Page 25 of 145 FirstFirst ... 152122232425262728293575125 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 2162

Thread: Iraq in flux

  1. #361
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Iraq in flux

    His "surge" is going to have a narrow objective with a clear endpoint.
    Conventional wisdom from all I read.

    Not every call for reinforcements must be called a "war ender"

  2. #362
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Iraq in flux

    A draft of President Bush's Iraq policy speech says the aim is to have Iraqi forces in control of all security by November and for extra U.S troops to deploy by the end of this month, a U.S. official tells CNN.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  3. #363
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Iraq in flux

    I just hope we[the US] can get past this arguement

    "were gonna win" verses "no you wont"

    Its a sad reflection.

  4. #364
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Iraq in flux

    On the local news

    FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. -- A brigade of soldiers based at Fort Bragg will be the first to move into Iraq under President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in the troubled nation, a defense department official said Tuesday.
    North Carolina bases already have more than 6,000 Marines and soldiers on duty in Iraq and more than 23,000 are slated to deploy there in coming months.


    ^^I believe on the tube they said 3500 left today.

  5. #365
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Iraq in flux

    The dems are flipping on the send more troops Idea faster than a fish out of water. The dems will cut off the money forcing us to withdraw.

  6. #366
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Iraq in flux

    On the speech tonight. I think this guy is right...not that it will happen

    http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/...Q5MDNmYzVmMWM=

    No Oval Office, no big desk. Have the president stand in the Map Room, the room on the ground floor of White House in which Franklin Roosevelt reviewed strategy with his generals.
    (Over the mantel hangs the last map FDR ever saw. It is a monument to faulty intelligence: a map drawn in March 1945 of the final German positions of the war. It shows a "redoubt" of German divisions hunkered in south Germany. To defend against these divisions, the US Army paused in its drive eastward toward Berlin, allowing the Soviets to reach the city first. The "redoubt" later proved to be a total fiction, one the army accepted in part because it offered an excellent excuse to avoid the lethal street fighting that claimed the lives of perhaps as many as 25,000 Soviet troops.)
    Hang a map of Baghdad on one wall. A map of Iraq on another. Have the president stand between them with a laser pointer. Let him show where the sectarian fighting in the city is occurring, let him detail where US troops are currently deployed. Then he can explain the new plan: Where the extra troops would go, what they would do, where the new checkpoints would be placed, how the city would be cleared, how it would be held.
    No flowery language, no hazy generalities. Detail, detail, detail - to assure the American people that their commander-in-chief has thought this plan through and has reason to believe that it can and will work.

    Just grabbed this from ap

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 01-10-2007 at 12:22 PM.

  7. #367
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Iraq in flux

    http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...te-cnn-partner

    The Man Who'll Lead the Surge
    Tuesday, Jan. 09, 2007 By SALLY B. DONNELLY AND DOUGLAS WALLER/WASHINGTON


    Admiral William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh in July, 2006.
    Tang Chhin Sothy /AFP / Getty


    It was early May 2005, and alarm bells in Washington's media echo chamber were ringing. A leaked Pentagon report had warned that the strain of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could crimp the Defense Department's ability to respond quickly to other conflicts, and pundits were fretting that China and North Korea could exploit the vulnerability. But flying through Asia in his Air Force Boeing 737, Admiral William Fallon, the man who had taken over the U.S. Pacific Command just two months earlier, wasn't ruffled. His command — with 300,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines — still outclassed the force Beijing was building up, he insisted. And together with a growing South Korean army, it could quickly overpower any kind of attack by Pyongyang's army. "I'm not losing too much sleep right now," the admiral told TIME, which accompanied him on the trip.

    That kind of calm confidence, seasoned by nearly 40 years in the Navy, has made quite an impression on Fallon's bosses — particularly President George W. Bush, who's looking for a steady military hand to help him turn around the mess in Iraq. This week Bush will announce he wants "Fox" Fallon ("Fox" comes from his call sign as a Naval aviator) to replace Gen. John Abizaid as head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Iraq war and the entire volatile Middle East.

    Fallon may be widely respected, but within military circles, his selection is controversial. The top Central Command job has always gone to an Army or Marine general for the simple reason that their ground forces would typically bear the brunt of any war in the theater. A bombadier-navigator in Vietnam, Fallon, 62, has no operational experience commanding ground troops or battling the kind of insurgency that grips Iraq or is growing in Afghanistan. "To put in a naval aviator without any command combat experience is like putting a baseball coach in to run the offense in the Super Bowl," grumbles a retired Marine general.

    Why did Bush reach over several layers of experienced veterans to pick Fallon? Some critics think he was looking for a senior statesman in uniform, and Fallon certainly fits the bill, both abroad and at home. In Washington, he has developed good contacts with lawmakers from both parties, which may prove critical, as congressional Democrats are now vowing to fight any Administration plan to send more U.S. forces into Iraq as part of a so-called surge. He's "one of America's best strategists," enthuses Ike Skelton, the new Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. But one Marine general who knows the region says it actually makes some sense to put a naval officer in charge. If the U.S. begins redeploying forces outside of Iraq as a part of a drawdown it will increasingly have to use naval vessels, not large land bases, for stationing them.

    More importantly, Fallon has gained the President's trust. Fallon hosted a small dinner at his Hawaii headquarters for Bush, who was on his way back from Vietnam last month, and the two men spoke about a range of issues in the Pacific theater. In particular, Pentagon sources say, they agreed that engaging with China was crucial to U.S. interests —a view that Fallon often found being challenged by his former boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    If Fallon was a surprise, few were taken aback by the news that Army Lieut. General David Petraeus will take over Gen. George Casey's job as the on-scene commander in Iraq. Petraeus served in Iraq twice, has a Ph.D in international relations, and comes loaded with the optimism the job requires, not to mention support for the surge option Bush favors. Some Marine officers were pulling for one of their own: Lt. Gen. James Mattis, one of the military's most seasoned combat veterans (he led the complex but successful invasion into Afghanistan and then took the 1st Marine Division on the march to Baghdad). The Marines have not held a senior position in CENTCOM or Iraq since before the start of the war and many of them privately blame poor Army leadership for the war's failures.

    Petraeus — whom critics call "King David" for his often sophisticated self-promotion skills — will be in charge of day-to-day fighting in Iraq, while Fallon will oversee the entire Middle East and Southwest Asia, which are under CENTCOM's purview. The admiral will also be tasked with trying to convince Middle Eastern countries to lend the U.S. a hand in redeveloping Iraq's flagging economy.

    The Pentagon's four-stars who serve as overseas combatant commanders are as much diplomats as warriors, and Fallon has proven to be a particularly deft one. After a Navy submarine struck the Japanese fishing boat Ehime Maru in 2001, killing nine aboard the vessel, Bush dispatched the admiral to Tokyo to deliver the U.S. apology to the government and an angry Japanese public. As Vice Chief of Naval Operations in 2002-2003 he impressed Rumsfeld, who was notorious for bullying his flag officers. When Fallon had to fill in for his boss at service chiefs meetings with Rumsfeld, he took advantage of the fact that he was the junior officer in the group and thus the last called on to speak. It gave him the chance to see how Rummy grilled the other chiefs so he could quickly rearrange his presentation to please the defense secretary. "What Fallon really brings that matters is the proven capability to operate at the regional strategic level and to work and foster relationships," says retired Adm. Stephen Pietropaoili, who's now executive director of the Navy League, an advocacy group for the sea service.

    From his headquarters on Oahu, Fallon hasn't been shy about flexing U.S. diplomacy the past two years. Despite wariness of Pentagon hawks, he has pressed to improve relations with Beijing, for example, organizing a joint naval exercise last fall with the Chinese navy. Fallon believes diplomacy is as important a weapon as all the ships, planes and soldiers he commands. Some of that broader view "comes with old age," Fallon told TIME in 2005. Bush now hopes that kind of thinking from the admiral in Asia can help rescue a troubled war in a very different part of the world.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  8. #368
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Iraq in flux

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0111/p01s03-uspo.html

    How Congress may block a troop 'surge'

    The House has the power to trim funds for the Iraq war, but it's a politically risky move.

    By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

    WASHINGTON – If Congress decides to block the president's plan for a troop buildup in Iraq, it has all the clout it needs - at least on parchment - to trim war funding through its power of the purse. Call it the Murtha plan.

    Congress can also opt to push back with hearings, investigations, and resolutions that condemn an escalation of the war or require President Bush to return to Congress for approval before committing troops. Call that the Kennedy plan.

    Choosing which strategy to pursue is causing heated debate within the new Democratic majority, which believes it owes its power to an election-season promise to begin withdrawing US troops. They are joined by a growing number of Republicans who - at least in the run-up to Mr. Bush unveiling his Iraq plan Wednesday - were reluctant to send more Americans into a war they believed could not be won.

    But even at the lowest public-approval ratings of his career, Bush as commander in chief brings powerful assets to any conflict with Congress over the conduct of war. He can rally the public (as he hopes to do with Wednesday night's speech). He can order troop movements before Congress can thwart them. He can delay requests for supplemental war funding to blunt Congress's power of the purse.

    Only in the last few days have Democratic leaders even entertained the idea of cutting off funding for the war. For Rep. John Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania, the lead advocate for using funding to force a change of course in this war, timing is crucial. His Defense Appropriations subcommittee is the gateway for every dime spent on the war. He says that he will use that power to bar a troop surge in Iraq if, for example, it undermines the military's domestic readiness.

    "If we just pass resolutions, the president will veto them. If he vetoes an appropriations bill, he doesn't have any money. It's the only weapon we have," he says.

    But to wield that power, he needs the president to submit a request for additional defense spending before a "surge" of new troops into Iraq. So far, all war funding has been handled that way - as supplemental requests to Congress outside the normal budget process.

    In the next two months, his subcommittee will hold hearings to document the state of readiness of US forces and build support for writing benchmarks and conditions into the next defense spending bill.

    On a faster track, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts proposed legislation this week that would require the president to come back to the Congress and get authority for deploying additional American troops to Iraq. "I am introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq," he said in an address at the National Press Club on Tuesday.

    "No one - no one - can seriously deny that this civil war is radically different from the mission Congress voted for in 2002," he added.

    On the House side, Rep. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts is proposing a similar resolution to require Congress to expressly authorize any escalation of the war in Iraq. "After more than 3,000 American casualties, over $300 billion in expenditures, and almost four years of fighting, an increase in the number of members of the US Armed Forces deployed in Iraq above the current level of 132,000 is the wrong course of action," he says.

    Representative Murtha worries that if Democrats settle for a quick, symbolic gesture, they could curb momentum for stronger action on the spending side. Should the president veto the Kennedy resolution, or another like it, it would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto. "It's not clear we have it," he says.

    On Wednesday, Democrats discussed these options in their morning caucus meeting but did not settle on a strategy. "We're going to make a judgment on the best way to present our position on the escalation of the war in Iraq, which our own military does not support," said House majority leader Steny Hoyer, on Wednesday. After a meeting with his caucus on Tuesday, Senate majority leader Harry Reid says that Democrats are working toward "a bipartisan statement on the president's escalation." He expects at least nine Republicans to support it.

    For most Democrats, cutting off funds in wartime is still a near taboo topic because it carries a high political risk of appearing to endanger troops in the field.

    "I don't know why we have members of Congress out there who say there's nothing constitutional that Congress can do. Politically, they may feel like it's crazy to do anything restricting money supporting troops, but constitutionally they can do what they like and they've done it in the past," says Louis Fisher, an expert in separation of powers at the Library of Congress.

    "Congress can attach any condition to any appropriation it pleases," says Winslow Wheeler, director of Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. "If they want to say none of the appropriations in the supplemental can be used to keep troops beyond their normal deployment period or to send additional troops, sobeit. The president can disregard this at his own peril."

    But it requires careful work to draft constraints into legislation without loopholes. President Nixon circumvented an amendment banning funding for combat troops in Laos by describing the forces as "military equipment delivery teams - end use supervisors."

    "Congress can urge, propose, recommend, but it's very hard to legislate when it comes to troop deployments," says Charles Stevenson, author of the book "Warriors and Politicians." "They didn't try to [cut funds for aerial bombing] earlier in the Vietnam War, because they didn't think they had the two-thirds to override a veto."

    Military experts say that Congress has other levers on the president, including new legislation on the use of reservists.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  9. #369
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Foxboro, MA
    Posts
    2,610

    Re: Iraq in flux

    I have serious doubts about the troop increase having any measurable effect on the insurgency. Just registering my opinion for what it's worth. I just think the insurgency has become far too organized and prepared for attacking our forces that even if we did double the amount of boots on the ground we'd still have a hell of a time handling them.

  10. #370
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Iraq in flux

    From the White House:

    Tonight President Bush will address the Nation from the White House to lay out his plan for a new way forward in Iraq.

    On the new strategy:

    Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

    On the role of the Iraqis:

    Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

    On securing Baghdad:

    Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work…and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

    On what Iraq must do:

    I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

    On the economic component:

    A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

    On protecting the American people:

    The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

    On what victory in Iraq will look like:

    The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security…The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will…Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

    On bringing our troops home:

    [To]step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government…Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

  11. #371
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    4,217

    Re: Iraq in flux

    Think people, think....

    This is nothing more then a smoke-screen, the real agenda lies a tad south of the M.E, and just a shade north as well.

    Africa is the goal, and if you take Africa, you have the Med in your shirt pocket. The defence of Europe is primary, do these two things and you can control the entire region.

    The M.E, it's just a staging point for the onset of prevention from the far eastern race and it's "colonization" policies- past and/or present.
    Nebraska Game and Parks



    I've been at this a long time and I still know nothing!! High end digitized ~ analog, turkey hunter.

    American Audio Nut- my gear- JBL, DBX, Revel, Thorens, Shure, Odyssey, M&K, AB International, Van Alstine, PS Audio, Pioneer, Trio, Dynaco, Integra Research, Audio Research, and JBL Pro.

  12. #372
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    bergen county, new jersey
    Posts
    784

    Re: Iraq in flux

    The president has declined, citing Iran's efforts to arm itself with nuclear weapons and Syria's support of Hezbollah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems terrorist organizations.

    Instead, Bush in his speech accused Iran and Syria of "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq."

    "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, a longtime opponent of the war, said he feared Bush was setting the stage for a wider regional war. "Isn't one war enough for this president?" he said.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
    I think this is what the President may be preparing for.

  13. #373
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: Iraq in flux

    Hmmmm....


    The Iranian Card

    he Iranian Card [Larry Kudlow]
    No question now that Iran is squarely in President Bush’s sights.

    One of the big pieces in his speech last night was an aggressive warning to Iran:

    We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

    This is tough stuff.

    Earlier this morning, U.S. troops raided Iran’s consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil, seized computers and documents and arrested five employees—all this shortly after the President’s speech.

    Secretary of State Condi Rice warned Iran this morning that "the United States is not going to simply stand idly by" while Tehran tries to disrupt Washington’s renewed efforts to stabilize Iraq.

    On top of all this, another aircraft carrier group is moving into the Persian Gulf. There are also indications that the U.S. will provide Patriot anti-missile defense systems to nearby allies.

    These developments come on the heels of the Treasury Department barring Iran’s oldest bank from American financial markets. Iran’s Bank Sepah has facilitated the funding of Iran’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey is leading this charge.

    Iran is clearly a key aspect of success in this battle’s next stage.

    Look for an ongoing dragnet by American troops in Iraq to capture and detain Iranian personnel. I heard this first in the White House background briefing yesterday. Today’s raid on the Iranian consulate confirms it.

    President Bush—aka President Backbone—may be fighting an uphill battle in Iraq, but he is sure fighting.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #374
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: Iraq in flux

    Dems showing some of that "courage"...



    Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan

    Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan
    By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

    Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.

    The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

    The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.

    In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

    The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bush’s war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists.

    “If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”

    The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.

    While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.

    They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.
    Video

    “We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.”

    On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

    But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.

    In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.”

    But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. “You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate,” he said.

    The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats’ plans. “We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war — and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq — are very real,” he said Tuesday night.

    On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are among those who have agreed to testify.

    Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bush’s plan has sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq.

    “We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country,” Mr. Levin said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. “We can’t save them from themselves. It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution.”

    Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bush’s approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue.

    “We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

    Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance against the plan. It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy constituents.

    “Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq,” said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. “Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.”

    I'm still eagerly awaiting THEIR plan for a NEW direction for Iraq that they claim is not "cut AND run".........
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #375
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the world, But they sell pictures of it
    Posts
    6,430

    Re: Iraq in flux

    ^^^Probably like Bush's NEW direction of "stay the course"
    The Heat 99-0-0

    Trading Post Rules

    Sound Familiar? "If we quit Vietnam," President Lyndon Johnson warned, "tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •