Support for Iraq Pullout Grows in the Senate

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 16, 2007 — -- The U.S. Senate signaled that patience with the Iraq War on both sides of the aisle is wearing dangerously thin. In a vote to pull out troops, the sentiment for quick withdrawal has gained strength.

The votes were merely symbolic, but the symbolism spoke volumes. What might have been considered radical a few weeks ago is now mainstream thought.

On the eve of the House-Senate conference meeting on an Iraq funding bill, the votes could not have reassured the White House.

A majority of Republicans voted for a bill offered by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that months ago would have been considered heresy. The bill would tie aid to the Iraqi government to specific benchmarks it needs to meet, require President Bush to report to Congress on the status of the war, and authorize the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq if its government were to vote for such a move.

"The Iraqi government ... needs to understand that they're running out of time to get their part of the job done," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Candidates for the Pullout

But even more strikingly, voting on a bill offered by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, a majority of Senate Democrats -- 28 out of 51 -- voted to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within four months, and have all troops gone by next March.

Supporters included every Senate Democrat running for president -- Hillary Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois, Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

"There are those of us who believe very strongly that redeployment of our forces should begin and terminate within the year," said Dodd, D-Conn.

"It is clear change is in the air," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Neither measure achieved the needed 60 votes to come up for an official vote, though the Warner Amendment came closest, with 52 votes. But the procedural moves marked a startling shift as the once-cautious Democrats now try to outflank one another on the anti-war left.

Some Warn Withdrawal Spells Disaster

Clinton was booed before a liberal audience last June for opposing timetables for troop withdrawal, and said, "I do not agree that that is in the best interest for our troops or our country."

But today, she voted for precisely such a timetable.

"The situation has continued to evolve," she said. "You know, if we were making progress, if I thought the Iraqis were ready to make the tough decisions, you might have seen a different vote. I don't see that."

But many analysts cautioned against a withdrawal that is too sudden and said the bill Democrats supported today could make matters worse in Iraq.

"What you would almost certainly see is a rise in insurgent activity in Iraq, an increase in the bloodletting, an increase in the civil war," said Newsweek international editor Fareed Zakaria.

"The worst case is a larger regional conflict, deeper sectarian violence in Iraq and also the prospect of some al Qaeda strongholds inside the country," said Kurt Campbell of the Center for a New American Security.

But when the Democratic presidential candidates are asked how they might respond to such consequences, their answers seemed vague.

On ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" this month, former Sen John Edwards of North Carolina said, "As we withdraw our combat troops out of Iraq, I would not leave the region. I think we'd need a troop presence in Kuwait."

And when asked if the Shiites unleashed a genocide on the Sunnis after a withdrawal, Obama said there are "no good options in Iraq right now.

"We have bad options and worse options," he said.

It's that potential for disaster that most Senate Republicans cite when saying why they oppose troop withdrawal right now.

But the tides are turning on that side of the aisle as well, and many said if there is not serious progress by the Iraqi government by fall, Republicans will start to support U.S. troop withdrawal as well.