More National/World

• Congressman is indicted
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Albuquerque Old Town
• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

WASHINGTON — President Bush is going to have a hard time changing the minds of the New Mexico congressional delegation with his televised speech about Iraq, when he is expected to announce the dispatch of an additional 20,000 U.S. troops to Baghdad.

"It's not clear what he would say that would persuade me of that," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, said Tuesday.

Rep. Tom Udall was of a similar mind. "I'll listen to him, but I will be very skeptical," the Santa Fe Democrat said.

Rep. Heather Wilson, an Albuquerque Republican, told Bush in a letter earlier this week that stopping sectarian violence in Iraq is not a vital interest of the United States.

"No one I have talked to can explain to me why we should expect increasing U.S. forces in Baghdad at the levels being discussed would have a different outcome now than it had last summer and fall," Wilson said in the letter.

On the other hand, Rep. Steve Pearce, a Hobbs Republican, said he is predisposed to support Bush and U.S. military commanders

"If we're not successful in this thing, the world is going to be eminently less stable, and it is going to be much more chaotic economically and politically," Pearce said.

Perhaps the most eager ear will belong to Sen. Pete Domenici, an Albuquerque Republican, who moved from a position of skeptic to possible supporter after meeting with Bush at the White House on Monday. Domenici said Bush explained that the plan will require substantial commitment of Iraqi troops and Iraqi money to stabilize Baghdad.

Democrats have already starting making plans for a vote that could block the president's plan, though Bingaman said he had doubts about the vote.

"As a matter of law, it is hard to make the case that the president cannot add troops to the troops already there," Bingaman said. "I think he has that authority. But I think Congress has to speak out."

Democrats have discussed legislation to limit funding for a troop surge. If such bills are introduced, members of the House Appropriations Committee such as Udall could be in a powerful position.

"I like the idea of capping the number of troops and beginning a phased redeployment of our troops to outside of Iraq," Udall said.

Pearce said it would be a mistake for politicians to start setting troop levels. He said he saw political interference in war planning firsthand as a pilot flying cargo planes and tankers during the Vietnam War.

Despite her doubts about Bush's strategy, Wilson has said she would not support cutting off funding for the war.

And even if Congress did vote to block the troop deployment, Bush could veto the bill.