Is a bipartisan war policy possible?

[babylonsister]

Is a bipartisan war policy possible?
More lawmakers urge Congress to forcefully steer US actions in Iraq. But a united front is hard to achieve in a campaign season.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the September 13, 2007 edition


Page 1 of 2
Reporter Gail Chaddock discusses the desire in the US congress for lawmakers to take a more bipartisan, defined approach in setting poLicy concerning the war in Iraq.


Washington - When President Bush addresses the nation Thursday night, he's expected to endorse some version of what's come to be known on Capitol Hill as the Petraeus Report.

That strategy, set out by Gen. David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker in two days of hearings this week, recommends a drawdown of combat troops to pre-"surge" levels by mid-July 2008, beginning this year.

But a growing number of lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, are chafing both at the recommendation and at its source.

Generals, no matter how respected, shouldn't be setting US policy, they say: Congress should, and it should start doing so in a bipartisan way rather than continuing to stage "show" votes designed to embarrass the other side, as has been congressional custom since the war's onset.

"By not having a bipartisan approach, Congress has defaulted and let the whole tone of this debate be set by a military man's report," says Rep. Joe Sestak (D) of Pennsylvania, a former three-star admiral and defense adviser in the Clinton administration. "Regardless of one's position on the war, it's profoundly dangerous to have the military make decisions on war and peace, and to some extent, that's what we've done."

more...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0913/p01s01-woiq.html