ST JOHN’S, Antigua (CMC):New West Indies head coach Stuart Law has lamented his side’s effort in the field in Friday’s opening One-Day International (ODI) against England.Leading the Caribbean side for the first time since his appointment last month, the Australian watched as they succumbed by 45 runs at the Vivian Richards Cricket Stadium after failing to overhaul a challenging 297.But while praising both the batting and bowling efforts, Law said the Windies had let themselves down in the field. Captain Eoin Morgan was let off twice during his top score of 107, while Jason Roy (13) was also put down early on.”One thing we showed, we did show good fight. It didn’t all go our way in the field, but I thought we stuck to our tasks,” Law noted.”We probably lost it a bit in the last 10 overs. We lost a bit of focus in the field. A couple of very important catches went down and it just goes to show that catches do win matches, and they dropped two of the best players going around. You can’t afford to do that.”Law was quick to reiterate the value of the missed chances in the field while also ruing the fact neither Mohammed nor Carter went on to three figures.LAPSES IN THE FIELD”They all bowled reasonably OK. It wasn’t so much the bowling; it was more so the couple of lapses in the field,” Law pointed out.”And then, with the bat, Jason Mohammed played beautifully for his 70 and Jonathan Carter again for his fifty, so it would have been nice if one of those two had gone on to get a big score.”West Indies take on England in the second ODI today at the same venue, and Law said he was hoping his side could make the necessary adjustments.
WASHINGTON – On the eve of a critical vote, House Democrats labored Thursday to lock down a majority behind a Sept. 1, 2008, deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the sternest test yet for a determined new majority eager to challenge President George W. Bush. “If it comes off, it’s a superb accomplishment,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., as the party’s leaders cajoled liberals who want an even faster timetable and moderates fearful of tying the hands of the commander in chief and generals in the field. Democratic aides expressed growing confidence of success when the vote is called, and four of the bill’s most consistent critics said they had told Speaker Nancy Pelosi they would help pass it, even though they intend to personally vote against it. “While I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war,” said one of the four, Rep. Barbara Lee of California. An aide to Pelosi confirmed that the speaker had met with Lee and California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson. But with the leadership lobbying intensively on its own, it was not clear which lawmakers, if any, had swung behind the bill as a result of the offer the four had made. Throughout the day, a string of liberal opponents of the war swung behind a measure they deemed insufficient. “I want this war ended today. If I thought it would help this war ending sooner by voting against the bill, I would vote against it in a heartbeat,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who sponsored legislation for a troop withdrawal in 2005. “But I don’t believe that to be the case,” he added of the measure, which combines funding for the war, the troop withdrawal deadline and billions of dollars in funding for politically popular programs at home ranging from farm aid to relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The legislation marks Congress’ most direct challenge to date of Bush’s policy in a war that has claimed the lives of nearly 3,200 U.S. troops. As debate began in the House, Republicans criticized it vociferously. “The bill is a sham,” said Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, adding it would “provide fodder for our enemies abroad.” Bush has threatened to veto the bill, opposing both the troop-withdrawal provision and billions of dollars in spending that Democrats added. Money troubles Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any delay in approving the funds could “have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families.” White House press secretary Tony Snow sharpened the message. “There’s a very real chance that money for the troops will run out while members of Congress are on vacation,” he said. “Is that the message you want to send to men and women who are putting their lives on the line?” Across the Capitol, a Senate committee launched legislation taking a slightly different approach – setting a date for the beginning of a withdrawal but only a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the final exit of combat forces. The measure cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee on a voice vote, but Republicans said they would attempt to strip out the withdrawal provisions when the issue comes before the full Senate next week. Senate Democrats fell short of a majority, 50-48, last week on a similar attempt to set a timeline for the war. Since then, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and others have made changes in hopes of persuading Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas to swing behind the withdrawal proposal. The changes include a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly. Looking for support More than two months after Democrats took power, the main focus in the war debate was on the House, where Pelosi and other leading Democrats chipped away at holdouts. Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, a 10th-term lawmaker and longtime opponent of the war, said he would support the measure. He called the legislation a “bare minimum but dramatically better than what we have today, which is a war without end, from a president capable only of escalation, not negotiation.” Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, new to Congress, said he was leaning toward supporting the legislation, as well. Like McDermott, he said he wanted a faster end to the war, but also said he had listened to the arguments of leadership that the current measure was the most that could be passed given the current makeup of the House. “What we are here to do is to govern,” Johnson said of the new Democratic majority, which came to power in January after midterm elections framed by voter discontent with the war. Democrats hold 233 seats in the House, meaning they can lose 15 votes from their own rank and file and still be assured of passing the measure. Whatever the vote count, some war foes disagreed with the strategy. “I think the Democrats are doing it all wrong,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. “We don’t agree with them,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She said she and others believe the party must “honor what the voters of November said, which is to be bold, end the war and bring the troops home.”160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!