Home › News › National/World
New Mexico lawmakers disagree over Iraq plans
RELATED STORIES
More National/World
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*
- Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
- Is Rome Burning?
- Ominous Skies
- The Road to Invalidation
- Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”
*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
SHARE THIS STORY [?]
WASHINGTON — New Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman haven't voted the same way on Iraq and may never do so as Congress and the White House spar over funding the war in the coming weeks and months.
But the Albuquerque Republican and Silver City Democrat are closer in their concerns than votes alone may reveal - and certainly closer than the state's three U.S. House members.
Domenici, who voted to authorize the war, is among Republican senators who will be calling for a change in course if the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, cannot report by September that the surge of U.S. troops into Baghdad is working.
He's also closely watching to see if the Iraqi government is taking steps to dampen sectarian violence and can fairly distribute $10 billion in U.S. aid and the country's oil revenues.
"I don't believe that anybody, including this senator, can be looking at this situation and not be worried about the lack of success and how that is going to impact on us as we try to close out America's involvement," Domenici told The Tribune.
"Clearly, I'm looking for certain things from the Iraqis that they would get on the ball and get done," he added.
Bingaman has said he opposed the war and wants U.S. troops out of Iraq, but doesn't want to deny funding to the troops or cause chaos in Iraq or the Mideast.
On the House side, Democrat Tom Udall of Santa Fe and Republican Steve Pearce of Hobbs represent the polar opposites of the debate.
Udall was one of 171 members - all but two of them Democrats - who voted Thursday night to withdraw all U.S. troops in nine months, starting in 90 days.
When that failed, Udall was on the winning side in a 221-205 vote for a bill that continues to fund the troops, but in two stages, with $43 billion released immediately. A second vote would be required in late July to release the remaining $53 billion after President Bush reports on whether Iraq's government and military are ready to stand on their own.
Udall sides with some former generals who believe the presence of U.S. troops is adding to the violence.
"We are a magnet for the foreigners coming," said Udall. "There's a lot of belief on the part of the military that things would calm down" if the United States left.
Pearce, who flew cargo planes during the Vietnam War, says Democrats are taking the same path now to de-fund the war that they did then.
"This idea of squeezing the funding is very demoralizing to the troops," said Pearce.
He also opposes setting benchmarks or timetables for the Iraqi government, at least publicly or through legislation.
"Privately, we should be putting on all the pressure in the world," Pearce said. "To publicly tell terrorists what the benchmarks are is a big mistake."
Pearce said his southern New Mexico constituents do not support cutting funding for the troops. Udall, who represents most of the northern part of the state, said he's hearing demands for impeaching President Bush if he doesn't withdraw U.S. troops.
What Rep. Heather Wilson, an Albuquerque Republican, is hearing from constituents is unclear.
Wilson was the only member of the New Mexico delegation who rejected a request from The Tribune for an interview about her position on Iraq.
Wilson, who narrowly won re-election last year against then-Attorney General Patricia Madrid, declared her opposition to a surge of troops to Baghdad after a post-Christmas visit to Iraq. But once Congress convened she has voted at every opportunity to support Bush's policy.
Thursday night she again voted against the Democratic funding bill as well as the bill calling for withdrawal in nine months. Wilson did not speak during the debate, but issued a statement afterward.
"We can't run the Defense Department on a month-to-month basis," Wilson said. "This bill includes more conditions, triggers and Rube Goldberg schemes than the last unsuccessful appropriations bill.
"We are now three months further into the fiscal year and Congress still hasn't funded the troops. The Pentagon has already taken the money intended to pay sailors and airmen from the Navy and Air Force in order to keep supporting our troops overseas. Summer maintenance at our stateside bases is on hold and training and maintenance at home is, too.
"It's time to fund the troops without Rube Goldberg schemes to make it harder for them to do the job they have been ordered to do."
Wilson's pro-war votes are likely to provide fodder for another strong Democratic challenge. She already has been targeted in ads by anti-war groups for her stance on Iraq.
Domenici is eyeing his re-election bid in 2008, too, and admits Iraq is a cause for concern.
Domenici said Bingaman is one of the Democrats he talks to about the difficulties of disengagement.
"One of the reasons that I think changing our course dramatically is hard is not because we could not safely move our troops and our hardware, but because we don't have a good idea of what is going to happen," said Domenici.
Bingaman said there "may be a period of turbulence" in Iraq after U.S. troops leave, but he says, "A lot of Republican members have come to the conclusion that we're not going to prevail militarily and the solution is going to have to be political."
Said Domenici: "People talk about us as if whatever the president wants, he gets. That isn't true. We're asking hard questions."
