Here's the link to the Warner amendment.
It strongly resembles the legislation being proposed by Reid and Pelosi. Which is widely viewed as a capitulation by the Democrats. Their bill, according to reports, would force Bush to write a report and waive some benchmarks.
Whoop. Pee.
But, did they also include this language from the Warner Amendment?
SEC. 4. REDEPLOYMENT OF U.S. FORCES FROM IRAQ.
(a) The President of the United States, in respecting the sovereign rights of the nation of Iraq, shall direct the orderly redeployment of elements of U.S. forces from Iraq, if the components of the Iraqi government, acting in strict accordance with their respective powers given by the Iraqi Constitution, reach a consensus as recited in a resolution, directing a redeployment of U.S. forces.
Now, it is literally impossible to argue against this. Impossible. How can you argue that Iraq is sovereign and a democracy yet argue we should keep our troops there against the wishes of their government?
Congressional Republicans have been making similar noises:
"Some key Republican supporters of President Bush’s Iraq war policy said this week that if the Iraqi parliament calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, their position could change dramatically." Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), the No. 3 House Republican, says, "I suspect we would respect their wishes. ... I think that it would reflect a successful, healthy and well-running parliamentary organization that was delivered to that nation by the sacrifices of our fighting men and women." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made similar statements this weekend.
Meanwhile, over in Iraq:
Al-Sadr also believes, his associates said, that Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government may not last much longer, given its failure to improve security, services and the economy. A government collapse is certain to be followed by a political realignment in which the Sadrist movement stands a good chance of emerging as the main player. Al-Sadr's loyalists have 30 of parliament's 275 seats.
To that end, al-Sadr yanked his five ministers from al-Maliki's unpopular government last month and ordered his Mahdi Army militia to go underground while the U.S. military stages what is likely to be its last major bid to quiet the capital.
Sadrist lawmakers, meanwhile, are pushing to have parliament adopt a decision demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led foreign troops.
Oh yeah, THAT Iraqi timeline bill:
BAGHDAD, May 10 -- A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.
The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.
Hmmmmmmmm. Did I mention that Warner's amendment had the support of over 90% of Republicans in the Senate?
I hope that the Reid/Pelosi legislation contains this language. It would be sad if they tacked to the right of everyone in the Senate but Jim Inhofe, John Kyl, and David Vitter (the only three Republicans to vote against the Warner Amendment).
Comments are closed on this story.