Politics – Senators Hagel and McCain, both Republicans and both Vietnam War veterans, are introducing competing non-binding resolutions on the Senate Floor. Hagle's resolution says the "Surge" is a bad idea. McCain's says it's a great idea. It's not clear that either resolution will surmount the 60 votes needed to shut off a filibuster. But what
another issue is the amount of energy a non-binding resolution is getting. for what? for the sense of the senate? what is needed is action that has consequences. these guys have no courage at all.
Sadly I have to agree. A non-binding resolution isn't worth the paper it is written on and will do nothing to resolve this issue. The only thing it will do is provide some "political cover" for those that are seeking "higher office" and nothing more.
I don't underatand what more is needed in the way of evidence showing that we are in a situation that cannot be won! Hell even our military leaders have said time and again that there is no possibility of a military resolution, much less victory - in Iraq and it is becoming increasingly apparent that there doesn't seem to be a political one either!
WE need to walk away and if it puts egg on our face - So Freaking What! - Our reputation is already in the dumpster worldwide because of Bush and it certainly cannot be anymore tarnished that it already is! The only thing remaining does is raise the death count of American troops even higher and leave each and every one of us with their blood on our hands!
Amen, Searunner. They'd giggle in the back rooms of the White House at a non-binding resolution.
Impeachment is the only option. And it must be done ASAP.
I agree with both of you gentlemen! Impeachment will be the only thing to stop this madman! Congress MUST take a tougher stand against this "president" as not to use a more fitting title.
Z
I am with all of you. Impeachment now and more importantly remind the next President that he will be watched. Bush and Cheney may only be the first ter of this whole thing.
I e-mailed my representative last night. If you feel the way I do I suggest e-mailing your representative and expressing your interest. This is what democracy is. Let yourself be heard. If they don't listen the system no longer functions.
Ok ok, I am with all you guys too, but I think he is more powerful than we all have been led to believe. The Bush's could ruin every person on capital hill if they wanted to, and that would be for starters. We have seen worse happen. Don't you guys start to wonder why he is not in trouble already and being impeached? Maybe wonder why no one will ever speak out against him alone? Does anyone know about the section of law in the patriot act that SPECIFICALLY protects the president from any crimes of war? With the way things work, would it ever be his name that shows up on the owners title? Wouldn't it always be someone else's finger prints on the smoking gun?
I am totally with you guys, but I don't think anyone has the balls to stand up to him, because they realize it's not just him, it's his family and his cronies? Which rule most of the commerce in the world right now? Do I have to spell this out?? I believe anyone who tries won't be in politics very long, it's sad, but true.
SO what you're saying is it will take civil unrest and revolution?
OR is that just a bit high and right?
The good thing about laws is that they can be changed. Saddam was convicted on the murder of what - 148 people? How about the go order Bush gave for the invasion? If he got convicted of deception and as a result murder he's got Saddam by what ........10,000%? Plus 3000 or more Americans!
I disagree. A non-binding resolution is the appropriate step to take. It seems as if Bush has the money and authority he needs to send a troop escalation to Iraq without further Congressional action. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, some are already preparing or already have been deployed to Iraq. There is criticism that Bush intentionally waited too long to reveal his Iraq strategy and is leaving little time for Congress to respond to it. (There isn't enough time to pass anything stronger than a nonbinding resolution before the bulk of the troop escalation is deployed.) In doing so, Bush is trying to polarize the newly-elected Democrats and trap them into one of two unfavorable positions:
1) Continue to fund the troop escalation, and risk being called hypocrites by their own constituency for funding a war they publicly denounce, or
2) Defund the war and be accused of not supporting the troops during the 2008 presidential election.
In your 1st article, it doesn't sound like Reid is supporting a troop escalation. Instead, he seems to be striking a bipartisan chord by saying it's to develop a bipartisan plan by merging both plans: Bush's temporary troop escalation with a timeline for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. He's very careful in stating that he would only support a temporary surge if it included the Democrats' plan of a timeline for a phased withdrawal, but Bush rejected this timeline and therefore rejected the idea of a bipartisan plan.
"If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it," said Reid
In your 2nd article, Pelosi ss saying more international troops are needed to relieve our military; she is not advocating escalation. Your article itself admits: "To be fair, she [Pelosi] was trying to say that we should get international troops to go."
Would not more foreign troops be a form of escalation? Is Nancy seeking condemnation of the UN rather than the US? Not that this is a bad idea, garner international support. But at this point who'd go in? Not EU troops. Arab support would be better received. But alas, this takes a "diplomatic" surge!
"Would not more foreign troops be a form of escalation?"
Not necessarily. Pelosi was calling for a restoration of talks with the UN and NATO in the hopes that international troops could relieve American troops in Iraq. The total number of troops may be reduced, may be kept constant, or may be increased. But calling for more foreign troops (and less American troops) doesn't necessarily equate to advocating an escalation.
"But at this point who'd go in?"
I suppose anyone who is interested in committing to a peacekeeping mission. More cyncally, anyone who is interested in Iraqi oil.
"But alas, this takes a "diplomatic" surge!"
Precisely.
Hmmm, "relieve American troops", means to me having those troops conduct the same mission. If the troops replace ours and also take on a peace keeping mission, then you really have a quagmire, you can fire on the peace keepers and they can not fire back. I feel the diplomatic effort is needed in the middle east and then we'd have regional trade offs. For example: Arab troops for our support for a Palestinian state. These diplomatic efforts can work the other way also, certain non aggression guarantees for inspection of Iranian research facilities currently off limits/or nuclear research freezes. Recognition of Israels right to exist peacefully and a true Palestinian autonomous state.
The point to be made it takes "a diplomatic surge", and a dedication to seek regional security and to do those things that will remove the incentives to become a terrorist. UN efforts are pointless at this time. "Those cows have long since left the barn"
Incentives for being a terrorist??? Would that be the 70 virgins? Or what ever the number is...
It's kind humoring to see everyone know so much about Iraq, when most of us have never been there, nor do we know if anything we read is true about Iraq, or if we are in another one of Americas propaganda games. Has anyone here actually seen the Iranians backing terrorists? Has anyone had fist hand knowledge of Iran giving weapons to terrorists or seen with their own eyes the serial numbers of guns to know they came from Iran? It's a fact that we read generally what this administration allows us to read. Sometimes the opposite seems more likely than what we think is the truth. Our government has done this in every war. Case in point, when was the last time you heard of any peaceful Sunni families being murdered by Shiite revenge? You won't.
Propaganda, we've seen it soooo many times in the past, yet we still believe everything our government tells us. Why is that?!
"Propaganda, we've seen it soooo many times in the past, yet we still believe everything our government tells us. Why is that?"
Some of us who've been there don't believe the BS that America is force-fed. Some of us have been in places and heard stories from home that made us wonder if our families and friends were delusional or watching the US (never lie!) news - because what they heard wasn't reality.
Unfortunately, those who "know" are in the minority, and the majority that soaks up the BS tells them they're idiots, morons, or even better -"subversives". As well, there are those that "know" that couldn't comprehend that our government might be feeding the people who support them a bunch of BS - it just couldn't be!
It can be, it is, and it isn't likely to change. People lie to get what they want or to fuel their objectives and ego. Not all, but enough. Just my opinion, based on what I've experienced.
How in the WORLD can anyone say that not supporting the "war" is not supporting the troops!? That is absolutely a classic "spin." I've heard from many soldiers and their families their feelings about this war. (A close friend's nephew just lost his leg Saturday.) If you want to "support the troops" get them the hell outa there! There's nothing left to win in Iraq! HALF the money needed for this latest insurgency would go a loong way toward securing our borders.
Furthermore, remember that the reason why the Democrats are calling for an eventual troop withdrawal is to save American lives. Even if funding for the war was drastically reduced, Bush could choose to send the troop escalation into Iraq anyway. The reduced funding will result in an inadequately equipped and supported troop deployment that will cost even more American lives, which is antithetical to the Democrats' original intention.
So far, Bush is still relying on his Republican minority to hold together. This resolution, however, attempts to foil Bush's last base of support by allowing both Democrats and Republicans to express their disapproval of the war together, even if they disagree on the appropriate military action (phased withdrawal, immediate withdrawal, benchmarks, conditions for staying in Iraq, etc). Perhaps, once Bush realizes that he has lost the support of both the public and his own Republican base, he will change course on Iraq.
DAVIDHALKO WROTE:
"If Iraq's nominally secular government falls, they are all dead - they know that"
The situations between Iran and Iraq are different. In Iran, the binary conflict was between an unpopular government and anti-government religious radicals.
In Iraq, the government was elected by the people and therefore receives general popular support. The situation in Iraq is also much more fractured. Instead of two opposing sides, Iraq is facing: violence between rival Shiite groups; sectarian violence between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd; violence between Baathist loyalists and the new government police/military; violence from foreign operatives (Iran?); etc. Because of this, I predict a mass ethnic cleansing. Instead, it's likely that the current civil war will continue as it is doing so now.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
256)
My concern here is this. Bush obviously wants this war to go on till he is out of office. Whoever ends it can then be accused of losing the war Bush botched. Bringing Iran into the fray will make things so horrendous that there will no longer be any rational exit strategy. Thus, Bush gets what he wants.
McCain's resolution has no hope of passing. I worry that Hagel's non-binding resolution may leave Cheney worried that time is running short to attack Iran. Far from stopping Bush, it may push him to accelerate escalation.
I wonder if hearings to draw up articles of impeachment for Cheney and Bush aren't a much safer course.
That's one way to look at it, but if Bush is able to demonstrate "a complete victory" and is able to extract the troops or begin to prior to the next election, then he can claim to have been right all along. His opponent if he's a "cut and runner" will be vilified. These resolutions are nothing but political posturing and are useless and I'm afraid articles of impeachment would be looked upon as posturing also and get no where. The Republicans would scream dirty politics and I'm afraid such action would be even more divisive. We need to get on with the business at hand There are better options as stated in other posts.
I'm not sure what those better options you are referring to are. I wish a "complete victory" were possible, but so far I haven't even seen a good definition of what "complete victory" means.
Complete victory means an end to the violence and an Iraq where terrorists are not provided safe haven. This requires an holistic regional diplomatic drive to involve all those involved in Iraq in dialogue because they are already involved and have their interests at stake. It also requires the acceptance of the probabilty that Iraq will not survive as a nation and may be divided and that other nations will exert their influence.
This won't happen though because the administration is absolutely incompetent and knows nothing about diplomacy.
A "complete victory" is defined by the administration and that definition is evolving. It is also defined by political opponents either from within or outside of the country. That changes also.
Version 1 Decrease the level of violence by military action to a point where it was manageable by the Iraqi government.
Version 2 Just declare victory and leave.
Version 3 Bomb the hell out of someone.
The options I referred to were not options for declaration of victory. I was referring to options to change strategies to bring an end to conflict. That is what the post is about, "to surge or not to surge". ETproductions concern was that a non binding resolution "passed for no surge" would lead the administration to escalate sooner.
Impeachment was suggested as "safer". My conclusion was for using other options (as a replacement for impeachment) setting deadlines, caps on funding, binding resolution not to attack Iran,etc.
A binding resolution to not attack Iran would be incredibly stupid.
I threw that in as an option, without evaluation, some feel an effort to impeach just as stupid. Not to fund...would be not a resolution but be just as binding. Congressional hearings is an option also, and there are others. I do not opine as to the value of the option, I just feel there are options other than spending political capitol on impeachment. This was an attempt to get others to think outside of the impeachment box.
Bush and Cheney will NOT be impeached, no one would ever have the balls to do so, because they like their simple life more than their freedom, and ours means nothing apparently. No one is willing to stand up and lose everything they've worked for, just to play a losing game anyway. A waste of time and money we don't have. Bush did what he was told to do, and he was told by the worlds most powerful men. Why does it seem everyone forgets where he comes from and who his father is, or grand father for that matter? These guys have been wrapped in secret deep sh!t up to their eyeballs ever since Prescott Bush funded Nazi's and the V2 project. All Jr. had to do was make a few laws to protect himself, and he did.
Option 2.
If Bush can come up with that "complete victory" in two years, I would agree. But there are just some things that are so obviously impossible that there's not much point listening to someone who claims that they can do it. If Bush said he could flap his arms hard enough to fly to the moon, who would believe him?
He's telling us he's going to end an all-out civil war without taking sides in it. About as likely as arm-flapping all the way to the moon.
If pigs could fly, they'd have wings. I would like to have seen this over victorious in 2004. I think it's too little and too late. Now somebody's got to bite the bullet. My question is, why should it be us?
Well said ET. They will as always stay one step ahead of the laws. I am afraid if we want to stop these guys, we have to kick them out. They are at this stage void of rational thought if they ever had any. What continues to boggle the mind is the lack of action by the DEM congress, they may not have the vote to impeach but surly a little more noise would go a long way.
That would create a lot of noise and would go a long way to what??? It's the what that concerns me.
I would expect that Just as in the Nixon administration, Cheney would get fired by the president, perhaps for his leaking in the Wilson affair. After all, that is what Bush said he'd do with the leaker, and the name of the leaker is now on the table due to the trial. Bush could replace Cheney with a moderate Republican then step down to avoid impeachment just as Richard Nixon did.
Bush can't lose his "head", or the puppet can't fire the puppeteer.
Well Impeachment i hope. Nancy is 3rd in line.
"I wonder if hearings to draw up articles of impeachment for Cheney and Bush aren't a much safer course"
There's an understatement if I ever saw one.
"Bush obviously wants this war to go on till he is out of office. Whoever ends it can then be accused of losing the war Bush botched."
This does not seem truly consistent with historical precedence. The Vietnam war has gone into the history books as LBJ's War, not Nixon's who was president when the troops were pulled out. LBJ knew this fact and admitted to it not long before he died. Assuredly, just as with VN, this is Bush's war and he will get the credit or damnation regardless of who is in office when the troops leave.
Now the "War on Terror" and the Iraq war have become inextricably linked. Just as the "War on Terror" can never end (by definition there can never be a ccomplete end to terrorism in this world as long as people live with a modicum of "freedom") so the Iraq war in some ways will never end either. This instability will "force" the US to maintain what stability is necessary for the oil that is integral to this economy to continue to flow. This Iraq invasion and toppling of its gov't has opened Pandora's Box unto the world.
ET,
I really wish there was something we could do to make things different than they are today in the world, but it seems we have done so much damage to the mid east by trying to control it, and things have gotten so out of hand with our mid east disciples starting to make their own decisions, that I truly hate to admit it, but we need to be there. The terrible thing is that no one can really tell you why we are there now, because that someone can't give an 8 hour lecture on what the real reasons are, we apparently . We are cleaning house and there is dirt everywhere. Muslims hate Americans, but not because some book says so, simply put, if you had a big bully taking over your yard as a kid and he did whatever he wanted in your yard, you would hate him. Then your big brother comes and tries to kick him out of the yard, then he kills your big brother and makes your life even worse. Then think about that happening for fifty years and how you'd feel so much hate...
I beginning to believe our own CIA is responsible for the group we now know as Al Qeada, having trained mercenaries in the 60's and early 70's that included Bin Ladin. And it makes me wonder about the real relationship between the Bush's and Bin Ladin's, and don't forget Sr. was head of CIA in the early to late 60's, although he denied he actually was. This is a secret war played on a public battelfield, so that's why no one understands this and the reasons we need to be there, even the ones who think we should be there don't even know the real reasons why, they are just scared of terrorist in our country, boy if they only knew! The administration doesn't care about anything having to do with right or wrong, because guess what, and you can mark my words, Bush will not get in trouble for anything, not one thing because he will be protected by the most powerful men in the world, because he is only doing what he is told. These powerful men are not governed by our laws, they are exempt.
No one will ever know I don't think what this war is really about, US Dollars and Euros? Our national interest in oil? To wipe out terrorism and dictators? All the above? If it were just about those things. we'd be home now. There so many things that are really involved in this war, and I believe it goes back farther than the year most of us here were born, and it also involves security issues with the certain presidents, the CIA, NSA, and the National Reserve Bank of NY, issues that would make US citizens have a call to arms if we knew what indeed our government was up to. If I had to pick the one family who is the single most threat to our national security, free speech, the future economy and global alternative energy future, and the freedoms we have a right to under our constitution, in the last fifty years, it would be the Bush's by far, above anyone else. It would be great if we could just come home and end it, but I am very afraid it's not as simple as that.
Left Turn I agree with you.
I read a few days ago that the only countries in the world with out a central bank are the axis of evil countries Bush spoke of. There is much more going on than we all know. The Bush family and the Bin Ladin family are a close group. If I am not mistaken they had contracts between each other in the past. I am beginning to believe this "war" is just a tool not the thing that is happening. Sorry, I can't say it much better than that. I am also comfortable saying that the Bush family and the Bin Ladin family may be acting in concert in all of this. Saddam's dead, thats great - but he did not blow up the WTC's. We got the wrong guy for the American People! I did not want Saddam, I want Osama!!!
Apparently Osama is not important to Bush!!!
One thing to not forget, if Osama goes down, then the Bush family will be exposed. Whether they kill Osama or capture him, answers to our biggest questions will come pouring out like a river. It will never happen though because they could have killed him by now. Laser satellites I believe can track anyone, and kill them on spot if a kill was imminently needed. I assume that's how they found Saddam, and it's rumored in the underground channels Al Zakari was killed with a laser guided missile, and not the kind we have on the ground, but the laser AND missile came from space, if even a missile!
I might point out that your reply is one of the best I have seen, because anyone that is strong enough to speak with their guts over their heart, are the true American Patriots in this nation. In that regard, you could not have written anything as well stated as you did. We can start using our hearts again when we have a government we don't have to worry about, god what am I saying! lol
Thank you for your comments. Great theory on Osama. He is the key card in the Bush/Cheney house of cards! If Bush needs war, lets go after Osama, directly! We can find water on the moon, but when it comes to a human on earth then we get lost - right!
I was unaware of that business connection. Thank you...
As for the CIA, I think it should be deactivated! It does little gathering of Intel and too much interloping.
We are really there because of OIL. Think of what would happen if we lost this energy supply. Got a horse? If we don't stabilize that region of the world you are going to need one. This is the truth that no one wants to admit. I am not saying it is a bad thing, it's just the real reason. In one way I have to respect Bush for standing up to the Bully in the Sand box, but at the same time, I realize that the Bully was the stabilizing force in the middle east. Now we have to find a way to stabilize it again.
IMHO ...McCain is correct. In order to put controls back into this LIC, we need the troop factor in the METT-TP mechanics to be adhered to. Since the Mission and Politics are so ambiguous to our Congress. We have a responsibility to our troops on the ground first and foremost. That is the priority! First we increase, but not a mere paltry sum of 20K...but with a least 150K. Then secure the borders and cities - arrest all the secterain leaders regardless of religious affiliation - if their followers adhere to violent attacks. THEN talk about the legitimate government.
Oh and so that no mistake can be taken for our resolve ...make the ROE in this LIC into a Free Fire Zone.