The Democrats are making a mistake to allow the debate to be about funding or not funding. Not only does it feed into the 'stab in the back' narrative, it provides the Bush/Cheney Junta a way to avoid total responsibility for the Iraq Nightmare.
I am not suggesting that Democrats should do nothing about funding, or grant Bush/Cheney everything they want.
The Democrats should be aggressively investigating the whole Iraq invasion. They should ignore the pressures from the Beltway to 'move forward' and expose the mendacity and corruption that created our current situation. The goal would be to inform the American public of the truth and to completely destroy the credibility and political support for Bush/Cheney and for any escalation or expansion of the war.
The American people who once supported the Iraq invasion turned against Bush/Cheney because they are losing; they did not turn against the war, itself, or against the idea that Americans have the right to invade countries and kill people who we don't like. This latter idea is the one that must be changed.
Posted by James E. Powell at February 4, 2007 01:29 PMSomehow the majority of the American people must come to the realization that bush/cheney & the neocon cabal lied about Iraq. When and if that happens I would hope that Congress would then would then have the courage to impeach the lot of them. This in my opinion is our only way out of Iraq and to begin to maybe recover any respect from the rest of the world.
Posted by chris at February 4, 2007 02:00 PMPeople;
The whole idea was start the debacle in Iraq while they raided the tresuary and then take the workers social security to pay for the rest of the war.
It has never been war against terror it has been Bush's war against Social Security - they knew once they inserted American troops in the Middle - East it would take ten years for them to get out.
They never fought this war to win it.
A Civil war is perfect cover to steal the oil.
This war has nothing to do with making America safer - it has to do with solidifying the rich oligarchs power and destroying the middle class.
Wake up.
Posted by Promano at February 4, 2007 02:21 PMThere is a reason Iraq had to be ruled by an iron-fisted Dictator prior to our invasion. We are seeing that reason daily.
As for Congress and Bush, the only thing that keeps his war machine going is money. Cut the money, and the machine grinds to a halt. What everyone seems to be overlooking is that the clock is ticking on Bush, and his strategy is to run out the clock. The more the Dems are lured into "talking" about Iraq, the more time and lives are lost. Act, now.
Agreement with Powell (above)
Posted by Vigilante at February 4, 2007 03:11 PMYea, except for fox the media is taking a closer look this time.
Well you know what the chimp in his infinate wisdom said: "fool you once, er, fool me twice, uh, well you know shame on them and me, er can't get fooled again or something like that."
Posted by TIKI AL at February 4, 2007 03:31 PMI agree with Powell except that this is not the time for more committee meetings, it's the time for action.
The Congress needs to quit the "we are a co-equal branch" and "we control the purse-strings" petty whining that only leads to charges that they don't support the troops and they are defeatists. They need to step up and take responsibility for these wars--and the only responsible course is to end them. The US Constitution gives the Congress that responsibility, to say to the troop commander (the president): "That's enough. Wrap it up and get out. We have affected a regime change in Iraq, at tremendous cost, and it's time to leave. Now."
Specifically, the US Constitution states that "the Congress shall have Power . . . to provide for the common Defence" and "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States". So it's crystal clear that the Constitution gives the power to provide for US defense to the Congress--I don't know how it could be any clearer. There are reams of historical data to confirm it--it isn't like Bush is the first president to act like an emperor--it's a common tendency.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 4, 2007 05:34 PMpromano,
You are right, right, right. It's the war itself that is the gift that keeps on giving to Bushco, and to ensure that it continued (as you suggest) the US (I believe) was instrumental in the Samarra mosque bombing a year ago that precipitated the civil war. Wall Street can make money in peacetime, and does, but there is nothing like a long war to pump up the bottom lines with billions of dollars from the public treasury.
"War is a racket . . .the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives". --Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
Posted by Don Bacon at February 4, 2007 05:42 PMHere are McCain's 'benchmarks'--does anyone see any benchmark that is remotely attainable by the Iraqi 'government'?
From the McCain resolution:
Iraqi political leaders must show visible progress toward meeting specific benchmarks, including:
(1) Deploying a significant number of new Iraqi security forces to partner with U.S. units in securing Baghdad;
(2) Assuming responsibility for security in all provinces in a timely manner;
(3) Disarming individual militias and ensuring security forces are accountable to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq;
(4) Ensuring equitable distribution of government resources regardless of sect or ethnicity;
(5) Passing legislation to ensure that Iraq's oil resources benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner, and implementing such legislation;
(6) Building an effective, independent judiciary that will uphold the rule of law and ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens of Iraq;
(7) Pursuing all those who engage in violence or threaten the security of the Iraqi population, regardless of sect or political affiliation;
(8) Passing and implementing new legislation that will reform the de-Ba'athification process;
(9) Conducting provincial elections;
(10) Ensuring a fair process for amending the constitution of Iraq;
(11) Expending promised funds to provide basic services and employment opportunities for all Iraqis, including a $10 billion fund for reconstruction, and ensuring that these funds reach Sunni areas, including Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad and largely Sunni Anbar Province;
The Government of Iraq must make visible, concrete progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated above.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 4, 2007 05:46 PMI find it hard to believe that an additional 20 to 40k in troops is going to stabilize the country. The increase would put us just under 200K. It was projected before the invasion that it would take 260K to keep the country, stable. The country is now less stable and we are going to control it with less troops than originally projected before the war when it was relatively stable? I don't buy it. This is just another delay to blame someone else when things go bad - and they will. If we really wanted to control the country, put in the requisite troops otherwise get out.. and seeing we don't have the requisite troops....
Posted by William Jensen at February 4, 2007 07:35 PMI agree with Powell and Jensen. All these resolutions are silly except insofar as they at least finally create a forum for an open debate on Iraq. Yes, the quicker the better on the gross malfeasance of Haliburton et al. Another phony argument the Repugs are using is "you confirmed Petreus, but you don't like his mission." Petreus is only a soldier, and he must take orders from his superiors like all soldiers. He has the option of retiring, but maybe he's not ready to retire. If he is ordered to prepare immediately for complete evacuation of the Middle East I'm sure he will gladly follow that order too. It all pays the same to him. (except for whatever possible book deal he may get--Tommy Franks cleaned up.)
Posted by howard hughes blues at February 5, 2007 08:04 AM