Despite risks, GOP lawmakers stick with Bush on war
Only a handful of Republicans supported House and Senate proposals this week to change course in Iraq, leaving majority Democrats short of veto-proof majorities.
posted July 13, 2007 at NaN:NaN p.m. EST
Page 3 of 3
In a largely party-line vote, 219 Democrats and four Republicans voted in favor of the resolution; 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed the move, which the White House threatens to veto. The White House strongly opposed the House resolution, proposed by Ike Skelton, a Democrat and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, on the basis that the legislation would "substitute the judgments of politicians for the considered judgment of our military commanders." The president says he would veto the bill.
In February, 17 Republicans voted to oppose the "surge" of some 30,000 troops into Iraq, but most did not back Democrats in this week's vote, despite still wanting to see a change in US policy.
"I've consistently supported ... the Iraq Study Group's recommendations as a package, but Democratic leadership refused to let us bring it to the floor," said Phil English (R) of Pennsylvania, before Thursday's vote. "They've brought to the floor half a policy. It may unite their caucus, but it does nothing to get us out of Iraq in a responsible way. I have no trouble voting against it."
Indeed, it's not clear what impact the various legislative alternatives would have on troop levels.
"A number of papers across America reported this morning that yesterday's House vote means that most US troops would be out of Iraq by April. I ask the authors of the Levin Amendment: Is this true?" said Republican leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor Friday.
Senate Democrats have fielded such questions all week.
"The fact is: I don't know how many troops will be there," majority leader Harry Reid told reporters on Thursday. "I've heard anywhere from 20,000 ... to 70,000.... But it won't be 160,000 troops. We won't be surging any more."
Senators Levin and Reed said they are not mandating new force levels – just a more limited mission for US forces.
"If you have the appropriate missions, then the commanders on the ground will structure for forces appropriately," said Reed in a briefing on Tuesday.
RSS feed
