NY Times' Stolberg credited Warner -- not Democrats -- with "prodding" Senate to require Iraq progress reports
In a November 21 New York Times article, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg credited Sen. John W. Warner (R-VA) with "prodding the Senate" to require quarterly Iraq war progress reports from the Bush administration and "spawning a raucous House debate over whether U.S. troops should withdraw" from Iraq. In fact, Warner's plan, which he sponsored with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), was based on legislation the Democrats had previously circulated -- a fact reported at the time by multiple news outlets, including the Times.
From Stolberg's November 21 New York Times article, which examined three Republican senators -- Warner, John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -- who have challenged the Bush administration on military issues:
On that score, the three are not in lockstep. Last week, Mr. Warner prodded the Senate to require the Bush administration to provide Congress with quarterly progress reports on the war, spawning a raucous House debate over whether troops should withdraw and setting the stage for Iraq to dominate the 2006 midterm elections. But Senators McCain and Graham, who have steadfastly called for more troops, not fewer, voted against Mr. Warner's plan, saying it smacked of a timetable for withdrawal.
On November 14, the Democrats publicly announced plans to introduce an amendment requiring progress reports from the administration. The same day, Warner and Frist introduced a similar version of the amendment that contained exactly four changes:
- The Democratic version said American troops "should not stay in Iraq indefinitely"; the Republican version changed "indefinitely" to "any longer than required."
- The Democratic version scheduled the first progress report for "not later than 30 days after" the legislation's passage; the Republican version read "90 days."
- Introducing the list of reporting requirements, the Democratic version read, "Each report shall include the following"; the Republican version read, "Each report shall include, to the extent practicable, the following unclassified information."
- The final reporting requirement in the Democratic amendment -- a requirement that the Bush administration provide "estimated dates for the phased redeployment from Iraq" -- did not appear in the Republican version.
Aside from the sponsors' names, the Republicans made no other changes. Both parties' plans bore the title "United States Policy on Iraq Act" and were offered as amendments to the defense authorization bill. After the Democrats' plan was defeated 58-40 in the Senate on November 15, Warner and Frist's version passed 79-19.
Stolberg's article -- headlined "In the Senate, a Chorus of Three Defies the Line" -- described the emerging "triumvirate" of Warner, McCain, and Graham as "a powerful political force" and suggested that each of the three senators "has a strong maverick streak." Stolberg completely omitted the Democrats' leading role in creating the quarterly progress reports requirement.
In contrast to Stolberg's article, a November 15 New York Times article by Carl Hulse noted that "Mr. Warner said he decided to take the Democratic proposal and edit it to his satisfaction in an effort to find common ground between the parties on the issue." Hulse also noted in a November 16 New York Times report that Warner and Frist's amendment was "based on a Democratic plan."
In addition, a November 16 Washington Post article noted that in writing the Republicans' amendment, Warner had "embraced the bulk of the Democratic amendment but removed what the White House and some Republicans saw as the most odious language, the requirement for the administration to establish an estimated timetable for withdrawal."
The Hill newspaper reported on November 15 that "Democrats circulated a copy of their amendment [at a November 14 press conference] with Democratic co-sponsors crossed out, Warner and Frist's names inserted, and the key changes made in pen." The Hill further reported that in an email, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), wrote, "That is their handwritten changes to our amendment.... We drafted, provided them our text, and then they made changes to our amendment and filed it as theirs."
During the televised November 14 press conference referenced by The Hill, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) told reporters, "What the Republicans have done is crossed off the names of all the Democrats on it; just inserted Senators Warner and Frist, and made a few changes in the amendment."
The hand-edited amendment is available here.













obviously a democrat bill that the republicans glommed on to. typical of their under handedness. i was discussing election regularities a couple nights ago with another poster who provided a link to a "bipartisan" site that proclaimed democrats were far more likely to be guilty of such misconduct. the chairman of the group was listed as having all these democratic credentials. the problem was they were from the 70's and 80's. sure enough, look the guy up and he now works with the republicans and gave money to bush.
sorry, election "irregularities", and the group is the american center for voting rights.
You're totally right. Typical Republican B.S. They did the exact same thing with the office of homeland security. From Media matters itself: [link to mediamatters.org]
It's like plagerizing, and then "pretending" to have thought of it first or at the same time.
oops, here's a better version of that link: [link to mediamatters.org]
"You're totally right. Typical Republican B.S. They did the exact same thing with the office of homeland security. From Media matters itself: [link to mediamatters.org]
It's like plagerizing, and then "pretending" to have thought of it first or at the same time."...by ryooki
=====
You can take FULL CREDIT as far as I'm concerned for The Office of Homeland Security, to me its just another layer of useless bureaucracy and MORE could have been accomplished by re-tooling the FBI and CIA.
And don't FORGET even though Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 to "promise to end welfare as we know it" and took CREDIT for Welfare Reform, it actually DIDN'T become a reality till it became part of the Republicans' Contract with America. And it was a Republican controlled Congress in 1996 that pushed it through for Clinton to sign.The Fact is MANY Democrats weren't too happy about Clinton signing the Bill. Yet today it STANDS as one of Bill Clinton's Accomplishments as President.
Now as far as giving credit here....The Democrats did in fact circulate their idea for an amendment FIRST, and the Republicans made a FEW changes. Who cares who gets CREDIT as long as something finally got done.
Whether its Homeland Security, Welfare Reform or The United States Policy on Iraq Act, BOTH sides are going to contribute, and IF things turn out well, BOTH sides will try to CLAIM credit. It's called politics.
Next thing, I'll probably hear of you giving credit to the boom in the economy in the 90's to Reganomics, which we all see is working so well right now.
And don't FORGET even though Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 to "promise to end welfare as we know it" and took CREDIT for Welfare Reform, it actually DIDN'T become a reality till it became part of the Republicans' Contract with America. And it was a Republican controlled Congress in 1996 that pushed it through for Clinton to sign.The Fact is MANY Democrats weren't too happy about Clinton signing the Bill. Yet today it STANDS as one of Bill Clinton's Accomplishments as President.
by jeter2 - Monday November 21, 2005 10:32:10 PM EST
===============================================================
jeter,
You are, of course, referring to the 2nd "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996"...the 1st version having been vetoed by President Clinton. The 2nd version being signed by President Clinton after it included measures he wanted. Many of the key provisions being precisely what President Clinton proposed in 1994 - [link to www.acf.dhhs.gov]
Not quite the purely Republican effort you portray.
"You are, of course, referring to the 2nd "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996"...the 1st version having been vetoed by President Clinton. The 2nd version being signed by President Clinton after it included measures he wanted. Many of the key provisions being precisely what President Clinton proposed in 1994 - [link to www.acf.dhhs.gov]
Not quite the purely Republican effort you portray."...by unbound
=====
And not exactly rousingly approved by many Democrats who were UNHAPPY that Clinton signed the Bill, which tells me it though it included some "key provisions" Clinton wanted, it most CERTAINLY included many "key provisions" the Republicans wanted. And since it displeased a number of Democrats I'd say its a safe bet that the Republicans and a Centrist President got their way. Credit here is a toss-up ;-)
Of course my point WAS NOT to diss Clinton here anyway....MY POINT was that by the time COMPROMISES are hashed out and Bills passed it's usually anybodies guess who really DESERVES CREDIT over WHO should GET CREDIT. Sometimes it's perfectly clear...other times it's muddled. Most of the time it's whomever SPINS it better.
As I said, IF things work out EVERYONE wants the credit. That's politics!
"And not exactly rousingly approved by many Democrats who were UNHAPPY that Clinton signed the Bill, which tells me it though it included some "key provisions" Clinton wanted, it most CERTAINLY included many "key provisions" the Republicans wanted. And since it displeased a number of Democrats I'd say its a safe bet that the Republicans and a Centrist President got their way. Credit here is a toss-up"
Your issue was with Clinton taking credit, not Democrats in general. "A Centrist President", Clinton, got his way. If he did what he said he was going to do, whether on the backs of Republicans or Democrats, then he deserved the credit for it, doesn't he?
"Your issue was with Clinton taking credit, not Democrats in general. "A Centrist President", Clinton, got his way. If he did what he said he was going to do, whether on the backs of Republicans or Democrats, then he deserved the credit for it, doesn't he?"...by brabantio
=====
Actually I had NO ISSUE with Clinton, I was simply pointing out that sometimes BOTH sides TRY to take SOLE credit.
But we can discuss it ;-)
Clinton got a COMPROMISE with the Republicans, so I'd hardly say : He Got His Way. Don't forget the Republicans did NOT give Clinton exactly what he wanted. I'd say Welfare Reform can't be credited solely to either the Republican controlled Congress or Bill Clinton.
My point, (geez am I not getting this across well?) is that now&then one party can CLEARLY CLAIM credit for legislation, BUT usually a Bill is passed after a lot of hashing&thrashing...then IF it is a BRILLIANT piece of legislation--everyone want SOLE credit. Again, THAT'S POLITICS!!
Hash&thrash this post if you'd like, I'm going to lunch ;-)
"My point, (geez am I not getting this across well?) is that now&then one party can CLEARLY CLAIM credit for legislation, BUT usually a Bill is passed after a lot of hashing&thrashing"
I understand the issue with compromise and the politics of claiming credit for subsequent success, that's not the problem. My point is that the Clinton issue was not just a matter of one party vs. another, as this one is. Since Clinton had opponents on both sides of the aisle, what he was doing was in fact a compromise to begin with. This is why your assertion that he himself, not one party or the other, is questionable for taking credit is under the microscope. Of course he wasn't going to get it exactly the way he wanted it. Under what circumstances could he have done this and not have credit be a "toss-up"? That's really the nature of my reason to comment here, that you clearly want things to be accomplished and like compromise, but when someone does that their credit is somehow dubious because it wasn't exactly what they had planned. That seems inconsistent to me. If you want to see more people step across party lines to get things done, then their credit for the accomplishment shouldn't be questioned in such a manner, as that seems discouraging.
The more important issue is that you are talking about compromise. Voting down a bill, then stealing and editing it and passing it off as your own is not "compromise". That's exactly the issue. If the republicans wanted to hash and thrash, as you say, they could have worked something out along the lines of the watered-down version they proposed, surely. Had that been the case, then I can see them trying to claim some credit for the compromise, but here they are just trying to deny democrats all credit for having any ideas at all.
I would agree IF the perceptions of most that the democrats have no ideas and no solutions were not in play. It is clear from Homeland Security, this article, Murhta's REAL proposal, etc. that the democrats indeed have many ideas on different issues. Any ideas that are good, the republicans usurp or completely corrupt and thus can still claim the "democrats have no ideas" line is still valid. Sadly, most still believe this.
"I would agree IF the perceptions of most that the democrats have no ideas and no solutions were not in play. It is clear from Homeland Security, this article, Murhta's REAL proposal, etc. that the democrats indeed have many ideas on different issues. Any ideas that are good, the republicans usurp or completely corrupt and thus can still claim the "democrats have no ideas" line is still valid. Sadly, most still believe this."...by military_husband
=====
And it's the PRESS/MEDIA that carry the ball of "perception" to the general public. You're right though, UNLESS you pay attention, and read between the lines you'll be spoon-fed by whomever can get the Press/Media to report their message as FACT.
I would agree IF the perceptions of most that the democrats have no ideas and no solutions were not in play. It is clear from Homeland Security, this article, Murhta's REAL proposal, etc. that the democrats indeed have many ideas on different issues. Any ideas that are good, the republicans usurp or completely corrupt and thus can still claim the "democrats have no ideas" line is still valid. Sadly, most still believe this.-by military_husband
****
It is all in the sound bite. The republicans’ plan consist of one sentence tag lines; black and white statements lacking substance. The democrats, continually scoffed at for recognizing nuance, tend to need more then one sentence to explain a plan.
The media doesn’t want some boring explanation they want catchy phrases they can repeat over and over.
If the Republicans have the plan then could someone please explain it to me because “stay the course” is not a plan—it is a tag line. Great campaign slogan but really no substance to explain the direction and end goal they are going for.