Senate panel vote opposes troop buildup

Law & Politics

[##_1L|1251269120.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A day after President Bush pleaded with Congress to give his Iraq policy one last chance, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee rebuffed him by approving a nonbinding resolution declaring his troop increase in Iraq to be against "the national interest."

The committee voted 12 to 9 yesterday to send a resolution of disapproval of the president's Iraq policy to the Senate floor next week, setting up what could be the most dramatic confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration since the war was launched four years ago. Many Republicans voiced anguish over the president's policy, but only one, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a co sponsor, voted in support of the resolution.

While some lawmakers and anti war activists have dismissed the resolution as largely meaningless, senior Republicans and White House officials have worked furiously to minimize GOP defections, worried that a large, bipartisan vote would have significant political repercussions.

"In an open democracy, we voice our agreements and disagreements in public, and we should not be reticent to do so. But official roll call votes carry a unique message," said Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee's senior Republican. A vote for the resolution "will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray," he said.

But Hagel implored his colleagues to take a stand after four years of docile acquiescence.

"What do you believe? What are you willing to support? . . . Why were you elected?" he asked. "If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business."

But the committee's partisan divide belied the deep undercurrent of GOP misgivings, as one Republican after another spoke out against the deployment of 21,500 additional troops to bolster the faltering government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Lugar called the Bush strategy "dubious" even as he denounced the resolution as "the legislative equivalent of a sound bite." Senator John Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, said additional troops should not be deployed until the Iraqi government showed more resolve. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said she opposed the president and was not afraid to tell him so. And Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, said he had delivered a tough message to the White House personally: "You are not listening."

"Congress has allowed this war to go on without anyone having a stake," said an exasperated Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee. "We passed the debt on to future generations. Nobody has sacrificed but the military men and women and the families."

Related listings

  • Hillary Clinton to run for president

    Hillary Clinton to run for president

    Law & Politics 01/22/2007

    [##_1L|1253836729.jpg|width="85" height="92" alt=""|_##]New York senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton has thrown her hat into the presidential ring. In her first public appearance since joining the 2008 White House race Clinton said Sunday s...

  • Bush backing off no-warrant spying

    Bush backing off no-warrant spying

    Law & Politics 01/18/2007

    The Bush administration changed course and agreed Wednesday to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government's controversial domestic spying program. Officials say the secret court has already approved at least one reque...

  • Bush Shifts Nominee for Appeals Court

    Bush Shifts Nominee for Appeals Court

    Law & Politics 01/16/2007

    President Bush on Tuesday shifted a controversial federal appeals court nominee from one opening to another to satisfy Senate Democrats. In a nod to the Senate's new Democratic leadership, Bush withdrew the nomination of Norman Randy Smith of Idaho f...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read