I can't wait to see who stands where on this issue.
Stopping the surge
By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist | January 9, 2007
TED KENNEDY thinks George W. Bush is dead wrong on a troop surge for Iraq -- and while some other Democrats have reacted diffidently, he is determined to force the issue.
Today the Massachusetts senator will introduce legislation to prevent the president from increasing US troop levels in Iraq without specific authorization from Congress. And in a speech at the National Press Club one day before the president outlines his new Iraq plans to the nation, Kennedy will take aim at the idea of sending more troops.
"In the election, the American people made it very clear they wanted a change in direction," Kennedy said in an interview yesterday. "The president has been going in the wrong direction -- and we are going to do everything we can to get accountability."
Congress has to act now, Kennedy stresses, because if lawmakers wait, they could be put in the position of voting to cut off funding for additional troops after the administration has already sent them to Iraq -- a difficult vote for any elected official to take.
If that happens, "they will have effectively won the day," Kennedy said. "They will have gotten what they are looking for." Thus Kennedy says he will press for a vote on his legislation "at the earliest possible time."
Kennedy's bill wouldn't cut off funding for troops already in Iraq; rather, it would prohibit the administration from using federal funds to increase US troops beyond the levels there on Jan. 1 of this year without specific congressional approval.
It's time for Congress to reassert itself, declares Kennedy, who argues that the October 2002 resolution that gave Bush authority to go to war should now be considered expired.
Certainly the case the administration made on its way to war -- that Iraq was well on its way to a nuclear bomb, that it possessed other weapons of mass destruction, that there were operational ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda -- have been proven stunningly wrong.
Further, Kennedy says, military experts who know Iraq don't think that sending more troops is the answer. The senator cites recent statements by General George Casey, senior US commander in Iraq, Centcom chief John Abizaid, and Colin Powell, the former secretary of state and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In November, Abizaid told Congress that the consensus among military commanders in Iraq was that sending more troops wouldn't "add considerably to our ability to achieve success" there. Casey, too, has been wary, saying that the longer the United States stays in Iraq, the longer it will be before the Iraq government works for reconciliation with the Sunnis and deals with the militias.
Powell, now in private life, has offered similar anti-surge arguments.
The administration has recently said that new generals will oversee the Iraq war effort as it goes forward.
In his speech, Bush will no doubt present his plan as a way to stem the violence in Baghdad and give the Iraq government time to succeed. Yet the real question is this: Can 20,000 more troops help mold a functioning nation out of three disparate groups, two of whom increasingly see themselves as parties to sectarian war, and the third of which -- the Kurds -- already has a mostly autonomous region?
The answer is pretty obviously no. Rather, a surge just delays confronting the harsh realities of Iraq. And that's why the carte blanche that Congress has granted this administration shouldn't continue.
Kennedy's legislation faces an uphill battle, of course.
Even if it passes, the bill would certainly draw a presidential veto, which means it would need two-thirds majorities in both branches of Congress to become law.
At the very least, however, the legislation would force federal lawmakers to confront the issue of a troop surge, and declare whether they support or oppose it.
That would certainly be uncomfortable for Republicans and probably lead to some gnashing of teeth among Democrats as well.
But Kennedy says he won't be deterred by the reaction: "I am going to offer it no matter what."
The senator hopes the measure will catalyze a broader debate about a war he has opposed, vocally and presciently, from the very beginning.
"I think the American people are way ahead of the Congress, way ahead of the Senate," Kennedy says. "This will give an opportunity for them to rally, and hopefully they will."
Stopping the Surge...
-
ABushismaDay
- Blue Chatterbox
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Jul 7th, '05, 08:15
Stopping the Surge...
This bussiness will get out of Hand!
-
Vinny Vincenzo
- Wanted Poster
- Posts: 3083
- Joined: Apr 25th, '05, 05:41
Kennedy Introduces Bill Requiring Congressional Approval For Iraq Escalation
Today, Sen. Ted Kennedy will introduce the first legislation demanding accountability for President Bush’s Iraq policy. Kennedy’s bill will require the president to gain new congressional authority before escalating the war in Iraq. Below, a summary of the bill from Kennedy’s office:
The legislation requires the Congress to vote before the President escalates troop levels in Iraq.
The legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.
The Iraq War Resolution of 2002 authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction and an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, and was in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolutions.
The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress.
Iraq has descended into civil war and sectarian violence continues to escalate. …
President Bush should not be permitted to increase the number of United States troops in harm’s way in the civil war without a specific new authorization from Congress.
Killingtonzone News has obtained a copy of the bill, which you can read HERE.
Today, Sen. Ted Kennedy will introduce the first legislation demanding accountability for President Bush’s Iraq policy. Kennedy’s bill will require the president to gain new congressional authority before escalating the war in Iraq. Below, a summary of the bill from Kennedy’s office:
The legislation requires the Congress to vote before the President escalates troop levels in Iraq.
The legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.
The Iraq War Resolution of 2002 authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction and an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, and was in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolutions.
The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress.
Iraq has descended into civil war and sectarian violence continues to escalate. …
President Bush should not be permitted to increase the number of United States troops in harm’s way in the civil war without a specific new authorization from Congress.
Killingtonzone News has obtained a copy of the bill, which you can read HERE.
-
XtremeJibber2001
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
BOY-KING TO ADDRESS PEASANTS
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP)--President Bush will speak to the nation as to a stubborn, disobedient child Wednesday about his completely original new approach to escalating the war in Iraq, the White House said. Bush is expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 additional U.S. targets.
Bush's entirely predictable decision, which he is pretending took more than two months to make, is drawing criticism from new Democratic leaders in Congress who say it is time to end the useless and illegal occupation, not to send in more U.S. forces to die in the service of the president's Saudi masters.
Now in its fourth year, the war has claimed the lives of more Americans than Osama bin Laden and was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress in the November election, though the president believes that more than half the country wants the terrorists to win.
White House Channel Anchorman Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war, though he seems unaware that he is the most hated man on the planet. He also said that Americans, possibly including Democrats, "don't want another September 11" type of terrorist attack and also that it is wiser to create an endless supply of terrorists overseas by occupying Iraq and other sovereign nations than to do something, anything at all about security in the United States.
Snow said the administration welcomes a debate about Bush's new policy, since they can no longer avoid one.
"I think it's important to get congressional support," the fascist Ken-doll said. Yet he would not say whether Bush will seek specific congressional approval for his new strategy, beyond begging for the money to pay for it.
"Rather than me jumping out and talking about resolutions and budget items and all that stuff I don't really know anything about, I'm not going to do it," Snow said. "But there will be a debate about the particulars in the way forward, as there should be. We welcome it, the way we have always welcomed criticism and oversight."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday cautioned Bush to pull his head out of his ass and look around for a minute before proposing a troop increase, suggesting the new Democratic-controlled Congress could deny him the funding, an idea with which the president is unfamiliar.
But the Senate's top Republican dimwit said he believed that Bush will get the money and attention he needs because otherwise America will look bad when Jesus returns. "Congress is incapable of micromanaging the tactics in the war," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who seems to believe that the ongoing slaughter in Iraq involves "tactics" which can be "managed."
"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi (D-CA). "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and Halliburton. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds: a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's February 5 budget, but not as part of it.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a seriously delusional 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be another "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war, which is the kind of dumb-ass reasoning that--combined with his ludicrous comb-over--makes the Baltimore Democrat a national joke.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that the only way to deal with the many tragic, bloody consequences of Bush's lust for conquest and incompetent foreign policy is to allow the brain-damaged boy-king to try the same thing some more and hope for the best.
"When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail," he wrote. "Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensure from our failure in Iraq." He probably meant "ensue," but you can never tell with idiots.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dirtcityparanoia.blogspot.com/
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP)--President Bush will speak to the nation as to a stubborn, disobedient child Wednesday about his completely original new approach to escalating the war in Iraq, the White House said. Bush is expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 additional U.S. targets.
Bush's entirely predictable decision, which he is pretending took more than two months to make, is drawing criticism from new Democratic leaders in Congress who say it is time to end the useless and illegal occupation, not to send in more U.S. forces to die in the service of the president's Saudi masters.
Now in its fourth year, the war has claimed the lives of more Americans than Osama bin Laden and was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress in the November election, though the president believes that more than half the country wants the terrorists to win.
White House Channel Anchorman Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war, though he seems unaware that he is the most hated man on the planet. He also said that Americans, possibly including Democrats, "don't want another September 11" type of terrorist attack and also that it is wiser to create an endless supply of terrorists overseas by occupying Iraq and other sovereign nations than to do something, anything at all about security in the United States.
Snow said the administration welcomes a debate about Bush's new policy, since they can no longer avoid one.
"I think it's important to get congressional support," the fascist Ken-doll said. Yet he would not say whether Bush will seek specific congressional approval for his new strategy, beyond begging for the money to pay for it.
"Rather than me jumping out and talking about resolutions and budget items and all that stuff I don't really know anything about, I'm not going to do it," Snow said. "But there will be a debate about the particulars in the way forward, as there should be. We welcome it, the way we have always welcomed criticism and oversight."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday cautioned Bush to pull his head out of his ass and look around for a minute before proposing a troop increase, suggesting the new Democratic-controlled Congress could deny him the funding, an idea with which the president is unfamiliar.
But the Senate's top Republican dimwit said he believed that Bush will get the money and attention he needs because otherwise America will look bad when Jesus returns. "Congress is incapable of micromanaging the tactics in the war," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who seems to believe that the ongoing slaughter in Iraq involves "tactics" which can be "managed."
"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi (D-CA). "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and Halliburton. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds: a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's February 5 budget, but not as part of it.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a seriously delusional 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be another "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war, which is the kind of dumb-ass reasoning that--combined with his ludicrous comb-over--makes the Baltimore Democrat a national joke.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that the only way to deal with the many tragic, bloody consequences of Bush's lust for conquest and incompetent foreign policy is to allow the brain-damaged boy-king to try the same thing some more and hope for the best.
"When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail," he wrote. "Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensure from our failure in Iraq." He probably meant "ensue," but you can never tell with idiots.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dirtcityparanoia.blogspot.com/
Last spring, TJ agreed to give the Navy two more years. They made a particularly good offer if he'd stay for four, but he declined. Agreed to two years that were supposed to be "shore duty."
One of his buddies that took the same deal is now on shore in Iraq doing a job that really belongs to the Army, but they don't have the manpower. He's just north of Baghdad dealing with IED's.
TJ's in San Diego. A lot of guys on "shore duty" have already left. There's a good possibility that his job will be eliminated, and he'll be gone on another deployment.
He's not complaining. But I think it sucks.
One of his buddies that took the same deal is now on shore in Iraq doing a job that really belongs to the Army, but they don't have the manpower. He's just north of Baghdad dealing with IED's.
TJ's in San Diego. A lot of guys on "shore duty" have already left. There's a good possibility that his job will be eliminated, and he'll be gone on another deployment.
He's not complaining. But I think it sucks.
-
XtremeJibber2001
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
Sorry to here about the crappy situation.MarieM wrote:Last spring, TJ agreed to give the Navy two more years. They made a particularly good offer if he'd stay for four, but he declined. Agreed to two years that were supposed to be "shore duty."
One of his buddies that took the same deal is now on shore in Iraq doing a job that really belongs to the Army, but they don't have the manpower. He's just north of Baghdad dealing with IED's.
TJ's in San Diego. A lot of guys on "shore duty" have already left. There's a good possibility that his job will be eliminated, and he'll be gone on another deployment.
He's not complaining. But I think it sucks.
I ran into a few recruiters a while back, I was surprised at the amount of money they'll throw at you to get you to stay/enlist