|
Lawmakers, aides say Murtha Iraq-withdrawal proposal dead |
|
By Mike Soraghan
|
|
Posted: 08/01/07 08:51 PM [ET] |
A proposal by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for the House to vote on withdrawal from Iraq without a timetable has been nixed, several lawmakers and aides said.
The opposition of the Progressive Caucus also apparently doomed a proposal by Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.) demanding a redeployment plan from President Bush. The measure will not get a vote this week.
Progressive Caucus lawmakers met Tuesday morning and agreed they would not support any Iraq measure that does not include a firm timetable for withdrawal.
“We don’t want to see any retreat,” a Progressive Caucus member, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), said.
That kicks the withdrawal debate ahead to September, when Gen. David Petraeus is to issue a report on the success of
President Bush’s “surge” plan. Many Republican lawmakers have said they will re-evaluate their support of Bush’s strategy based on the report.
But House leaders are still emphasizing a vote this week on giving troops more time at home between deployments. The legislation by Abercrombie and Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) mirrors an unsuccessful bill by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) that would require soldiers to spend as much time at home as they do in the combat zone.
“We wanted to have the strongest possible vote as everyone left town for August,” a Democratic aide said.
Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said she wants to “start a conversation” about her proposal to stop the training of Iraqi security forces. Progressives have become concerned that the U.S. military is inadvertently training insurgents.
Waters’s discussion would come during debate on the Defense Appropriations bill, which is scheduled to come up Thursday. The Rules Committee decided Tuesday to allow open debate.
Details of the demise of Murtha’s amendment are still murky, but there are indications that House leadership had a hand in it. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Murtha had announced his plans to seek an amendment on the floor demanding that withdrawal of troops begin in 60 days, but not put a “date certain” for the withdrawal to be completed.
Republican opponents of withdrawal amendments often say they won’t support an “artificial timetable” for withdrawal. Murtha said his language was intended to remove that reasoning and see if Republicans still supported the administration. He also questioned whether troops can be withdrawn.
Murtha does not appear to have consulted with House progressives or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Asked if he’d talked with the Speaker at the time his committee sent the defense spending bill to the floor last week, Murtha replied, “She’s always supported me before.”
But Waters, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the trio that leads the Out of Iraq caucus all panned the bill the same day, dismissing it as backsliding.
Democratic aides said Murtha appeared to have gotten ahead of himself, proposing major legislation without checking with leadership or counting votes.
Waters rejected that assessment, saying the veteran lawmaker had earned the right to offer what he saw fit on defense matters.
“Members who’ve been around here a long time do what they think is best,” Waters said. “We don’t think we’re so powerful that people have to come talk to us,” she added, referring to Lee, Woolsey and herself.
Murtha spokesman Matt Mazonkey said, “Mr. Murtha remains committed to finding a reasonable way to redeploy as soon as practical from Iraq.”
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), when asked about the amendment Monday night, said, “It’s in leadership’s hands.”
The amendment was discussed during Monday night’s leadership meeting, though no final decision was made. When votes concluded Monday night, Murtha left the floor in an angry mood. The often-talkative cardinal brushed off a reporter, saying, “I don’t want to answer any questions.”
Murtha met with Lee, Waters and Woolsey Tuesday morning. Afterward, Waters and Woolsey said the Murtha amendment would not come up this week. That was later confirmed by Democratic aides, who added that Abercrombie-Tanner also had been nixed.
Democrats expressed concern that the measures, especially Abercrombie-Tanner, would give Republicans “cover” to say they’d voted for a change in course in Iraq without taking concrete steps to remove troops.
Abercrombie said that argument doesn’t hold water. He said Democratic leaders should have scheduled a vote on his bill “if the Democratic Party wants to go home and say they did something on Iraq. The only ‘cover’ we care about is the cover that the troops need in Ramadi and Fallujah.”
|
