Bay Area House delegation at odds over Iraq war

0 Comments | Oakland Tribune, Sep 12, 2007 | by Josh Richman

Disagreement is brewing among the Bay Area's House delegation on how best to pursue an end to the war in Iraq.

Even before Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker arrived on Capitol Hill this week to update Congress on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, in late August had told fellow Democrats she might call a vote on HR3087, authored by Rep. John Tanner,

D-Tenn.

The bill, when introduced in mid-July, would have required that the White House within 60 days "develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of the Armed Forces in Iraq."

But that got watered down in late July by the Armed Services Committee, so that it now would require within 60 days "a report on the status of planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq" -- not a withdrawal plan, but rather a progress report on developing such a plan.

House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairwoman Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, is an original co-sponsor.

"I'm for any measure that will limit the president's ability to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely," Tauscher said Tuesday. "Just listening to General Petraeus testify for six hours yesterday about why he wants the surge to continue for another year is more proof why Congress needs to do any and everything in our power to bring reason to the current policy and bring our troops home."

Not all of her legislative neighbors agree.

"It does nothing to get the troops home," said Rep. Pete Stark, D- Fremont, adding that he'll oppose the bill. "It is a diversion. I want to bring our troops home immediately."

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D- Martinez, agreed: "I do not support HR3087 as a stand-alone bill. It must be coupled with something stronger to bring our troops home as soon as possible."

Nathan Britton, spokesman for Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said his boss's "position has been and continues to be is that she is not going to support legislation that does not include a timeline." And a spokesperson for Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, indicated he won't support the bill either.

There's some precedent indicating bills such as this can erode Republican support for President Bush's policies. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, in early 2005 introduced a resolution "(e)xpressing the sense of Congress that the president should develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq."

Congress ended up voting on this language in May 2005 as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Department Authorization Bill; and although it was defeated 300-128, it was among the first votes in which Republicans -- five of them -- broke ranks with their leadership and the White House to demand a plan for ending the war.

But some now believe the time for erosion is past.

Woolsey -- who authored that earlier language -- and Lee -- among its original co-sponsors -- no longer believe it's enough. Blogosphere activity indicates liberals are concerned the Tanner bill would give House Republicans cover to criticize the war without actually acting to end it.

Blogger BarbinMD, posting Tuesday at DailyKos.com, calls the bill's supporters "the capitulation caucus" and said that "(a)t a time when Republicans are starting to feel the pressure, is not the time for Democrats to settle for meaningless legislation. The vast majority of Democrats in this country want a timeline for troop withdrawal and any bill that does less is nothing but a token gesture."