 |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
| |
 | Issue in Depth •Senators Seek Vote in Congress on Extending Kosovo Mission (September 10, 2000)
Issue in Depth |
ASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — House and Senate negotiators are fighting over a deadline for withdrawing American troops from Kosovo, renewing a clash with President Clinton and putting Gov. George W. Bush on the spot again, since he lobbied Senate Republicans to drop a similar provision earlier this year.
At issue is a proposal to cut off money for nearly 6,000 United States ground forces in Kosovo by April 1, forcing their withdrawal unless Congress authorizes an extension.
In May, the Senate rejected a similar measure, 53 to 47, with at least two or three Republicans saying they were swayed by Governor Bush, who called it a "legislative overreach" that would tie his hands if he became president. But House Republicans quietly attached a comparable provision to the Pentagon's $310 billion budget bill for fiscal year 2001.
House and Senate leaders are now meeting in a conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the military budget bills — one with the provision, the other without. The contentious language was one of the last sticking points negotiators faced in finishing the bill before Congress adjourns for the year.
By tonight, there were signs that Congressional Republicans were relenting. "I think we'll work something out," said Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee and who sponsored the original Senate measure. The House version was sponsored by Representative John R. Kasich, Republican of Ohio.
The dispute comes at an awkward time for Mr. Bush, the Republican presidential nominee, who has accused the Clinton administration of allowing the military's combat readiness to erode, in part by dispatching American forces on far- flung peacekeeping missions to places like Kosovo.
A spokesman for Mr. Bush, Ray Sullivan, said today that the governor objected to the Republican-written language for the same reasons that he balked at the Senate provision in May. "He views it as a legislative overreach on the powers of the president," said Mr. Sullivan, who added that Congressional Republicans were aware of Mr. Bush's views.
Critics say the provision would undermine the unity and morale of NATO's peacekeeping operation, which involves forces from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and other nations in and out of Europe.
In a letter sent late today to Senator Warner, Mr. Clinton warned that imposing an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal would also send a dangerous signal of uncertain American resolve to President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia before that country's elections scheduled for Sept. 24.
Under the provision, Mr. Clinton's successor would be required to certify to Congress that Washington's European allies were meeting their commitments in Kosovo for reconstruction aid, police officers, food and medicines. Without that certification, the measure required that money be spent in Kosovo only for a withdrawal of American troops.
The measure would require the allies to be responsible for at least 50 percent of reconstruction aid, 85 percent of humanitarian assistance and 90 percent of police officers in Kosovo. The allies are now providing 87 percent of the reconstruction aid, 73 percent of the humanitarian assistance and 87 percent of the police, the White House said. Some of the contributions are from non-European countries.
In a letter last month to Mr. Warner, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen criticized the provision, saying it was "unacceptable because it is counterproductive to peace in Kosovo and could seriously jeopardize relations between the United States and its NATO allies."
"If enacted this provision would take decision-making on the deployment of U.S. forces out of the hands of Congress and the president and put it into the hands of European governments — a dangerous precedent," said Mr. Cohen, who is the only Republican in the cabinet.
"This provision would create uncertainty about U.S. intentions and resoluteness, and could encourage an extremist element to take actions that could put American forces at increased risk, in the hope of triggering their withdrawal," he concluded.
But many Congressional Republicans say the provision is essential to relieve the burden on American ground troops in Kosovo and pressure European countries to pay a larger share of the reconstruction and policing costs for Kosovo.
"We feel pretty strongly about it," said Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority leader. "The question is, how long will we have people over there, and when will we have a clear definition of what they're doing?"
Representative Floyd D. Spence of South Carolina, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, agreed: "We're tied down too much in different places right now. People are scattered all over the world, our readiness is down and our equipment is wearing out. We have to have our allies do more."
But Democrats echoed Mr. Cohen's dire warnings. "These arbitrary limits are not going to be helpful," said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's senior Democrat and a top negotiator in the conference committee, said: "It undermines the coalition and creates terrible morale for our troops to let them know they're coming out."
|
The implosion of the Republican Party continues.
In May, the Senate rejected a similar measure, 53 to 47, with at least two or three Republicans saying they were swayed by Governor Bush, who called it a "legislative overreach" that would tie his hands if he became president. But House Republicans quietly attached a comparable provision to the Pentagon's $310 billion budget bill for fiscal year 2001.
Goes to show just how comitted Shrub is to the Constitution. I could have sworn that it was Congress, and not the President, that had the power and right to declare war. All this suggests that American troops won't get out of the Balkans and other far-flung places any faster under a Bush regime than they would under Clinton/Gore.
The implosion of the Republican Party continues,
Gee, I thought this article was highlighting the gutting and over-stretching of the military by Clinton/Gore.
Come on GW!, You an do it! Do THE right thing! Join the Conservatives for once in your life!!
www.globalismwatch.com
Not only does Congress declare war they write the Budget and the House starts all spending bills.... they an also start a bill to unfund something.
www.globalismwatch.com
Come on GW!, You an do it! Do THE right thing! Join the Conservatives for once in your life!!
Don't hold your breath.
"Legislative overreach" my @ss! Going into Kosovo was an EXECUTIVE OVERREACH. I say it's about time the Legislative Branch got off its @ss and demanded that Clinton follow the Constitution instead of acting like a dictator.
When I first arrived here at Free Republic and was first exposed to one of the 'Antiwar' posters I was pretty suspicious. After all I had been fed by the traditional media (NOTE: not mainstream) that Antiwar people were usually leftist hippies. ((probably too many PBS Vietnam documentaries really))
Then soon afterwards, wondering how antiwar came to sound so conservative all of a sudden (and finding much agreement with you and others) I found the antiwar.com website.
My impression was WOW... its sort of like as a conservative in the late 80's when I first found Rush on the radio. An epiphany! People just like me!
By then I had already started my own little geocities website and of course made sure to put a link to antiwar.com. My website is anti-globalist, it opposes 'political globalism' being expoused by so many people.
I agree with antiwar FReepers probably 99% of the time on matters of sovereignty and such. Its really amazing. I'm not nearly as good a writer as Raimondo but I will keep it up because I know people need to hear these viewpoints.
It is sad to realize how many 'conservatives' still think that the WTO has something to do with 'free trade'. The truth must win out or at least die trying.
Thanks....
www.globalismwatch.com
well, at least let me keep hoping... heh
GeronL:
Thanks so much for your kind words. Every once in a while I wonder why I'm putting in 80-hour weeks on Antiwar.com -- and your post reminded me of the reason.
Hopefully congress will finally pull the purse strings on these type of presidential yahoo endevors around the world. Our armed forces are for OUR defense not Bosnian,Albanian, Hatians, Koreans, Etc... Bring OUR BOYS home distinguished Congressmen.
Justin, I am really surprised that you are not aware of outstanding contibution to integrity, truth and honesty in public information you are regularly carrying out.
I read your site and other Antiwar articles on daily basis and very often when I get involved in some discussion about our government in other forums I suggest to my opponents to go to your site and read facts that you present so honestly and masterfully detailed.
To me, your site is one of very few places I can go and be sure that I am reading nothing but plain truth and I believe that there are many more like me out there. So, please do not lose your confidence and question your work again, because you are doing something very noble and your contribution to truthful media is tremendous!
Thanx for all you do!!! It means alot to me.
I registered for an account on FR just so that I could add my voice here to the chorus of thanks for your work. Thank you so much for being such a strong voice against the corrupt, amoral, murderous elites of our society! I'm going to continue to financially support Antiwar.com, too, and I hope everyone else that appreciates your work does the same. Thanks again!
Every once in a while I wonder why I'm putting in 80-hour weeks on Antiwar.com
Stop wondering. Inconsistency and propaganda make for a long work week what with all of that unravelling and reversal of yesterdays work.
Pat is right about interfering in matters that have no interest to the United States except a show of force. There is no purpose in bombing hospitals and schools to show the world how brazen the US is. We need friends to trade with, not enemies to trade bombs with.
I found FR through your site. In Britain I was beginning to feel very isolated in my opposition to the bombing of Serbia, especially as I learned more every day about the background and situation. Hard to find someone to chat with about the intricacies of Rambouillet and international law when they're all in Stepford Nato Supporter mode - "we had to do something, the 'Serbs' only have themselves to blame" etc. etc.
For over a year I have been visiting your site every day even when travelling. Often you have links and commentaries not available on the other sites that I frequent. You and FR have helped me keep my sanity! Thanks, Kate.
Vote for Ralph Nader! He's against agression. Nader/LaDuke 2000! That's the way to go. I don't think he's for the UN or NATO either. Nader all the way!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |