Beyond symbolism, Dems seek end to Iraq war

updated 12:20 a.m. ET Feb. 11, 2007

WASHINGTON - Even before they cast symbolic votes against the Iraq war, newly empowered congressional Democrats are clamoring for a chance to limit and eventually end U.S. involvement in a conflict that has killed more than 3,000 troops.

“Will I vote for a nonbinding resolution? Yes, but it’s insufficient,” says first-term Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, author of one of more than a dozen competing proposals that would impose a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

“I think eventually without a question that we will have the House move to that position,” the former three-star admiral added. “The country is already there.”

Sestak spoke in an interview just off the House floor, which will serve as a nationally televised stage this week for a marathon debate over Bush’s war policy.

A vote is expected by week’s end on a nonbinding measure that expresses disapproval of the president’s recent decision to dispatch an additional 21,500 military personnel to Iraq. The measure also affirms support for the troops.

Promises of binding proposals
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the Democratic leadership have firmed up support for the measure by repeatedly promising it will be followed by binding legislation. “Our goal is to end the war,” one Democrat quoted Pelosi as saying at a recent private caucus.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has pursued the same course, hoping to enlist a bipartisan majority behind a measure that expresses disagreement with Bush’s plans. Republicans have so far blocked consideration of the resolution.

Two Democrats have said they will oppose the resolution as too weak, even as a first step. But Reid’s office has enlisted the backing of the anti-war organization MoveOn.org for the strategy and defections have been few.

At the same time, pressure has been building.

War critics have told Reid they want to use anti-terrorism legislation that is expected on the Senate floor in March as a way of forcing votes on proposals to end the war.

Holding the purse strings
In the House, the leadership is planning to turn Bush’s request for additional military money into a mid-March debate over the war.

Rep. John Murtha, who heads a subcommittee with jurisdiction over defense spending, told reporters he hopes to add a provision to the bill that would forbid the Pentagon from sending additional troops “unless they have adequate training and unless they have adequate equipment.”

Murtha, D-Pa., said he believes the Army may have no units that can meet those standards, meaning Bush’s attempt to increase the number of troops in the war would be checked.

The measure also may be amended to forbid creation of any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and razing the Abu Ghraib facility that was at the center of a prisoner torture scandal.

Murtha said it is possible the bill will also call for the closing of the facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, except in the case of several dozen detainees who will stand trial.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

U.S., Russia try to repair frayed relationship Weary Palin seeks to regain control Obama backs Medvedev's judicial reforms   Biden: Israel free to set own course on Iran Biden: ‘We misread how bad the economy was’ Senators say compromise key to health care bill GOP struggles for anti-Sotomayor message One trip, three different agendas for Obama Palin cites ‘higher calling’ in quitting Palin's resignation stuns father-in-law Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: