January 12, 2007	Friday	Zilhaj 21, 1427

WASHINGTON, Jan 11: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced a hostile Senate on Thursday which questioned President Bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq and wondered if the Iraqi government was capable of bringing stability to the country.

Soon after Ms Rice finished reading her prepared statement at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the panel’s chairman told her that he cannot support Mr Bush’s decision announced in his address to the nation on Wednesday night. "Secretary Rice, to be very blunt, I cannot in good conscience support the president's approach,” said Chairman Joe Biden, a Democrat.

In her opening remarks, Ms Rice acknowledged widespread concerns about the war that has gone on almost four years and cost more than 3,000 American military lives.

"I want you to know that I understand and indeed feel the heartbreak that Americans feel at the continued sacrifice of American lives, men and women who can never be replaced for their families, and for the concern of our men and women who are still in harm's way," she said.

Sensing that the Democrats had made up their mind to reject Mr Bush’s new Iraqi strategy, Republican senators vowed to back the Republican incumbent of the White House.

The Senate's top Republican threatened a filibuster to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the plan. "Obviously, it will . . . require 60 votes," said Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

The Democrats have a razor-thin majority – 51-49 – in the Senate and to stop the Republicans from filibustering or engaging into lengthy debates they require at least 60 votes.

The Democrats want a vote in the Senate on Mr Bush’s new Iraq policy to show that the majority of senators do not support it. The vote cannot prevent Mr Bush from sending the troops but it can isolate him politically.

But a lengthy debate can allow Mr Bush to send the troops before a vote which will then force the Democrats to provide funds for the troops. The Democrats have pledged not to stop funds for the soldiers already deployed in Iraq.

Cutting off funds for troops stationed in a hostile country will also be politically unpopular and may hurt the Democrats.

But it is not just the Democrats who are expressing doubts about Mr Bush’s new policy. After a meeting at the White House, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, expressed both doubts and optimism about the strategy.

"I am concerned about Maliki and his strength. I am concern as to whether these are sufficient number of troops," he said. "But I do think we can succeed."

Mr McCain, a 2008 presidential contender, has been among a handful of lawmakers who have called for more - not fewer - US troops in Iraq.

In her testimony, Ms Rice stressed Iraqi obligations for troops, money and the political will to allow the Bush plan to succeed. She promised oversight, without giving specifics.

Apparently, this was not enough to convince Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, who declared: "In choosing to escalate the war, the president virtually stands alone."

At the House, Representative Ric Keller, a Florida Republican, also disagreed with Mr Bush’s new policy, saying that at this late stage, interjecting more young American troops into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach.

"We are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution," he said in remarks on the House floor.