The Republicans filibustered an amendment by Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) to require troops to have the same amount of rest time as they have deployment time. This common-sense amendment was defeated by a 56-44 cloture vote, will all the Democrats sans Lieberman voted aye and six Republicans joining them.
Probably not, but the fact July wasn't as deadly as past months is a good thing.
Still, the Sunnis left the government and al-Maliki is headed for Iran to hold hands with what's his face, so, yes, I'm still skeptical that Jeffersonian Democracy will come to that country. In fact, I'm still skeptical about that country being an ally a few years after we leave, but at least we may be able to leave soon and put this nightmare behind us.
All Bush needed to get his act together was to loose an election.
A GOP senator told CBS' Face The Nation he expects a progress report due in September from General Petraeus will give them a chance to scale back the number of troops in Iraq by the end of the year.
The Senator is none other than the Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), one of the President's strongest allies int he Senate on the Iraq war.
Here's what he said;
"By September, when General (David) Petraeus is to make a report, I think most
of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that
we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down. I don't think we need
to be an occupying power. This is a fine line we've walked, and this surge has
got to be temporary. We do not need to be and cannot be perceived as just
occupying Iraq for any extended period of time."
If the first surge doesn't work, President Bush is just planning on just sending more troops.
When additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.
When the people voted last November, they voted for change. The biggest change they were looking for concerned Iraq. They threw out the Republican majority because they wanted someone to bring the Iraq war to an end. The problem is, they weren't able to get rid of the head of state, the commander-in-chief, the man with the veto power. The veto is no reason for Congress not to act. Just because a President threatens a veto that can't be overridden doesn't mean Congress shouldn't send him a bill anyway. The Republican minority says it is a waste of time to send a funding bill to the President whom he will veto, but the people elected a new Congress to stand up for the President, even if they lose at the end. I have little doubt that the Democrats will cave in the end and allowing war funding without a withdrawal timetable, but they stood up to the President the best way they can. The President is still the head of an equal branch of government and his veto power can only be overridden if enough Republicans join with the Democrats, which is clearly not going to happen. Still, the fact the Democrats are willing to lose this fight; the fact they had the balls to stand up to the President and say "No, you will not get a free pass anymore" shows that they are, at the very least, holding this administration accountable, which the previous Congress did not do. The President claims he is listening to his generals, but in January, General George Casey said this; The next month, he was replaced by David Petraeus, who, well, sees it as the President does…so he does listen to his generals, but sends them packing when they don't agree with what he says. The big question is going to be; what happens when the President does veto the bill and Congress cannot override the veto? My option would be to keep sending him the same bill, over and over again, until he either cracks or the war has to end. Another option would be the send the President no funding, which is probably the least likely and least popular choice; no funding doesn't necessarily mean the troops come home, it just means they don't get funded. A final option and what to me is the most likely one, is to send the President the clean bill he wants and make it imperative that this will be for the last time. It might very well be the last time. Come the end of the year, with another, more important, election looming, vulnerable Republicans may feel enough pressure to crack and buck the President on the war. For the people who will inevitably be angry that Congress blinked and gave in to the President, it is important to remember, the Democrats and anti-war candidates won, but not big enough. 51 Senators cannot stop a veto, neither can 230-240 Representatives. The fact that Congress even passed a bill essentially ordering the President to end this now means they heard the voice of the American people last November. There's only so much they can do. In my opinion, this war is very unlikely to end before the next election
Yeah I saw this coming;
The Pentagon is laying the groundwork to extend the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq. At the same time, the administration is warning Iraqi leaders that the boost in forces could be reversed if political reconciliation is not evident by summer.
Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) caught on video calling anti-war protestors "idiot liberals." This is going to go over well.
The truth is, Obey's loss of control aside, the Democrats don't have the votes or the support to end the war tomorrow. Their majority isn't a large, stable one...especially in the Senate. These things take time. It may take all the political capital the Democrats have and the entire 110th Congress to put the war to an end.
The point is, unlike before January 4, 2007, we're actually looking to end the war, the best way possible, and not just sitting idly by while the President continues a failed strategy. Democrats are putting the country on notice where Congress stands and where the people stand. They don't have the votes to cut the funding, they don't have the consitutional power to strip the President's authority...but they're working on it.
Thank God it's David Obey, a known liberal anti-war Congressman. If this was Ellen Tauscher or Jim Marshall or Joe Lieberman, the party would be on the verge of complete civil war.
To those who want the war to end soon...patience, they're working on it. These things don't happen overnight.
After the 1994 Elections, when the Republicans took control of Congress, a large number of Democrats left their party and became Republicans. In Congress, most of those party switchers were from the south, such as Senators Richard Shelby of Alabama, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Congressmen Greg Laughlin of Texas, Jimmy Hayes and Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, Mike Parker of Mississippi and Nathan Deal of Georgia.
Now that the Democrats have taken over Congress, will we see an exodus from the Republicans? Possibly; One of the first rumored party switchers is not from a Democratic area, raher the south of all places, it's Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina.
The Hill reports Jones, who is strongly opposed to the Iraq War and joined the Democrats in opposing the troops surge, is being courted to become a Democrat. Jones, who represents a district in North Carolina that includes the Outer Banks, is the son of a former Democratic Representative from his state and used to be a Democrat before becoming a Republican in 1994.
Jones says he'll stay in the Republican Caucus, even though he's been whipped by the GOP leadership for this opposition to the war. Why is he planning on staying?
"I think at the present time, because of the pro- life issue primarily, I am where I need to be."
No military solution for Iraq, says General Petraeus
Guess what, we already figured that out a long time ago. It's nice to see the administration catching up with what the rest of the country learned a while back. This administration is like two years behind the rest of the country.
Remember "stay the course"
Meanwhile, Democrats are looking to pull the troops out by the next election. Republicans will argue the Democrats are doing it for political reasons, and maybe so, but it does give the President until the end of the year to figure out if this is working or not. The perk of the plan is that it pulls the troops out of Iraq right before the next elections, giving the Democrats enough political ammo to keep their majority in the next election.
Either way, it does appear to me that the Iraq War is entering it's final stages...and that's a good thing.
What if President Bush's troops surge doesn't work? Well don't ask President Bush. Our Commander-in-Chief is so confident that his idea will work, they aren't even discussing a backup plan.
and why should they? I mean it's not like every other idea the president has come up with to "win" in Iraq has failed...nope...not like we're in this mess for the mere reason he didn't come up with backup plans.
There's a thin line between being confident and being just plain stupid.
And how is our fearless leader's plan working so far? Just freakin' dandy!
The House of Representatives passed H-CON RES 63 at 3:22pm on Friday, February 16, 2006.
The vote was 246-182.
17 Republicans voted with the Democrats (Take note of the some of the names);
Rep. Mike Castle (R-Delaware)
Rep. Howard Coble (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Tom Davis (R-Virginia)
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Phil English (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Maryland)
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-South Carolina)
Rep. Tim Johnson (R-Illinois)
Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Ric Keller (R-Florida)
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois)
Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Rep. Thomas Petri (R-Wisconsin)
Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minnesota)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan)
Rep. Jim Walsh (R-New York)
Two Democrats voted with the Republicans;
Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Georgia)
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Mississippi)
As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on a resolution condemning the President's plan to add more troops to the never-ending Iraq war. I thought it would be good to check out some of what members of Congress said today...and noticeably different tone that we've seen before.
“How many more street-corner memorials are we going to have for this war? This is what the President’s proposal does – it sends more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war.”
-Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania)“Our soldiers are trained to fulfill their mission without question. We as civilian leaders have a duty to question it on their behalf.”
-Rep.Tim Walz (D-Minnesota)
“There is a better way to show support for our troops than sending more of them to be killed, and there is a better way than continuing to give this President a blank check for war funding. Unless we move forward to place firm limitations on the appropriations, we will leave this war-making President constrained only by Dick Cheney’s imagination.”
-Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
“There is a growing consensus that only a political solution, not a military one, will address the sectarian conflict in Iraq. Yet President Bush has rejected the wisdom of military commanders, the Iraq Study Group, and the voters by choosing to send more troops into the crossfire of a sectarian civil war. If the President won't provide an exit strategy, Congress must take the lead in ending the war.”Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine)
"The continuing use of our national treasure in what is an inconclusive, open-ended involvement within a country where the long term benefits do no match what we need to reap is why I am opposed to a troop surge that doubles down on a bad military bet that has been tried already."
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pennsylvania)
“[The opposition’s] disagreement is not with my caucus or even the forty of fifty Republicans who will side with us. It is with the 60% of the American people who think this war has gone on too long, and who no longer think that a blood feud between Sh’ia and Sunni is worth American blood. It is with the very patriotic people in my state who love democracy and who wish it for people all around the globe but who know that a culture must be shaped by the people who live in it.”
-Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama)
“I remain unconvinced that this large new deployment of troops to Baghdad will further that goal at this point, particularly because the plan does not differ substantially enough from previous efforts to secure the Iraqi capital. The President’s plan further narrows rather than expands our strategic options.”-Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-South Dakota)
"We now find ourselves locked in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The Iraq of today is vastly different from the Iraq we entered nearly four years ago, yet our strategy remains the same. We need to succeed in Iraq, but we need to redefine what success is."
Rep. Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma)
“My concern about another surge is that it will only delay the day that Iraqis make the political decisions necessary to quell the sectarian violence. They’ve got to divide up the oil fairly, let the banned Baathists back into positions of public trust and come up with a working model of pluralism. I want all Iraqi factions to know that they don’t have forever to make these decisions. We’re providing their protection; we have a right to tell them to hurry. We have an obligation to our service men and women to tell the Iraqi factions to hurry.”
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-South Carolina)
“Our country needs a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq, one that constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with neighboring countries and the region to create a stable and peaceful nation, not a blank check to send more men and women into harm’s way.”
-Rep. Hilda Solis (D-California)
“The administration’s stubborn arrogance and incompetence have magnified the chaos in Iraq. Our brave troops have done everything asked of them, but the administration’s failures in planning post-conflict reconstruction and their shocking incompetence in management have opened the Pandora’s Box in sectarian violence and civil war.”
-Rep. Paul Hodes (D-New Hampshire)"We take care of our soldiers over there when we as a Congress make certain the mission they have been sent to perform has a reasonable chance of success. In a war where so many tragic mistakes have been, this Congress must not sit quietly by while additional plans are cooked up in Washington whose only certainty is to accelerate the loss of American lives, compound the already severe strain on military capability and accelerate the burn rack of taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq."
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-North Dakota)
"Despite our difference, I believe the President is sincere in his desire to being a successful end to the war in Iraq, but he has failed to convince me that sending these 21,000 troops represents a new and successful strategy. We went into Iraq under a failed plan in 2003 and we can't afford to take the same failed path"
-Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Indiana)
"Most of what we have spent has been purely foreign aid in nature: rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, giving free medical care, training police, giving jobs to several hundred thousand Iraqis and on and on. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to run another country as we have in reality been doing in Iraq."
-Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tennessee)
"The administration contends that sending more combat troops in Iraq is somehow a silver bullet that is going to quell the violence....I couldn't disagree more"
-Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-New York)
"I find it funny that the pro-life-- the self-proclaimed pro-life party is the party that wants to keep extending the war; I find it ironic that all of the great budget hawks of the Republican Party want to throw 8 billion dollars a month to keep going and going and going as we borrow the money from China; But I also found the debate at times disappointing; where members of the other side have questioned our side; when they've said 'Whose side are we on?' and 'How can we say that we support the troops?' and that we're somehow unpatriotic. And I would just like to say that, you know, when the Republican Party and this President didn't send enough troops, we didn't call you unpatriotic; and when you sent our young soldiers over there without the body armor, we never called you unpatriotic."
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)
"This resolution is an opportunity to thank our brave men and women in uniform who have performed magnificently in Iraq, and to show the American people that Congress wants to help the President develop a policy for victory.”
-Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina)
"What kind of nation are we, when a President takes us to war based on lies and deceptions, when our energy policy is decided behind closed doors and when in free elections, not every vote is counted."
-Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wisconsin)
"As we debate the future of Iraq this week, one thing is certain. You cannot edit or airbrush history. We know today that there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no enriched uranium from Niger. There was no connection to al-Qaeda. We were not welcomed as liberators. Freedom is not on the march, and more than four years later, the mission has not been accomplished."
-Rep. Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts)
"The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances."
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
"It is time for Congress to stand on its hind legs and take away the keys of the man who has driven our foreign policy into a ditch"
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Washington)
