Democrats Move To Outdo Bush on Iraq Drawdown

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

WASHINGTON — In anticipation of President Bush’s announcement today that some 30,000 American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by next summer, Democrats are scrambling to outdo him.

Senate Democratic leaders yesterday promised to introduce amendments to accelerate the pace of withdrawal but did not offer any specifics.

Senator Obama of Illinois, one of the leading contenders for his party’s presidential nomination, however, did. In Iowa, he outlined his plan to withdraw fully from Iraq by the end of 2008 by ordering the removal of one or two brigades each month until the American soldiers in Iraq are home.

“Let me be clear,” Mr. Obama said. “There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, now.”

The remark was a shot across the bow of Mr. Obama’s chief competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Clinton. On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton was much rougher than Mr. Obama in her treatment of General David Petraeus, telling the top commander in Iraq that the progress report he was presenting required the “willing suspension of disbelief.” Yesterday, Mrs. Clinton sent Mr. Bush a letter demanding a more rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. While the top Democratic candidates issued strong statements, Majority Leader Reid and other top Democrats in the Senate held their cards close to the vest. Although Mr. Reid criticized the proposed drawdown to be announced this evening by Mr. Bush and previewed this week by General Petraeus, he did not offer a specific plan he would endorse in its place.

Mr. Reid, a Democrat of Nevada, said he would offer four to six amendments to the defense authorization bill he withdrew from consideration in July after he could not break a filibuster over amendments designed to end the war. The defense authorization bill is guidance for the appropriations committees that fund the Pentagon, but from a strict budgetary perspective it is not necessary to fund the government. This is in contrast to the temporary funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which expires this month.

“The defense authorization debate is the preview,” one Republican Senate aide told The New York Sun. “It’s another test of strength to see if the majority can break the filibuster.”

One likely amendment to be considered next week will be a proposal crafted this year by Senator Webb, a Democrat of Virginia who switched parties in 2006 and is a former Reagan administration official, and Senator Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska who has broken with his party and the White House on the war. The proposal would restrict the Pentagon’s authority to call up reinforcements to the front before the soldiers spent at least as much time at home as they had in their previous tour.

What is not clear is whether Democrats will offer amendments to mandate an end to the war as they did in May, June, and July.

Yesterday, when asked whether any of the amendments next week would mandate such an end to the war, Mr. Reid told a reporter to wait to see the bill.

Another amendment that has been discussed inside the Democratic caucus is a proposal to mandate the withdrawal schedule General Petraeus laid out in House and Senate hearings this week. That plan, however, was quickly dropped under pressure from anti-war lawmakers.

One Senate aide closely following the debate over next week’s amendments said the arguments have come down to this: “Who do you want running the war? When the choice is between Congress and the White House, it’s the Congress. But when it’s between Congress and the generals, it’s the generals.”


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use