Clinton "deauthorization"/Levin-Reed begin withdrawal looks like new Warner/Lugar "re-purpose" idea

[papau]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3375223

New GOP Bill Challenges Bush Iraq Policy
GOP Senators Draft Bill Requiring Bush to Narrow Mission of U.S. Troops
By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

<snip>The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar, and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.<snip>

The Warner-Lugar proposal states that "American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top."

Accordingly, Warner and Lugar say Bush must draft a plan for U.S. troops that would keep them from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and focus them instead on protecting Iraq's borders, targeting terrorists and defending U.S. assets.

At the Pentagon, meanwhile, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the number of battle-ready Iraqi battalions able to fight on their own has dropped to a half-dozen from 10 in recent months despite heightened American training efforts.<snip>
=====================================================================================
=======================================================================================
Earlier this year in the Senate, Byrd & Clinton Pressed for End to Iraq War Resolution by "De-Authorizing" Iraq War by the Fifth Anniversary of the Original Vote (Oct 11, 2007)

" Byrd and Clinton, both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who serve with Chairman Levin and Senator Reed, made their appeal in a letter to all 100 Senators, and in an op-ed that ran earlier this week (the text of both is below). They plan to offer their proposal to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution to legislation in the Senate next week as a complement to the Levin-Reed legislation.

As their letter states, "If the Byrd-Clinton amendment passes along with the Levin-Reed amendment, the President would have to seek new authority for any missions beyond those permitted in the FY 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill. The Administration would have to explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions and explain why we should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight."

The text of their letter to colleagues follows:

July 12, 2007

Dear Colleague:

Today we filed an amendment to the FY 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill which would sunset the authorization for the Iraq War effective October 11, 2007, five years to the day after the original authorization vote.

You will find attached a recent op-ed that we published in the New York Daily News which lays out the arguments in favor of deauthorizing the war.

Our amendment is designed to complement the Levin-Reed amendment requiring the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days and allowing the Secretary of Defense to deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces only for specific missions. The Byrd-Clinton amendment contains a specific provision which states that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as "preventing missions that are specifically permitted in the National Defense Authorization Bill for 2008."

If the Byrd-Clinton amendment passes along with the Levin-Reed amendment, the President would have to seek new authority for any missions beyond those permitted in the FY 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill. The Administration would have to explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions and explain why we should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight.

As our op-ed states, "today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home."

Sincerely,
Robert C. Byrd
Hillary Rodham Clinton

[Mass]

1. Except for the deadline in Levin-Reed, I agree.

In fact, this struck me as another effort to make sure Levin-Reed would not have a solid majority by getting some moderate Democrats and Republicans to quit Levin-Reed and go to Warner-Lugar.

[papau]

3. getting 60 votes to allow a vote on Levin/Reed this time is unlikely -but if

there was a vote it would pass easily in my opinion.

But with Warner-Lugar we might get the 60 to allow a vote.

Perhaps it is time to get something passed that is not veto'd?

[Tellurian]

2. Heres some additional info on more calls for de-Authorizing the War..:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1184349713-9HTeUEMC4ZDeB/tN9WmgHA

[papau]

4. Thanks - the NYT does a nice job reporting on the situation :-) n/t

n/t

[Doctor_J]

5. Sleazy Repukes are hijacking Byrd-Clinton bill

so they can take credit. Time for the Dems to RALLY and vote yes for Byrd-Clinton, NO for Lugar-Warner

[Mass]

6. Reid got it right - The bill is toothless.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/13/reid_dismisses_warner_levin_iraq_measure_as_toothless

Senator Reid Appreciate these two former Chairmen coming forward and expressing their clear discontent with the Administration’s policies in Iraq.

They clearly recognize there is no purely military solution in Iraq and that the war, on its current course, is making this nation less secure.

But they put a lot of faith in the President that he will voluntarily change course and voluntarily begin to reduce the large U.S. combat footprint in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Senator Reid is not as confident in the President’s willingness to change course voluntarily. In the fifth year of the war, we need strong legislation that compels the President to change course, change the mission, and begin the reduction of U.S. troops. That’s what Reed/Levin does. It is binding legislation, and that is the approach he prefers.