Senate Rebukes Bush on Iraq Policy

The Senate delivered President Bush its strongest rebuke yet on the conduct of the Iraq war, voting 98-0 to pass a defense policy bill that codifies the treatment of military detainees, establishes new legal rights for terrorism suspects and demands far more information from the White House on the progress of the conflict.

The Senate rejected a Democratic resolution that would have pressured the administration to outline a plan to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq, but, by a 79-19 vote, lawmakers approved a weaker Republican version that insists on regular reports to Congress detailing the military's progress toward the goal of bringing the troops home.

Eh-hem. Apparently our good representatives need a reminder on what they already voted for.

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq specifies that:

The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed.

The resolution itself is worth a quick perusal to guard against those who would "rewrite the history of how that war began."

Senate Rebukes Bush on Iraq Policy
Bill Passed Demands Updates on Conflict and Codifies Treatment of Detainees
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 15, 2005; 3:17 PM

The Senate delivered President Bush its strongest rebuke yet on the conduct of the Iraq war, voting 98-0 to pass a defense policy bill that codifies the treatment of military detainees, establishes new legal rights for terrorism suspects and demands far more information from the White House on the progress of the conflict.

The measure's controversial provisions must still win passage in the House, but they mark the Senate's most dramatic foray into war policymaking and a challenge to the administration, which has issued a stern veto threat. The Senate rejected a Democratic resolution that would have pressured the administration to outline a plan to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq, but, by a 79-19 vote, lawmakers approved a weaker Republican version that insists on regular reports to Congress detailing the military's progress toward the goal of bringing the troops home.

The White House has strenuously objected to most measures that restrict its conduct of the war, especially a provision authored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that establishes strict guidelines on interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists. The White House says the McCain language is too broad and could preclude methods that fall well short of torture but may be necessary to elicit vital intelligence.

But an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Senate contended that Congress had to intervene to help re-establish the moral high ground for the United States in the administration's campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"This is a war of values," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). "We can win this war, ladies and gentlemen, without sacrificing our values."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) took to the Senate floor to insist that his colleagues were in no way trying to shift administration policy or rebuke the White House, calling such an assessment "absurd" and "ridiculous."

"It's not a change in policy," he said. "It's a continuation of the oversight we've been conducting for years in United States Senate."

But rank-and-file Republicans -- even some of Bush's most loyal supporters -- conceded the political atmosphere has changed. Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), who faces a tough re-election bid in a state with marked misgivings about the war, said the Senate is finally becoming more involved in war policy, and the trend will grow only more pronounced.

"This is the way it should be; we should be involved," DeWine said. "It's a natural result of where the war is at this point, that it goes on."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a staunch Bush ally, insisted the Senate vote did not indicate a change in war strategy, while also saying that Congress was becoming more assertive.

"Congress can clearly play a more robust role, and that's what you're seeing," he said. "It's a change in that Congress is stepping in to fill the void."

The effort to fill that void continued today. Before the final unanimous vote on the entire bill, the Senate approved 84-14 a bipartisan measure on the legal rights of detainees, agreeing to strip suspected terrorists of broad access to federal courts while granting them the right to appeal military trial verdicts to civilian judges.

The agreement was hashed out Monday by Sens. Graham, Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who hope a bipartisan consensus will swamp any opposition in the House and White House. Advocates then hope to make final passage of the defense bill contingent on the inclusion of the Graham-Levin language on detainee legal rights and the McCain provision on torture and abuse.

The one objection to the compromise came from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who denounced the measure as "untenable and unthinkable," since he said it precludes the Supreme Court from any jurisdiction over the legal treatment of detainees. Specter also saw the compromise as an affront to his committee, which was given no opportunity to consider its implications.

Last week, Graham won narrow Senate approval of a harsher amendment that stripped detainees in military prisons such as that at Guantanamo Bay of virtually all access to federal courts, access that had been granted by the Supreme Court. But Graham decided to compromise with Levin, hoping to win broader approval. The final version of the measure grants detainees sentenced to death or at least 10 years in prison an automatic review by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. The court would be able to determine guilt or innocence or the constitutionality of the military trial. Detainees given lesser sentences could also petition the court for a review.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111500145.html?nav=rss_politics