Democrats target funds; tactic tricky for ‘08

Congressional Democrats are looking ahead to the next stage of the political battle over Iraq cutting off funds for war operations after March though it puts lawmakers eyeing the White House in a bind.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill to do that, but which so far has support from only the most-liberal members of the chamber. One supporter is Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat and a presidential hopeful who has challenged the other 2008 candidates to join him.

“Now is a time for clarity and courage not obfuscation and waffling. Now is a time for leadership not putting your finger to the political wind,” said Christy Setzer, a Dodd spokeswoman. “Those who would be president should display the leadership needed to stand up for a new direction in Iraq and for American security, and join Chris Dodd in supporting this important legislation.”

Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, is the author of the measure, which Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, signed onto this month and has said he wants to bring up for a vote. Such a vote would force the 2008 presidential candidates to go on record again for a plan that has minor differences from what they are pushing on the campaign stump.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, often promises on the campaign trail that if President Bush does not withdraw troops before January 2009, “When I’m president, I will.”

But the specifics of her proposed Iraq plan actually would keep a number of troops in the region to protect “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq,” according to an interview with Mrs. Clinton last month detailed in the New York Times.

“It would be far fewer troops,” she said. “We would not be doing patrols. We would not be kicking in doors.”

Her plan would cap the number of troops that can be deployed to Iraq at the January 2007 level before Mr. Bush announced he would send a “surge” of new troops. It also would block funds unless the Pentagon certifies that U.S. troops are adequately trained and equipped, and would cut off funding for Iraqi security forces.

Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, has proposed beginning a phased withdrawal of combat troops immediately with the goal for all troops to be out by March. It would allow for a small number of troops to remain in Iraq and includes a series of benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

“The president’s escalation of U.S. forces may bring a temporary reduction in the violence in Baghdad, at the price of increased U.S. casualties, though the experience so far is not encouraging,” Mr. Obama said in a speech yesterday in Chicago. “But it cannot change the political dynamic in Iraq. A phased withdrawal can.”

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, wants to start withdrawing troops and then divide Iraq into three mostly autonomous regions with a weak central government in Baghdad. His plan includes the sharing of oil revenues.

None of the plans takes the Feingold-Reid bill’s more-dramatic step of actually cutting off funds for the war.

The White House hopefuls are campaigning across the country as Congress continues to battle Mr. Bush over a supplemental war-spending bill.

The Feingold proposal, like war-funding legislation that Democrats agreed on yesterday, also sets a date for withdrawing combat troops. It states that after March 31, Congress will only appropriate funds in Iraq for counterterrorism missions, security for U.S. personnel and the training of Iraqi security forces. But the deal reached yesterday by Democrats in a House-Senate conference merely sets goals and does not cut off money for U.S. forces in Iraq.

The Democratic senators seeking their party’s 2008 nomination face questions on the campaign trail about Iraq policy, and some are asked to explain or apologize for their October 2002 vote to go to war.

Story Continues →