a shout out to the junior Senator from New Mexico who just sent me this nice letter

[NMDemDist2]

in response to my contacting his office about the last Military spending bill (emphasis mine)

Dear AZDD6 :



Thank you for contacting me regarding Iraq . I appreciate your sharing your views with me on this very important issue .



I opposed giving the President authority to go to war in Iraq . At the time, I believed that the best course of action was to allow U.N. weapons inspectors the time they needed to determine whether Iraq did in fact possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons , and I was concerned about the aftermath of the initial invasion . Several broad concepts have since guided my thinking about the conflict in Iraq . First, I believe that the U.S. role in Iraq should be not to police a civil war, but to facilitate a settlement among the parties themselves, and that President Bush's ongoing troop surge is unlikely to prove effective absent a broader political settlement. It is, therefore, appropriate to re-orient our mission away from policing a civil war to one of counterterrorism. Second, Iraq is diverting America 's attention away from other long-term foreign policy challenges, such as managing the rise of China and restoring strong relations with our European and Asian allies. Third, I do recognize that the U.S. has a responsibility to create some degree of political stability in Iraq . Should we leave this mission incomplete, we will be leaving in turmoil a country we promised to rebuild.



As you may know, on July 17, 2007, the Senate began d ebate on of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008. In addition to the many decisions which affect our nation's service men and women, this legislation also includes proposals for redeployment from Iraq . I voted in favor of the Levin-Reed amendment, which sets a firm date for beginning redeployment from Iraq beginning 120 days after enactment of the legislation and completing it by March 30, 2008. I continue to believe that the credible threat of withdrawal says that our commitment to Iraq is not unconditional. Moreover, it confirms that we will not preserve the failed status quo. Unfortunately, by a vote of 54-47, this measure was not agreed to in the Senate.



I also supported the Webb-Hagel amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. This amendment mandated down-time for active dut y and reservist forces, requiring that the time spent abroad matched the time spent at home with an opt-out clause for any member of the service who wished to deploy again sooner. This measure was also not agreed to in the Senate.



You may also be interested to know that I cosponsored the Senate's March 2007 joint resolution concerning phased redeployment, and I supported the supplemental appropriation bill that President Bush regrettably vetoed on May 1, 2007. Each of these pieces of legislation required the Bush administration to integrate diplomatic efforts, both with Iraq 's neighbors and the international community at large, into our overall Iraq strategy. Importantly, these pieces of legislation specifically allowed American combat forces to remain in Iraq for purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations; training and equipping Iraqi forces; and protecting U.S forces and civilians. These exceptions are consistent with my views on how the nature of our mission in Iraq needs to evolve.



The 108th and 109th Congresses were negligent in their oversight duties of the Iraq conflict. The 110th Congress must ensure that accountability and responsibility are pieces of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy. Creating this accountability requires frank debate, including hearings, about the American presence in Iraq . I will continue working to see that the Senate remains open to that discussion.

Sincerely,

JEFF BINGAMAN
United States Senator