Senate Challenges Bush on Iraq

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 24, 2007 — -- President Bush practically pleaded with Congress during his State of the Union address Tuesday night to give his new "surge" strategy in Iraq a chance to work. But Wednesday morning the Senate took the first step in officially rejecting the idea of sending more troops there.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to declare that the president's plan is wrong, with Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the chairman of the committee, saying, "We can let the president know in a bipartisan way, 'You're making a mistake.'"

Despite a chorus of Republican voices expressing anguish about the war and the president's new strategy, the vote on the symbolic resolution to block Bush's plan was barely bipartisan. Though it passed by a vote of 12-9, the only Republican to support it was Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam War veteran and fierce critic of the war.

"There is no strategy," Hagel said. "This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar Province, in Iraq, in Baghdad, are not beans -- they're real lives." Hagel co-wrote the resolution along with Biden and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

All the other Republicans on the committee refused to sign the resolution, but many expressed their deep frustration with the president and opposition to the troop escalation.

"We do not need a resolution to confirm that there is a broad discomfort with the president's plan within Congress," said Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind, the committee's ranking Republican.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich even had a personal message for Bush, exasperatedly exclaiming, "Many of us feel you are not listening. You are not listening … it's time to recognize that if you keep going the way you are, you are never going to achieve what you want to achieve."

"I'm more skeptical about what we're doing [in Iraq] than I have ever been before," Voinovich said.

"I think there's been many mistakes on the part of the administration, more than sometimes you can almost imagine," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. But Corker said he wouldn't support the resolution. "I do not believe it is going to affect the administration's course of action one iota," he said.

'Look at Other Options'

But ultimately, even though many Republicans on the committee seemed to oppose the surge, they said the language in the bill -- which declares that sending more troops is "not in the national interest" -- was too strong. Others said they feared the message it would send to the troops.

Hagel criticized his fellow Republicans for their cowardice. "What do you believe?" he asked, passionately. "What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes," he said.

There are those in the Senate who believe that any of these resolutions are a mistake, perhaps most notably Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. At a hearing Tuesday, McCain asked the new commander of the multinational force in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, "Suppose we sent you additional troops and we tell those troops that 'we support you, but … we do not support the mission we are sending you on.' What effect does that have on the morale of your troops?"

"Well," replied Petraeus, "it would not be a beneficial effect, sir."

But right now, attracting a great deal of Republican and Democratic interest is a competing resolution from Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and perhaps the most respected Republican on military issues. The Warner resolution -- which he wrote over the weekend in tandem with Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb. -- uses tamer language while still opposing the president's plan to send more troops to Baghdad.

Wednesday night on the Senate floor, Warner explained that the priniciples in his resolution "do track in many respects the provisions in the Biden-Levin-Hagel resolution. But when that first came out, so much of the rhetoric surrounding that resolution … was disturbing to many people. And that gave rise to the efforts that we have put forth culminating in placing this document into the record tonight."

In addition to Warner, Collins, and Nelson, supporters include Republican Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and Democratic Sens. Ken Salazar of Colorado, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Democrats want to get as many Republicans votes as possible for the resolution when it comes before the entire Senate, likely next week, so there may be a push to adopt some of that softer language. The main point, supporters of both resolutions say, is to send the message that the majority of the Senate opposes the surge.

Z. Byron Wolf contributed to this report.