|
Sen. Levin hints at emerging Democratic strategy on Iraq |
|
By Manu Raju
|
|
Posted: 10/25/07 07:15 PM [ET] |
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is working with a key appropriator on a strategy to halve the White House’s war-funding request to pressure President Bush into changing course in Iraq.
Levin said Wednesday that giving Bush a six-month installment plan on the nearly $200 billion fiscal 2008 war-funding request would serve a dual purpose: It would intensify pressure on the president to change course after next June, while avoiding “sending a negative message to the troops,” because war funding would continue until next may or June, when the president would have to request a second funding bill.
Levin, who is working with Appropriations Committee member Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), said the duo is talking with the panel’s other Democrats about including language in the supplemental that would target a complete withdrawal from Iraq in nine months.
Employing that approach could put the onus on Republican opponents to secure 60 votes on the Senate floor to strip the withdrawal language from the bill, Levin said. Some centrist Republicans have been open to the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, but have called for the goal to be 15 months.
The ideas are under serious consideration within the Democratic Conference, senators said Wednesday. Democrats are still finalizing strategy and, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), “Everything is on the table. The only thing that is not on the table is signing a blank check.”
Having failed to significantly chip away at Republican opposition on bills to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats see the war supplemental as a ripe opportunity to force changes to Bush’s war policy. Unlike during the fiscal 2007 supplemental debate, when Bush vetoed timetables with a hard deadline for troop withdrawals, Levin is urging his conference to take a softer approach in a bid to overcome a Senate filibuster and possibly a presidential veto.
In the House, key Democrats have suggested withholding the supplemental until Bush commits to changing course in Iraq. This would force funding to go through the regular budget process.
According to Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who sits on the Appropriations Defense subcommittee, Levin’s plan differs on the particulars, but is consistent with the overall strategy that House appropriators are pursuing on Iraq.
“There’s becoming a consensus on a partial bill that asserts the prerogative of the legislative branch,” Moran said.
An administration official on Wednesday took a dim view of Levin’s strategy. “This Congress has already failed to pass its annual appropriations bills, so it seems outlandish to think they could handle increasing their workload on the backs of our troops in harm’s way,” said Sean Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House budget office.
The supplemental debate presents tricky politics for Democrats, who could open themselves up to Republican attacks that they are limiting funds for troops in harm’s way.
Levin says his approach would allow Democrats to blunt those attacks.
“We ought to … put that kind of pressure on the administration by taking a positive act, which is providing funding for the troops, and doing it for a period which requires revisiting this issue after the president reports to us next spring,” Levin told reporters at a breakfast on Wednesday hosted by The Christian Science Monitor. Next March, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, will report to Congress on the status of the war.
Levin added that he and Reed have not settled on a dollar figure for a six-month installment plan, saying he is trying to gauge the level of interest in his “concept.”
Forcing Bush to seek a second supplemental for fiscal 2008 would add a fresh dose of presidential politics to the debate with campaign season moving into high gear early next summer.
“Anything we can do to constrain this president from pursuing his continued failed course is worth looking at,” Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said of Levin’s proposal.
Levin’s scenario would also lead to consideration of an Iraq supplemental at a time when House and Senate Republicans would be locked in tight reelection races and may be inclined to push for more restrictions on the war.
It’s unlikely that there would be broad GOP support for slicing up Bush’s plan. On Wednesday, both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Appropriations Committee ranking Republican Thad Cochran (Miss.) would not divulge their thoughts on the matter.
“We haven’t really discussed much of that yet,” McConnell said.
Including a goal for withdrawal in the supplemental could attract some Republicans, but it would almost certainly generate strong opposition from the White House and GOP leaders.
“To be defeated rather than succeed — I think that would be a terrible idea,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.).
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sits on the Appropriations Defense subcommittee, said Levin’s plan is “not a bad idea at all.”
“I’m now reaching the point where I believe controlling the supplemental is important,” Feinstein said.
Mike Soraghan contributed to this story.
|
