Bush, Reid Exchange Attacks Over Support For U.S. Troops in Iraq

General Clarifies Statement on Strategy

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 21, 2007; A10

President Bush called on Congress yesterday to pass new legislation to fund the war in Iraq and denounced lawmakers who say his strategy has failed.

Reading a statement in the White House Rose Garden after meeting with veterans and military families who support his war policy, Bush also urged Congress "to give our troops time to carry out our new strategy in Iraq," which he said has produced "important successes."

In response, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) accused Bush of "hypocrisy" and said Congress needs no lectures from him about supporting American troops.

The remarks came after the White House and Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, clarified Odierno's statement Thursday that he needed more time beyond a September deadline to do a "good assessment" of the administration's troop-buildup strategy. White House spokesman Tony Snow and Odierno said the comment should not be interpreted as an effort to postpone the reporting requirement.

Bush's statement signaled the renewal of a fierce debate between the administration and opposing lawmakers over funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The $120 billion approved this May by Congress after intense wrangling will run out on Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year, and the president wants Congress to act quickly to provide funds for fiscal 2008.

Bush met with 10 members of military support organizations that back his Iraq policy. He said they had conveyed "a message that all of us in Washington need to hear: It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field, and give them everything they need to succeed."

He said Congress "has failed to act" on a comprehensive defense spending request for 2008 that would fund upgraded equipment and a military pay raise.

"Instead, the Democratic leaders chose to have a political debate on a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq," Bush said.

Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, replied in a statement: "It is the height of hypocrisy for a president whose administration has sent our brave men and women into combat without the proper equipment, recuperation time, training or strategy for success to lecture Congress about supporting the troops."

Bush took no questions from reporters after delivering his statement. Participating in the White House meeting were members of four groups: Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Military Families Voice of Victory, Troops Need You and Vets for Freedom.

Earlier, the White House said it has not changed the September deadline for assessing progress in Iraq, despite Odierno's comment Thursday that he needed at least 45 more days to accurately chart trends.

Odierno told Pentagon reporters via a video hookup from Baghdad that "in order to do a good assessment, I need at least till November."

In a statement yesterday, Odierno said: "There is no intention to push our reporting requirement beyond September. Nothing I said yesterday should be interpreted to suggest otherwise. My reference to November was simply suggesting that as we go forward beyond September, we will gain more understanding of trends."

Iraq Appropriations Politics

This Fall, Democrats in Congress will finally get their say on Iraq.

President Bush recently got what he wanted -- a timetable removed from an Iraq emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Democrats fought for timetables and sure benchmarks. They ultimately caved, leaving many rank-and-file Democrats terribly angry.

The results of November's Congressional elections, if anything, were meant to cause a change in Iraq policy on Capitol Hill. That the House and Senate would give President Bush all of the funding he needs to conduct the war exactly how he wants without any binding requirements was a big blow

But the fight for the emergency appropriations bill is nothing in comparison to what's going to happen when the real, regular Iraq appropriations bill comes up this September

In September, General Petraeus has promised a report on the results of this summer's surge. And Petraeus and the Bush Administration have said that they'll determine what to do with U.S. involvement in Iraq based on the results of this report.

But recent news reflects clearly that the surge isn't saving Baghdad, and the American forces in Iraq can't really change the general dynamic of civil war there.

So it's no surprise that General Odierno is saying that it's going to take more time to issue the report. And no surprise that today Ambassador Crocker would say that it will take a lot longer than September to see results in Iraq.

Of course, you could wait forever for positive results in Iraq without seeing any, but that's beside the point. We're talking about September's appropriations bill for next year's war operations.

No amount of spin or attempting to recast the debate can get the President out of asking Congress for money. And he's going to have to ask around September in order to actually have the appropriations process work.

Without magnificent success to show for the surge, the President is going to have to announce a significant change of course in Iraq. A few different initiatives have been floated -- a 50% cut in troops in Iraq during 2008, and an endorsement of the Baker-Hamilton Report. President

As much as the President didn't agree with the results of the Iraq Study Group Report, it doesn't require the President to do much besides attempt to engage Iraq's neighbors in dialogue. A dialogue that can be ongoing, fruitlessly, while the President stays the course, with a little window-dressing, in Iraq. And don't forget, the Iraq Study Group explicitly did not include any timelines in their Report.

Let's say what it really is: President Bush's "endorsement" of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations would be a transparent play for time. So I believe this will be the core of what President Bush will propose along with his request for war funding this Fall.

Democrats in Congress cannot be satisfied with an Administration that simply states that it will adhere by the terms of the Baker-Hamilton Report. Letting the Administration off without more would damage their own credibility and truly alienate the Democratic base.

The Democrats will include a harsh timetable, one with teeth, in September. They will limit the President's license to carry out the war. And they will take steps that will lead to a drawdown in U.S. forces in Iraq. The need for money to continue the war, and Democrats' unwillingness to give it without strings, means that the President will have to accept changes. The only question is whether these changes will be entirely on his initiative or not. And based on the President's lack of creativity in Iraq policy, the answer will be "not."

The other alternative being floated -- a 50% cut in U.S. forces during 2008 -- reflects not what the President wants but what he will likely have to accept. Floating this idea is only the President looking forward to 2008 and trying not to look like he was politically defeated. It is not a positive initiative to win the war.

In light of the situation that will likely exist in September, the question for Democrats should be, "what conditions should we place on the President's conduct of the war in Iraq," and "what is the right way to withdraw the large majority of American forces from Iraq during 2008 and possibly 2009?"

These are difficult questions that must be taken very seriously. Up to this point, posturing and posing on Capitol Hill has been no problem because in the end everyone knew that Congress wasn't going to upset the war-funding applecart. This time, however, Congress is likely to get most of what it asks for.