Senate panel rejects Bush’s Iraq strategy

[zhelas]

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed President Bush’s plans to increase troops strength in Iraq on Wednesday as “not in the national interest,” an unusual wartime repudiation of the commander-in-chief.

The vote on the non-binding measure was 12-9 and largely along party lines.

“We better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the only Republican on the committee to announce support for the measure.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the panel’s chairman, said the legislation is “not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq.”
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Less than one month after taking control of Congress, there was little doubt Democrats had the votes to prevail. They hold 11 seats on the committee, to 10 for Republicans.

The full Senate is scheduled to begin debate on the measure next week, although Biden has said he is willing to negotiate changes in hopes of attracting support from more Republicans.

House Democrats intend to hold a vote shortly after the Senate acts.

Even Republicans opposed to the measure expressed unease with the revised policy involving a war that has lasted nearly four years, claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops and helped Democrats win control of Congress in last fall’s elections.

Lugar's approach
“I am not confident that President Bush’s plan will succeed,” said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, senior Republican on the committee.

But he also said he would vote against the measure. “It is unclear to me how passing a nonbinding resolution that the president has already said he will ignore will contribute to any improvement or modification of our Iraq policy.”

“The president is deeply invested in this plan, and the deployments ... have already begun,” Lugar added.

He suggested a more forceful role for Congress, and said lawmakers must ensure the administration is “planning for contingencies, including the failure of the Iraqi government to reach compromises and the persistence of violence despite U.S. and Iraqi government efforts.”

Hagel’s remarks were among the most impassioned of the day.

“There is no strategy,” he said of the Bush administration’s war management. “This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder.”

A Vietnam veteran, he lectured fellow senators not to duck a painful debate about a war that has grown increasingly unpopular as it has gone on. “No president of the United States can sustain a foreign policy or a war policy without the sustained support of the American people,” Hagel said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16785663/

[Stanley Burrell]

This was unilaterally vetoed the second Iraq was put onto the table.

The only thing I can think of is that the taboo of "Veto," in and of itself, needs to be hammered on by the congress in the same way it makes the public aware of things like stem cells and gay marriage.

[Parkbandit]

OH NO! NOT A NON BINDING RESOLUTION!!!!

Here's an idea.. if you don't like Bush's plan, please put yours forth so we can be equally critical of it.

[Stanley Burrell]

OH NO! NOT A NON BINDING RESOLUTION!!!!

Here's an idea.. if you don't like Bush's plan, please put yours forth so we can be equally critical of it.

I think congress' non-binding resolution of at least claiming they will block this idiot from continuously spending like a drunken sailor is a solution beyond the last six and half years of economic politics.

Not that I have this much <--> faith that any show of squelching the CEO's dipping into the American peoples' piggy bank will actually occur.

[Gan]

OH NO! NOT A NON BINDING RESOLUTION!!!!

Here's an idea.. if you don't like Bush's plan, please put yours forth so we can be equally critical of it.

I wont hold my breath.

[Back]

Symbolic. Especially considering the growing number of republicans signing on.

[Sean of the Thread]

So far all they can do is criticize.. nobody has the balls to put their plan out. That about sums up their campaigns as well.

[Back]

Feingold has some balls.

Breaking Another Iraq Taboo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-russ-feingold/breaking-another-iraq-tab_b_39912.html)


For the first time in the four-plus years since Congress authorized the Iraq war, Congress is having a serious debate about how we can fix the President's failed Iraq policy. Unfortunately, while there have been plenty of members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, voicing opposition to the President's plans for escalation, most of the plans being pushed will do nothing to end the catastrophe in Iraq.


Americans are not looking to Congress to pass symbolic measures, they are looking to us to stop the President's failed Iraq policy. That is why we must finally break this taboo that somehow Congress can't talk about using its power of the purse to end the war in Iraq. The Constitution makes Congress a co-equal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the brave troops whose lives are on the line, to end the war. We can and must force the President to safely redeploy our troops so that we can get back to focusing on those who attacked us on 9/11.

Tomorrow, I will be chairing a full Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." This hearing will help remind my colleagues in the Senate and the American public that Congress is not powerless - even when it acts that way. We have the power to stop the policies of a President that continue to hurt our national security. Soon after tomorrow's hearing, I will introduce legislation to do just that.

I want everyone to be clear on exactly what my proposal will do. The first and most important thing to know is that my plan does not cut funding for the troops. Our troops will continue to receive the salaries, equipment, training and protection they need. What I am proposing is ending funds for the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after the enactment of the bill. This will require the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by that date. My bill does provide exceptions to allow for specific types of military missions within Iraq past the six-month deadline, such as targeted counter-terrorism efforts, the protection of American personnel and infrastructure, and a limited number of troops needed to help train Iraqi security forces. But these will be limited forces used for specific missions.

Suggestions that our troops will be left in the lurch couldn't be further from the truth. My proposal would bring the troops out of harm's way.

Congress has used this power several times before, most recently in Somalia and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I'm sure the White House and others will resort to their usual intimidation tactics to try to paint this proposal as not supporting the troops. I'd like to hear from the President exactly how sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into a civil war supports them. We must not let this administration continue to intimidate like it did in the lead-up to war.

In August 2005, I became the first Senator to propose a timetable for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq. A timetable was considered taboo in Congress then, but it's clearly the position supported by the majority of this country. Now it is time to break another taboo - that Congress can't use its constitutional power to end funding for the war and bring our troops home safely. The catastrophe in Iraq is not the fault of our brave men and women in uniform, but rather the failed policies of this administration. Our troops and our national security should no longer be the ones to suffer for this Administration's terrible mistake.


-------------------------------------------------------------

That should separate the men from the boys on the issue.

[Sean of the Thread]

Separate teh men from teh boys?

You're truly clueless. Best advice for you is to stick to photchop or whatever it is you attempt to do for a living.. stay ON marijuana and do not procreate.

[Stanley Burrell]

Congress is having a serious debate about how we can fix the President's failed Iraq policy.

Congeniality, Backlash. Multi-millionaires arguing with multi-billionaires, plus getting lumpsums for these argumentative tones cited right out of the teleprompter.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing The House will be able to preventatively with a second-term wartime Republican executive branch (for x-ty reasons.)

All I'll say is that I very much liked a bunch of Fonda's distinct quotes directed at the House during the recent rallying. Not that she could ever be heard by any puppet with pocket change.

[Back]

Congeniality, Backlash. Multi-millionaires arguing with multi-billionaires, plus getting lumpsums for these argumentative tones cited right out of the teleprompter.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing The House will be able to preventatively with a second-term wartime Republican executive branch (for x-ty reasons.)

All I'll say is that I very much liked a bunch of Fonda's distinct quotes directed at the House during the recent rallying. Not that she could ever be heard by any puppet with pocket change.

I’m skeptical as well, but hopeful. More on the hopeful side than I probably should be. When the voters sent a clear signal last November that they were fed up with the war its time for Congress to do something about it. And not just symbolic.

[Parkbandit]

I love how these liberals try and 'do the right thing' and support the troops, when in fact they loath everything there is about the military.

[Parkbandit]

I’m skeptical as well, but hopeful. More on the hopeful side than I probably should be. When the voters sent a clear signal last November that they were fed up with the war its time for Congress to do something about it. And not just symbolic.

I don't remember getting to vote on any war.. I voted for politicians.

Good spin though.. really.

[Back]

I don't remember getting to vote on any war.. I voted for politicians.

Good spin though.. really.

The further you get from reality the more it must seem like reality is spin to you. The more you think that common opinion is far left, where does that put you?

[Parkbandit]

The further you get from reality the more it must seem like reality is spin to you. The more you think that common opinion is far left, where does that put you?

We can always take a poll to see who people here believe is more grounded in reality if you like. Even your liberal friends think you are a fucking nutcase.

And seriously.. is that the only comebacks you can muster? Ones I used against you? Come on boy.. think of some new ones.

[Back]

We can always take a poll to see who people here believe is more grounded in reality if you like. Even your liberal friends think you are a fucking nutcase.

And seriously.. is that the only comebacks you can muster? Ones I used against you? Come on boy.. think of some new ones.

Heh, we are on the same page. The comebacks are getting old. Time for some creativity.

And here I thought I was being creative by calling you extreme because most people are against this war now.

[Parkbandit]

And here I thought...

And this is where you went wrong.

[Back]

And this is where you went wrong.

Heard that one before. Most freethinkers do. And its the same old thing from the ignorant.

How will throwing a few more troops at Iraq solve the problem? Explain it to me genius.

[Skirmisher]

I love how these liberals try and 'do the right thing' and support the troops, when in fact they loath everything there is about the military.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840614/site/newsweek/

...the state of the Bush administration is at its worst yet, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans.

All those people hate everything about the military?

[Sean of the Thread]

Heard that one before. Most freethinkers do. And its the same old thing from the ignorant.

How will throwing a few more troops at Iraq solve the problem? Explain it to me genius.

.. And you just referred to yourself as a free thinker.

FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF dumbfuck or get out of the adult threads. You have all of the sources anyone else has available to research the subject.

[Back]

.. And you just referred to yourself as a free thinker.

FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF dumbfuck or get out of the adult threads. You have all of the sources anyone else has available to research the subject.

You are sounding more and more like a crazy homeless person shouting on a street corner.

What is there to look up? Should I Google “How to win in Iraq” and its going to tell me “send 21k more troops”? I could always read the Hamilton-Baker report... oh wait, they did not recommend escalation.

[Sean of the Thread]

Oh I'm sorry.. it also takes common sense.

[Parkbandit]

You can find plenty of quality information of people in the military saying that the surge can work. Of course, you can also find plenty of people outside the military saying it won't work.

Personally.. the libs have fucked up our efforts over there so bad, there's no way we can win. If we start conducting the war the way we should have from the beginning, we'll have the hippies in a "OMG LOOK AT THE CARNAGE!! WE NEED TO STOP!!!"

Of course... hippies have never, ever been right about anything concerning war.. but let's keep having them dictate our war plans. Once they get their way and we withdrawal... then Iran goes in and establishes their own goverrnment there.. then proliferate nuclear weapons to the point where we can't do shit.. then what?

What we need is another wake the fuck up call... until then, the tree hugging idiots controlling the main media outlets will continue to condemn the war and the Bush Administration until their idea of peace is reached.

[Artha]

Am I the only one that thinks planning wars should be left out of the senate and in the Pentagon warroom?

[zhelas]

Am I the only one that thinks planning wars should be left out of the senate and in the Pentagon warroom?

:clap:
Agreed. Politicians certainly know how to screw up a war.

[Back]

You can find plenty of quality information of people in the military saying that the surge can work. Of course, you can also find plenty of people outside the military saying it won't work.

Personally.. the libs have fucked up our efforts over there so bad, there's no way we can win. If we start conducting the war the way we should have from the beginning, we'll have the hippies in a "OMG LOOK AT THE CARNAGE!! WE NEED TO STOP!!!"

Of course... hippies have never, ever been right about anything concerning war.. but let's keep having them dictate our war plans. Once they get their way and we withdrawal... then Iran goes in and establishes their own goverrnment there.. then proliferate nuclear weapons to the point where we can't do shit.. then what?

What we need is another wake the fuck up call... until then, the tree hugging idiots controlling the main media outlets will continue to condemn the war and the Bush Administration until their idea of peace is reached.

Just... wow. I feel like I just read something scrawled across a piece of cardboard on a shopping cart.

[TheEschaton]

Personally.. the libs have fucked up our efforts over there so bad, there's no way we can win. If we start conducting the war the way we should have from the beginning, we'll have the hippies in a "OMG LOOK AT THE CARNAGE!! WE NEED TO STOP!!!"

Of course... hippies have never, ever been right about anything concerning war.. but let's keep having them dictate our war plans. Once they get their way and we withdrawal... then Iran goes in and establishes their own goverrnment there.. then proliferate nuclear weapons to the point where we can't do shit.. then what?

What we need is another wake the fuck up call... until then, the tree hugging idiots controlling the main media outlets will continue to condemn the war and the Bush Administration until their idea of peace is reached.

Ummmm, since when have we had any say in this war whatsoever? Original troop levels were determined by Rummy, and the Administration is the body whose had the war under its complete control from day one. And if you didn't realize, it's been less than a month since the Dems controlled Congress - you controlled both Houses, so how can you say that the "libs fucked up this war"?

Unless you're implying Bush listened to our criticisms, in which case: A) he's not the strong, decisive leader you thought he was, and B) he gave up doing "what's right", for doing what the people thought he should do, which was decried in the Kerry thread, and you should despise him.

Oh, and you can find plenty of people IN the military who will say it won't work, at least not on the scale Bush is proposing.

-TheE-

[Landrion]

You can find plenty of quality information of people in the military saying that the surge can work. Of course, you can also find plenty of people outside the military saying it won't work.

Personally.. the libs have fucked up our efforts over there so bad, there's no way we can win. If we start conducting the war the way we should have from the beginning, we'll have the hippies in a "OMG LOOK AT THE CARNAGE!! WE NEED TO STOP!!!"

Of course... hippies have never, ever been right about anything concerning war.. but let's keep having them dictate our war plans. Once they get their way and we withdrawal... then Iran goes in and establishes their own goverrnment there.. then proliferate nuclear weapons to the point where we can't do shit.. then what?

What we need is another wake the fuck up call... until then, the tree hugging idiots controlling the main media outlets will continue to condemn the war and the Bush Administration until their idea of peace is reached.

What are you advocating when you say conducting as we should have? Carnage? Is that going to win hearts and minds on either side?

Frankly Im glad to see Bush saying that we need milestones and measurable objectives. Ive been an advocate of this war and defender of the Bush administration since the thing started and its harder to defend it when everyones idea of what "winning is" is different.

Whether you consider it a liberal media conspiracy or not, the people are getting war-weary. They need measurable objectives being achieved and advertised to make them feel that we're not throwing lives and money away for nothing. Like it or not, the PR side of a war is important and it just isnt happening here.

Theres always going to be opposition, there were Copperheads in the Civil war and there were Royalists during the revolutionary war. I expect that no matter how well or bad the war goes theres going to be those who hate it. But the swing people need reassurance for the war effort or it falls apart.

[Artha]

:clap:
Agreed. Politicians certainly know how to screw up a war.

And far too little about how to run one, from what I've seen.

edit: I'd also love to see some WW I/II style propaganda posters, but I guess those might be too inflammatory in this day and age.

[Back]

And far too little about how to run one, from what I've seen.

edit: I'd also love to see some WW I/II style propaganda posters, but I guess those might be too inflammatory in this day and age.

Yeah, Dick Cheney has never served. In fact, deferred 5 times during Viet Nam. I agree, he should not be dictating tactics to the Pentagon.

[zhelas]

Politicians want war to be pretty and politically correct. It is a fucking war, if the Generals are given a job just give them the tools to do it and not bind their hands.

[Parkbandit]

What are you advocating when you say conducting as we should have? Carnage? Is that going to win hearts and minds on either side?

Frankly Im glad to see Bush saying that we need milestones and measurable objectives. Ive been an advocate of this war and defender of the Bush administration since the thing started and its harder to defend it when everyones idea of what "winning is" is different.

Whether you consider it a liberal media conspiracy or not, the people are getting war-weary. They need measurable objectives being achieved and advertised to make them feel that we're not throwing lives and money away for nothing. Like it or not, the PR side of a war is important and it just isnt happening here.

Theres always going to be opposition, there were Copperheads in the Civil war and there were Royalists during the revolutionary war. I expect that no matter how well or bad the war goes theres going to be those who hate it. But the swing people need reassurance for the war effort or it falls apart.


I'm saying that exactly. We tried to win the hearts and minds far too early imo... we should have seen more shock and awe instead of shock and aw. And while there are always the hippies out there that believe there is no purpose in war.. they are far more vocal today with the internet and media.. and their ability to shape public opinion to their 'cause' is far easier and quicker because of the instant news world we now live in.

[TheEschaton]

Come on man, this is the President who doesn't listen to public opinion, who has stated numerous times he doesn't listen to opinion polls.

Either he doesn't have the sack you think he does, or he was wrong in how he ran this war.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Come on man, this is the President who doesn't listen to public opinion, who has stated numerous times he doesn't listen to opinion polls.

Either he doesn't have the sack you think he does, or he was wrong in how he ran this war.

-TheE-

He has caved into liberal pressure on a number of occasions... one of the biggest issues people like me have with him.

[DeV]

He caves only when people from his own side dissent and apply pressure alongside his opposers.

[Gan]

This poses an interesting discussion on whether or not government should be flexible enough to shift from platform stances that got them elected when public opinion has been determined to shift.

And, it also brings to light how precarious the validity of opinion polls are in determining public opinion, especially when it can have far reaching legislative and governing impacts.

[Skirmisher]

He has caved into liberal pressure on a number of occasions... one of the biggest issues people like me have with him.

You all loved saying that the Democrats were a minority party though.

Surely this masterful president would not cave into pressure from a minority of people when he is so sure he is right.

Or perhaps it's more than just those wacky fringe liberals who think Bush is a total screw up.