While our parliamentary system is different, expect related hijacking by the Canadian opposition parties in this flavor.....
The strategy behind Senate Iraq war vote
An amendment to set a timetable for US troop withdrawal was defeated Wednesday.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor July 19, 2007 edition
Article Link
The Levin-Reed Iraq Amendment:
1. Requires the president to begin reducing the number of US troops in Iraq within 120 days after enactment of the measure
2. Mandates transitioning the mission of remaining US military troops to force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and counterterrorism
3. Requires that this transition be completed by April 30, 2008
4. Calls for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to stabilize Iraq
5. Seeks the appointment of an international mediator under the guidance of the UN Security Council
Washington - The unused metal cots outside the Senate chamber were folded away and the pizza cartons carted away. A rare all-night session leading to Wednesday's key vote about withdrawing troops from Iraq provided high drama on Capitol Hill.
Never mind that the amendment went down to certain defeat. Or that the legislative marathon changed only a single vote in the Senate. Washington's political theater is part of a deliberate political strategy aimed at living rooms across America. By presenting the choice over the future of the Iraq war in the starkest possible terms, Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to change course and ratchet up the political pressure on Republican lawmakers supporting President Bush.
"The goal of Democrats was clear: to put Republicans on record on where they stand on an unpopular war and to keep Iraq in the news, which is not good for the Bush administration," says Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "On these two levels, they were successful, even if no new legislation will come out of it. Democrats want Iraq to be for President Bush what Vietnam became for President Johnson: an all-consuming issue, where nothing else can be discussed."
Democrats plan similar votes in the House to force Republicans to express publicly views on a war that has lost the support of most Americans.
Indeed, polls suggest that Americans are frustrated with Mr. Bush's "surge" strategy and favor a draw down of forces. According to a Gallup Poll last week, 71 percent favor a proposal to remove almost all US troops from Iraq by April 2008, leaving a limited number of troops for counterterror efforts. But there remains a partisan divide. The same poll found that 54 percent of Republicans opposed the idea. It's this divide that Congress appears to be reflecting. While most lawmakers oppose the administration's current strategy, they have not come to a consensus over the alternative.
More on link
The strategy behind Senate Iraq war vote
An amendment to set a timetable for US troop withdrawal was defeated Wednesday.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor July 19, 2007 edition
Article Link
The Levin-Reed Iraq Amendment:
1. Requires the president to begin reducing the number of US troops in Iraq within 120 days after enactment of the measure
2. Mandates transitioning the mission of remaining US military troops to force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and counterterrorism
3. Requires that this transition be completed by April 30, 2008
4. Calls for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to stabilize Iraq
5. Seeks the appointment of an international mediator under the guidance of the UN Security Council
Washington - The unused metal cots outside the Senate chamber were folded away and the pizza cartons carted away. A rare all-night session leading to Wednesday's key vote about withdrawing troops from Iraq provided high drama on Capitol Hill.
Never mind that the amendment went down to certain defeat. Or that the legislative marathon changed only a single vote in the Senate. Washington's political theater is part of a deliberate political strategy aimed at living rooms across America. By presenting the choice over the future of the Iraq war in the starkest possible terms, Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to change course and ratchet up the political pressure on Republican lawmakers supporting President Bush.
"The goal of Democrats was clear: to put Republicans on record on where they stand on an unpopular war and to keep Iraq in the news, which is not good for the Bush administration," says Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "On these two levels, they were successful, even if no new legislation will come out of it. Democrats want Iraq to be for President Bush what Vietnam became for President Johnson: an all-consuming issue, where nothing else can be discussed."
Democrats plan similar votes in the House to force Republicans to express publicly views on a war that has lost the support of most Americans.
Indeed, polls suggest that Americans are frustrated with Mr. Bush's "surge" strategy and favor a draw down of forces. According to a Gallup Poll last week, 71 percent favor a proposal to remove almost all US troops from Iraq by April 2008, leaving a limited number of troops for counterterror efforts. But there remains a partisan divide. The same poll found that 54 percent of Republicans opposed the idea. It's this divide that Congress appears to be reflecting. While most lawmakers oppose the administration's current strategy, they have not come to a consensus over the alternative.
More on link
