A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced plans to introduce a resolution calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq beginning in October 2006. The effort follows a failed Democratic amendment to a spending package requiring the Bush administration to provide an exit plan within 30 days. The Democrats’ amendment was killed by Republicans in committee.
The bipartisan resolution is sponsored by Reps. Walter Jones Jr. R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Neil Abercrombie (D-HA), and Ron Paul (R-TX). Rep. Jones told reporters at a press conference yesterday that at least 7 other Republicans told him they plan to study and consider the resolution carefully.
‘‘The American people are getting to a point here. How much more can we take?" he added. ‘‘Have we achieved our goals, and if not, what are those goals?"
--Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)
Republican leaders have rejected calls for troop withdrawal and will try to prevent the bipartisan bill from reaching the floor as well.
The move to block withdrawal resolutions comes just as public opposition to the war and support for withdrawal is at its highest. Recent polls show that about 6 in 10 Americans say the US should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, according to last week’s Gallup Poll.
An ABC News-Washington Post poll last week showed that two-thirds say the US military is bogged down in Iraq, and nearly three-quarters call the casualty level unacceptable. More importantly, 56% say the Iraq war "wasn’t worth it."
Support for the war is at an all-time low with only 36% agreeing with the Bush administration and the Republican leadership that troop levels should be maintained or increased.
Last week, the House International Relations Committee voted 32-9 to call on Bush to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.
The White House rejects the idea of developing withdrawal plans. It insists that it has met great success in defeating the insurgency and arming and training an Iraqi self-defense force, while also saying, contradictorily, that the Iraqi self-defense force isn’t strong enough to defeat the insurgency and hence continued occupation is needed.
Public opposition to continuing the occupation of Iraq and the growing momentum for withdrawal among politicians come just weeks after the publication of secret British memos, including the "Downing Street Memo," that give an inside story into administration pre-war thinking about an invasion of Iraq.
According to the British officials who authored the memos, the Bush administration wasn’t upfront about the rationale for war. The memos state that British officials believed that the Bush administration:
was intent on going to war with Iraq as early as March 2002 despite its claims to the contrary
knew it’s case for war – Iraq’s possession of WMD, the imminence of its threat, and links to Al Qaeda – was "thin" and lacked credibility
had "fixed" facts around a pro-war policy
wanted to sidestep the UN and other honest international obstacles to going to war
intended to manipulate public opinion and present an exaggerated picture in order to build support for war
had no plans for successful occupation or nation building after the war
The memos can be read at RawStory.com and AfterDowningStreet.org. A petition demanding an investigation into the truth about the administration’s role in pushing for an invasion of Iraq, initiated by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), has already gained the support of 90 members of Congress and 500,000 signatures.
Prominent Republicans are more worried, say press reports, about supporting the bipartisan withdrawal bill and embarrassing the administration then they are with serious discussion of the issue and doing what is right.
Rep. Jones once made headlines by calling for renaming french fries ‘‘freedom fries" as an attack on France for opposing the administration’s invasion plans. Now, he says, his call for withdrawal comes because of his new understanding of the human cost of the war.
He told reporters at a press conference yesterday that he changed his views about the war after attending the funeral of a fallen soldier and meeting the family who live in his district.
So far President Bush has refused to attend the funeral of any of the Iraq war dead.
Jones said, "I feel that we have done about as much as we can do."
‘‘The American people are getting to a point here. How much more can we take?" he added. ‘‘Have we achieved our goals, and if not, what are those goals?"
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), who voted for the resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, told one newspaper that "members feel misled by the administration’s prewar briefings that helped them conclude Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Berkeley argued that nobody would have supported the war if they knew the truth, making plans for withdrawal more important than ever.
A similar Senate resolution was introduced by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI). This resolution calls on Bush to present a timetable for reaching his goals in Iraq and for withdrawing troops.
Feingold released a statement that read in part: "We owe our brave servicemen and women a concrete timetable for achieving clear goals, not vague, open-ended commitments. Having a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and having a timetable for Iraqi elections have resulted in real political and strategic advantages. Having a timetable for the withdrawal of troops should be no different."
Feingold’s initiative may receive bipartisan Senate support.
--Joel Wendland may be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.
