Washington – Flying home from a trip to Iraq this spring, Sen. Ken Salazar wrestled with what he’d just seen. Or rather, what he hadn’t seen.
The streets of Baghdad were so violent that the freshman Democrat stayed in a military compound under tight security. Three years after the U.S. invasion, peace was elusive.
That led Salazar to believe President Bush’s war strategy is foundering and spurred the Colorado Democrat to push for a change.
Working with one of the Senate’s most senior Democrats, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who was also on the plane, Salazar helped craft a resolution urging a paring of U.S. troop involvement in Iraq and a shifting of peacekeeping duties to Iraqi security forces.
Though the resolution failed on a party-line vote, it marked the latest attempt by Salazar to weave a path between strident Republican and Democratic positions.
Salazar joined with Republicans and several other Democrats on Tuesday in supporting a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. The amendment died in the Senate on a 66-34 vote, one short of the two-thirds needed. Previously, he has joined bipartisan groups of lawmakers pushing for compromise on judicial nominations and immigration reform.
The nonbinding Iraq troops resolution came up for a vote last week, propelling Salazar into the forefront of the war debate. He had joined Levin at a news conference announcing the measure.
On the Senate floor, Salazar condemned the White House’s “fingers-crossed, stay-the-meandering-course approach.”
“We do a disservice to the country when we don’t stand up to the reality of what’s happening in Iraq,” Salazar said in an interview. “I disagree with the president when he tries to paint a glossy image.”
The nonbinding resolution failed 60-39. One Republican voted for it, and six Democrats voted against it.
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., opposed it, saying it “undermines everything we have achieved.”
Unlike a competing measure backed by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., which also was defeated, the bill co-sponsored by Salazar did not set a mandatory deadline for withdrawal, instead urging Bush to give Congress a timetable.
“When it comes to Iraq, this is an example where Sen. Salazar was looking for a path to solutions and got frustrated by the partisan rhetoric,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who often talks with Salazar about votes on different issues.
While on the trip to Iraq, Salazar said he talked war strategy with Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Levin, respectively the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. What he heard from those lawmakers told Salazar how much the situation in Iraq has devolved, he said.
“The U.S. military cannot bring an end to the sectarian strife,” Salazar added. The Iraqi government and military “have to do it themselves.”
Salazar’s role in the Iraq resolution brought condemnation from the Colorado Republican Party and praise from Colorado Progressive Action, a liberal group.
“I find it incomprehensible that Sen. Salazar would join with the Washington liberal cronies in calling for this cut-and-run policy,” said Bob Martinez, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. He argued that Salazar would not have taken the position if he were up for re-election this year.
Colorado liberals have sometimes felt disappointment with Salazar, wanting him to be “more vociferous in his opposition to the administration,” said Bill Vandenberg, co-director of Colorado Progressive Action.
“We appreciate that Sen. Salazar has gone on record supporting at least a phased withdrawal of our troops,” Vandenberg said.
Online: More Denver Post Washington coverage, and your chance to comment on the news, at our D.C. Web log: denverpostbloghouse.com/
washington
