.

If the president, as expected, announces his intention to deploy as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops in Iraq, he may encounter widespread political and public defiance.

It will quickly test the new Democratic majority's capacity to stand up to the commander in chief in a time of war, and the ability of the legislative branch to seize control of the White House's controversial foreign policy.

"This war needs to come to an end. It is my highest priority as speaker,'' Pelosi said Friday after less than 24 hours on the job. "The president is going to have to step back. Up until now, his judgment has been severely impaired on this war in Iraq.''

But the issue has been vexing to Congress, which has limited foreign policy options and has traditionally played a secondary role to the president. And Democrats are far more united in opposing Bush's war policy than in coalescing around an alternative.

It is with good reason that Iraq is not on Pelosi's 100-hour agenda -- legislation that she intends to have the House pass before the president delivers his State of the Union address later this month. Democrats are nearly unanimous in their support of the mostly domestic agenda, but they do not share a consensus on what to do next in Iraq, beyond a broad sense that the United States must begin to scale back.

"Democrats as a caucus have much more consensus around these economic issues,'' said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group, during an interview on the public radio program "Democracy Now.''

Bush has been inviting lawmakers from both parties to the White House to discuss the future in Iraq. None has emerged with the impression that scaling back U.S. involvement is a leading option for the president. As Bush rattled off areas of potential agreement and bipartisan promise during his Saturday radio address, he did not mention Iraq.

Opposition to the war and Bush's approach in Iraq appeared to play a significant role in the Democrats' electoral success in November. Pelosi, as she assumed the speakership Thursday, declared that "nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq.''

Sitting down with a small group of San Francisco journalists in her new office Friday, Pelosi bristled when a reporter said he wanted to change the subject from war to ethics.

"Wait a minute,'' Pelosi interrupted. "I believe the biggest ethical issue in this country is the war in Iraq. How we went there; how we put our troops out there without the equipment they needed; how, when they have given their all -- and they did their job very well -- they were abandoned in terms of political and diplomatic initiatives that are necessary to accompany a military effort.''

]As Pelosi's No. 1 priority, a change in the course of the war would be trumpeted as a great accomplishment. And while failure in Iraq might be blamed primarily on Bush and impair the GOP's ability to hold onto the White House in the 2008 election, it would also raise questions about whether Democrats were able to keep their pledge to usher in a new direction.

"The people have spoken. They expect change,'' said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, one of the founders of the Out of Iraq caucus in the House.

For now, Democrats are counting on growing public opposition and congressional oversight to force that change.

Pelosi has held open the possibility of attaching conditions to the Pentagon's appropriation bill, which the House expects to receive in the next few weeks. And Democrats have scheduled at least five hearings on Iraq this week, three in the Senate and two in the House.

"Making policy openly, with transparency and accountability, will help,'' said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, whose committee on government reform is expected to scrutinize Iraq contracts received by Halliburton and other private companies.

"They haven't been answering the tough questions,'' Waxman said, noting that Rep. Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat and new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, never received a reply when he sent the White House a letter shortly after the start of the war asking about follow-through plans.

"Now you can be certain he will get an answer,'' Waxman said.

But Pelosi has ruled out using what many believe is the legislative branch's most potent weapon -- its ability to cut off the funds with which the Pentagon wages war. Congress took such an approach at the very end of the Vietnam War, though the United States had already committed to leaving.

A growing number of peace organizations, and a few members of Congress, have been promoting such a direction as the only way to force Bush to change course.
Pelosi said to cut the money supply could be dangerous to American troops in that the Pentagon could continue to wage war without the proper equipment.

"You have to face the ramifications of your decision. You can't just say, 'OK, let's cut if off, but I don't mean to hurt the troops,' '' Pelosi said.

Bush has shown little sign that the November election will change his thinking on the almost 4-year-old war.

"I don't know if (voters) said, 'Come home and leave behind an Iraq that could end up being a safe haven for al Qaeda.' I don't believe they said that,'' the president said in a news conference the day after the vote.

In the buildup to Bush's speech -- which may come Wednesday, although a time and a place have yet to be announced -- White House press secretary Tony Snow has avoided answering questions about how the president could escalate a war after what appeared to be a rejection of his policy. Polls show about 3 of 4 Americans oppose the president's efforts in Iraq and fewer than 1 in 5 support a surge of troops.

"What you're doing is, you're asking me, 'Is the president concerned about the public-opinion ramifications of a policy that he may or may not have chosen?' When the president chooses a policy, we can do the public polling questions. I think at this point it's preliminary,'' Snow said Friday.

But most observers foresee an intensified struggle between Bush and Congress.

"We can see a major clash coming between a Democratic Congress and the administration on this very, very fundamental issue,'' said Bruce Riedel, a former member of Bush's National Security Council and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Not only do most Democrats on the Hill oppose the surge or have serious doubts about it, but more and more Republicans have doubts about the wisdom of the surge.''

Even as the Democrats schedule votes on domestic issues for the rest of the month, Pelosi believes the new congressional scrutiny on Bush's Iraq policy will pressure lawmakers of both parties to join her demand for change.

"The opposition to the war and the call for change is coming from the American people," the speaker said.

"Nothing is more eloquent to a member of Congress than the voice of his or her constituents.''
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...01/07/DEMS.TMP