Salazar woos GOP on Iraq war

Dem senator is key figure in bipartisan new-direction plan

Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News

Published July 11, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Local News

More stories »

Last month it was immigration.

This month it's the war.

Lately, Colorado's U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar has found himself at the center of the country's fiercest political debates.

Salazar helped cement his emerging reputation as a moderate agent of compromise on Tuesday by announcing that he and a bipartisan band of six Democratic and six Republican senators will introduce legislation that would set the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into law.

"I think, as a national policy, it's a very good step," the first-term Democrat told reporters. "My amendment, I think, will attract votes from both Democrats and Republicans . . . We need to get legislation across the finish line that changes our direction in Iraq and changes our mission in Iraq."

Salazar's amendment is one of several being considered as the Senate focuses this week on an appropriations bill for defense.

Support for his bill has gained momentum as prominent Republicans have begun to look to it as a way out of Iraq without appearing soft on defense. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., was one of those to recently sign on to the measure, saying Tuesday, "It is time to rethink our military policy in Iraq, and force the Iraqis to do more for themselves."

The non-partisan Iraq Study Group in December recommended an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.

The amendment setting those recommendations into law would: establish a goal of removing most soldiers from Iraq by spring 2008; set benchmarks for the Iraqi government as conditions for continued U.S. military support; and engage Iraq's neighboring countries in an "Iraq International Support Group."

Salazar's amendment, which he co-wrote with Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., is less aggressive than others. That has caused some critics to pan it as a toothless measure that gives Republicans a politically safe cave to hide in.

"If you look at it from a purely political standpoint, it's smart," Colorado State University political science professor John Straayer said of Salazar's amendment.

Colorado is a divided state, Straayer said, with an electorate that leans Republican and a large military community countering a very vocal opposition to the war.

So, "shooting down the middle - from a political standpoint - is the place to be," Straayer said.

However, Straayer said he doubts that politics alone explains the motivations of Salazar and the other centrist senators from either party.

"I think there are, in this mix, issues of significance where members are taking positions because of what's right for the country and not for political pay dirt," he said. "This whole Iraq thing has been tough, because it's a mix of your political fortunes, your conscience and your sense of history."

President Bush held steadfast on Tuesday to his position that America must stay the course, and he urged senators to put their calls to bring the troops home on hold until at least September, when Gen. David Petraeus is due to deliver a status report to Congress.

Salazar had Bush's support last month as Salazar tried unsuccessfully to push an immigration compromise through the Senate. This time, he finds himself squarely at odds with the president on Iraq.

On the other hand, Rep. Tom Tancredo, who opposed Salazar on immigration reform, is in his corner when it comes to the war. Tancredo sounded off against Salazar's immigration plan because he said it offered amnesty to illegal immigrants. But the Littleton Republican sounds a lot like Salazar when it comes to the war.

"We need to disengage and turn over the brunt of the military activity to the Iraqi armed forces," Tancredo said Tuesday.

Before, after on the war

Here's what Colorado's lawmakers said before the war in Iraq, or as candidates after the 2003 invasion, and what they are saying now:

Sen Wayne Allard, R-Loveland:

Then:

• In 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein is real and is growing . . . Iraq continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction and is attempting to acquire a nuclear capability. According to recent reports, it is estimated that if Iraq were to obtain fissile material, then Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months."Now:

• "I am troubled and disappointed in the lack of political progress in Iraq. The Iraqi government has not done what is needed to provide the Iraqi people with a secure future . . . It is my hope that if we give Gen. Petraeus' plan a real chance, we can further open the door for political progress to occur within the Iraqi government.

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Denver

Then:

• In 2004: "The president of the United States made a very persuasive case to the American public, and my view is that if there's a gun that's pointed at one of my children, I think we ought to take action. And essentially that was the presentation that was made by the president to the American people."

Now:

• "We have gained a lot of momentum over the past several weeks on our bipartisan effort to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The principles laid out in our amendment provide a diplomatic, economic and military road map to end American combat operations in Iraq."

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver

Then:

• In 2002: "The president has failed to present clear and convincing evidence to Congress . . . No one I know has been given information that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States . . . We've been given no evidence that Iraq intends to cross its borders. And we've been given no evidence that Iraq is close to acquiring nuclear weapons - merely that it would like to."

Now:

• "President Bush's failed policy in Iraq continues to put both our troops and nation in grave danger. Having opposed the president's original authorization in 2002, I have consistently voted to end this unjust war and bring our troops home. I will continue to work with the Democratic leadership to bring a quick and safe end to our military involvement in Iraq."

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs

Then:

• In 2006: "We must not cut and run before Iraq is able to defend itself from terrorists. When that is accomplished, then we should bring our troops home as soon as possible."

Now:

• "It simply would not be prudent to withdraw immediately and presume defeat in this war. Such actions would negate the sacrifice that our brave men and women in uniform have endured, and would infuse terrorists around the world with a renewed sense of strength and potential."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan

Then:

• In 2002: "Saddam Hussein has systematically violated the U.N. resolutions with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He's buying time to build up his chemical, biological and nuclear capability. We know he's a danger to the entire world."

Now:

• "I continue to expect the Iraqi forces to take a larger role in their own security and become less dependent on American forces, and I expect progress will be made by Iraq's elected leaders in creating a system of government that can eventually secure Iraq. After voting to require Gen. Petraeus to testify before Congress on the troop increase, I expect the general to give a precise, frank and thorough accounting of the situation in Iraq."

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden

Then:

• In 2006: "I think we must have an orderly and a careful redeployment of forces outside of Iraq and a plan to phase down American military presence. I believe this is reasonable and achievable by the spring of 2008, which would mean that the U.S. will have been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII. "

Now:

• "It is likely that we will be voting on the Iraq issue this summer. I hope one of the bills that we debate and vote on is my HR 2539, which calls for the redeployment of the National Guard troops within 90 days. We must begin redeployment of all of our troops by the spring of 2008, including withdrawal of the troops to nearby bases within the region and creation of multinational reconstruction and economic development efforts."

Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa

Then:

• In 2004: "America should never go to war based on inaccurate information . . . In Iraq, (I believe) that we need to move forward from where we are today and complete a mission that we as Americans can be proud of. We must work with international partners to do what is best for the Iraqi people."

Now:

• "I believe that we must begin to bring our troops home as soon as it is realistically possible. The American people have spoken, and they want change. We cannot continue to stay the course of a failed policy."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton

Then:

• In 2002: "I am extremely concerned about it. One (reason) has to do with our security as a result of having porous borders and what a war with Iraq would do to that whole situation. It would ratchet up the level of danger to the United States dramatically. . . . I think that if Iraq does have access to nuclear material, we have no choice."

Now:

• "We need to disengage and turn over the brunt of the military activity to the Iraqi armed forces. We cannot be the police force for Iraq. However, I do believe we must remain in the area in a limited capacity to protect our national strategic interests."

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs

Then:

• In 2002: "We learned in Vietnam you have to have a core goal and you have to know what you're trying to accomplish. I think we have a clear initial goal to ensure Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. A goal that's just (as) important: What do we do if Saddam Hussein is overthrown?"

Now:

• "If the president doesn't act to change direction, I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress will. . . . I believe this means adoption of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and beyond that, a plan for the reduction and redeployment of our forces out of areas where civil war is raging, in favor of a scaled-back mission focused on training Iraqis and hunting down al-Qaeda operatives."

bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News