Democrats & Liberals Archives

Turn Off the War Escalator

Though he probably had a majority with him, a solid minorty of Americans were against it when President Bush started the war in Iraq. Now there is a solid majority of Americans who want us to get out of Iraq as expeditiously as possible. This is a big reason Democrats are now in power. So what does Bush do? Rather than submitting to the will of the people, he is planning to escalate the war.

A "surge" he calls it. No, he does not merely want to add troops. He wants a "surge." He has tried several "surges" by other names before. They did not work. They did, however, cause deaths and casualties. A new "surge" will only produce still more deaths and casualties. Bush wants to take a failed war and escalate it into what he has previously called the "long war."

Bush wants us to get on an escalator to death and destruction - and without Congressional approval.

Senator Edward Kennedy does not like this. He is acting in conformace with the vast majority of Americans who do not like this. Congress has the power of declaring war, not the president. The president is the commander-in-chief and has the power to execute a war - after he gets permission from Congress. Kennedy introduced legislation to stop the power-hungry president:

Sen. Edward Kennedy launched a pre-emptive strike on Tuesday against President Bush's anticipated plans to send more troops to Iraq. The Massachusetts Democrat introduced legislation to require congressional approval before force levels can be increased, more than a day before the president is expected to propose such an increase.

Kennedy stated that the bill says:

that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation unless and until Congress approves the president's plan.

Some Democrats in Congress want to avoid a confrontation on this issue. But Bush has made it extremely obvious that he will never agree to leave Iraq. He has said so repeatedly. He does not care what the situation is or what experts advise. He is going to win. He will achieve victory. If this "surge" does not work, next year he will advocate a "super-surge." Confrontation is inevitable.

Let's confront Bush now, before more GIs go to their death. Democrats have a moral obligation to stop a runaway-president from producing a national tragedy. We can't allow him to run roughshod over our Constitution that gives the power to declare war to Congress. Call or write your senators and your representative and tell them to endorse Senator Kennedy's legislation.

It's up to you the citizen to turn off the war escalator.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 9, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #202203


He is still COMMANDER IN CHIEF for the next two years. His job is to lead the country in the direction that HE thinks it should go and enough people had confidence in him to do it. He should by no means bow to the whims of the polls.

Posted by: tomd at January 9, 2007 6:11 PM
Comment #202204

The Constitution clearly gives the Congress and only the Congress authority to go to war. Do you support the Constitution?A yes or no question.

Posted by: BillS at January 9, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment #202205

I believe the war in Iraq is going badly for us, but I still believe we have a chance to establish a stabile and reasonably democratic regime in Iraq, i.e. win.

I think this is the core of any disagreement re adding or withdrawing troops. If you believe as I do, it makes sense to do what is reasonable and prudent to win. If you believe as many liberals do, that the U.S. has irreparably lost, you would pull out.

Why obfuscate? We should put the debate in the open. Do leading Democrats believe the U.S. has lost in Iraq? We all would like to “end the war.” Not all of us think it should end because we lost. (BTW - if you believe the U.S. lost, you believe exactly that. It is not that Bush lost, or the Republican lost. You may argue that it is their fault, but everybody is on that same sinking boat.)

If the U.S. has lost in Iraq, what will that mean? We also need to assess what we mean by loss or win.

Does anybody have a decent model re what conditions would be like if we won versus what conditions would be like if we lost?

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment #202206


The Constitution give congess the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” They specifically changed “make war” to “declare war” and presidents from Washington on have made war w/o congress specifically approving.

Besides, in Bush’s case, he GOT congressional approval for this war. If congress wants to revisit the issue, they can do so. But unless and until they do, the president has no responsibilty to bow to the polls. If Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Truman had governed by opinion poll (or the equivelent at the time) our country would be very different and maybe not our country.

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #202210


“If you believe as I do, it makes sense to do what is reasonable and prudent to win.”

Other than the stability issue, we have accomplished all that we have been told were the goals in Iraq.
Personally, I thought we should have had more troops in there to begin with.
Exactly what will the addition of even 20,000 more troops accomplish?
IMHO, without the overwhelming support of the Iraqi people, we will never have our dream senario, so, what really is the point?

Posted by: Rocky at January 9, 2007 6:51 PM
Comment #202211

I have to side with you on this one. The CINC makes the call. Congress has the power to declare war, but the Bush administration could argue it received approval with the Resolution on Iraq. Congress also has control over military funding, but even if it chose to exercise this restraint, the DoD could reallocate funds currently budgeted to continue underwriting the cost.

The planned escalation- er, I mean, surge- strikes me as little better than a hail mary pass. It seems like wishful thinking, a wing and a prayer. Who knows, maybe we will get lucky?

But that is a very poor way of going about things. The Bush administration misled the American people about reasons to invade, and since then they have bungled the occupation so severely, there have just been so many lies and outright mistakes, I really do not think the situation can be recovered.

It is very difficult to assess much of anything when it comes to Iraq. Suppose we withdraw, the current government falls, and the country separates into a loose federation, with insurgent Sunnis in charge of one portion, Sadrists of another, and Kurds of their area?

The Iraqis overwhelmingly oppose the US occupation (with the exception of the Kurds). It is not our country. It is not our oil. With few exceptions, we have lost all international support. It is long past time to go.

Having said that, Bush remains the CINC. However, I hope Congress enforces PayGo, and requires Bush to specify where the money to pay for Iraq will come from. Another hundred billion? Ok. Raise taxes, or cut spending. But no more borrowing.

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #202214

You see, according to Republicans there isn’t a whit of a problem if Bush decides to launch nuclear weapons at China, stating there will be no war to declare, because there will be no China left.

VOILA! BRAVO! Republicans! Unlimited power without obligation or duty to the people of this nation, who by the way, except for real estate, are the nation.

Damn non-GOP supporters for saying he was popularly elected to represent the will and interests of all the people. Such whiney babies these non-GOP’ers. No spine for authoritarian rule. What the hell is there weak and wimpy problem, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2007 7:12 PM
Comment #202216

I thought the message from the election was we want a plan for Iraq not get out of Iraq. From my point of view a better plan for winning, and if necessary withdrawing, is the 1st step. Maybe tomorrow night we will hear more. I believe the idea was to take the Baker plan and get back to the people. Is this not what was discussed. Get the Adminstration present a new plan that will win or get our troops out?

I am with Rocky on the more troops. However, I was slower on my realization. I have my doubts that troops now will make a difference. The Iraqis must take more ownership and accountability for their freedom to take root.

Posted by: Edge at January 9, 2007 7:39 PM
Comment #202219

A possible outcome for the surge will find us fighting a potent alliance. The Sadrists and Sunni insurgents may make common cause against us. Despite their differences, both factions are nationalistic, and both detest the foreign jihadists/terrorists, and the tactic of suicide bombing. These two groups probably represent a majority of Iraqis at this point.

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2007 7:44 PM
Comment #202220

And, by the way, another overriding goal shared by the Sadrists and insurgents: both want Americans out of their country.

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #202223

So, when exactly do we invade Somalia?

Posted by: Rocky at January 9, 2007 8:23 PM
Comment #202224

I am stuck in the middle on the subject of Iraq. On one side, I do not believe that we were justified in going after Iraq at that time. All of the justifications given at that time for the war turn out to have been mistakes/lies (your choice). We also had a necessary war going on in Afghanistan that has been mostly neglected since. On the other hand we have totally eliminated the order that existed in Iraq (I will grant that it was a monstrous order) and that obligates us to establish some sort of order there before withdrawing. How to solve this divide I do not know.

Posted by: Richard at January 9, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #202227


We do not live in the past and cannot change it. All decisions should be future oriented because that is the only place they will be effecting.

It really doesn’t matter if the war was a mistake back in 2003. The question that matters is which is the best course now.

I think we have three questions to answer.

- What are the alternatives?
- How do we know when we have won/lost?
- How much are we willing to spend in blood and treasure to achieve a desired alternative?

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2007 8:50 PM
Comment #202231

I don’t think Congress can tell the president not to seen more troops, but they can refuse to grant the money to pay for that action.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #202235

What are the alternatives? I think there are two possibly three alternatives. One, we can pull out. Two, we can leave our troops there to be crossfire fodder between the waring factions in the civil war. Three, we may be able to pull back to the perimeter, let them have their civil war and then go back in and try to put things back together.

How do we know when we have won/lost? We already know that we have won, Bush told us so on board an aircraft carrier in 2003.

How much are we willing to spend in blood and treasure to achieve a desired alternative? I think the American People have already answered that one.

Most of the Democrats, quite a few Republicans and more importantly, the military is against the Presidents escalation/surge.

In my opinion, the President does not have a right to ignore the military and think that he knows better than them on how to conduct a successful war campaign. When the Administration started down the road to war, they ignored the military on what was need to conduct the war. We have no problem seeing the results. Of course, the Administration had no alternative but to go th war with, as Rumsfeld put it, the army you have because to do otherwise would have meant having their evidence scrutinized more thoroughly.

We cannot consider what we are going to do by ignoring what has already been done.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #202237


You want to simply this situation to a have we lost or do we still have a chance? It isn’t that simple.

Rocky asks the question that most Americans will ask : Why will 20,000 troops reduce the game of “Whack-a-mole” that we’ve been playing all along?

If you want to decisively win this war:

A: you must commit to a draft and increase US troop strength significantly. This is especially true if you believe Iran is a developing enemy.

B: The US must enforce equalitarian principles to the minority population, i.e. the Sunni’s and Bathist’s. To do this troop strength will have to be more than doubled.

C: The US must be prepared to occupy and enforce
order for a generation. We must develope and protect oil production to pay for it.

George and company weren’t willing to make this commitment or tell the truth about it in 2003. If they, and you as well, aren’t willing to acknowledge this necessity, then neither you nor Bush have the honesty or commitment to victory. If that is the case, and I think it is, then we should get out, redeploy, and begin to prepare for the fall out.

Posted by: gergle at January 9, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #202238


It’s time to fish because we can’t continue to cut bait. We’ve been screwing around long enough.

If we are not prepared to put in an overwhelming (you know, like several hundred thousand) force into Iraq, and get really serious about this whole insurgency/terrorist thing, then what are we really doing there?

Posted by: Rocky at January 9, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #202244

I can no longer find the article that I read last week, but in it, the Veterans Administration announced that they have dragged the old selective service apparatus up from the basement and were dusting it off in anticipation of Representive Rangel introducing legislation to reinstitute the draft in the spring. I wasn’t aware that the Veterans Administration was responsible for implementing the draft but, apparently they are.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #202245

Ok, I overstated the Veterans Administration position. they are going to test the machinery. They don’t anticipate the draft to be reinstituted. Rangel has little hope of seeing his bill passed. I found the article at CBS and Fox News archives-Dec.22,06.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #202247

“I believe the war in Iraq is going badly for us, but I still believe we have a chance to establish a stabile and reasonably democratic regime in Iraq, i.e. win.”

You don’t read too much about the war, do you Jack?

“I think this is the core of any disagreement re adding or withdrawing troops.”

In my view at this point, it’s a case of the irrational and/or disconnected dreamers wanting to add troops vs. the well informed and reality-based knowing we need to withdraw.

“If you believe as I do, it makes sense to do what is reasonable and prudent to win.”

What sense? Win what? Reasonable and prudent? When Iraqi’s don’t want us there? To send 20,000 more of our troops into Iraq’s civil war so they can either get killed, or end up with their faces, arms, legs, penises, etc. blown off?

“If you believe as many liberals do, that the U.S. has irreparably lost, you would pull out. Why obfuscate? We should put the debate in the open. Do leading Democrats believe the U.S. has lost in Iraq?”

I can’t speak for any liberal Democrat but myself, but the answer is: Yes. It is more than obvious that the U.S. has lost in Iraq.
Lost too many of our troops (or their body parts). Lost many opportunities to change the course. Lost the vast majority of support amongst the Iraqi people. Lost our reputation, and much of the goodwill of the world. Lost way, way, too much money.
Indeed, we lost before we even went in, because there were never any plans for waging the war, or for keeping the peace — not even an attempt to try to understand who the Iraqi people were, thus no inkling that the “insurgency” was completely inevitable. There were never enough troops, there was never enough armor or armored vehicles, there was never a thought for anything beyond shock and awe. And most importantly of all, there was never any reason to start the war in the first place.

“We all would like to β€œend the war.””

No, not all. If that were the case, we’d have ended it by now. Because it is clear we have lost too much, for no good reason.

“Not all of us think it should end because we lost.”

This is a totally illogical statement.

“(BTW - if you believe the U.S. lost, you believe exactly that. It is not that Bush lost, or the Republican lost. You may argue that it is their fault, but everybody is on that same sinking boat.)”

Yes, the whole U.S. has lost. And yes indeed, I will argue that it is their fault. Bush and the Neocons got us into this losing situation, and the Republicans in Congress, as well as the people who voted for them cheered on that failure every step of the way.
Those of you who called people who didn’t cheer this failure on traitors and terrorist sympathizers should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, and should apologize. But whether you are ashamed or not, and whether you’ll ever feel the need to apologize or not, all of us will suffer because of this loss.

“If the U.S. has lost in Iraq, what will that mean?”

I think it means a great many things. It means that we’ve trained Al Qaeda how to fight our soldiers, so we’d better makes some changes in how we train our soldiers to fight guerilla warfare. It means we’ve depleted and practically broken our Army on the whims of a few men largely for personal and political reasons. It means we never learned the lesson of Vietnam. It means that we’ll suffer economically for a long time to come — exactly like we did after Vietnam. It means that VA hospitals are going to need a lot more funding. It means we’d better get serious about protecting our borders. It means a lot of other things too, but I’ll stop here.

“We also need to assess what we mean by loss or win.”

No. We need to accept our loss, and move on. There are a great many other things that need our attention, and we’d best get to them.

“Does anybody have a decent model re what conditions would be like if we won versus what conditions would be like if we lost?”

Won what? The best conditions would have been if we’d finished the war in Afghanistan, crushed the Taliban permanently, and had captured/killed Osama Bin Laden. From there, rather than spilling our blood and treasure into the sand of Iraq, and outting Valerie Plame and many of her collegues and contacts for political reasons, we’d have kept those opperatives in the field, and spent some serious funds building up a much better intelligence network to deal with Al Qaeda cells all over the world.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #202250

Speaking of not submitting to the “will of the people”. Pelosi is spending BILLIONS she is not accounting for, Adding billions to the bottom line and no “pay as you go”?

What does “pay as you go” mean again? It seems to me Pelosi is ripping to shreds any particle of belief anyone may have that she isn’t going to massively run up deficits, this year. Passing bills to spend BILLIONS and after promising to “pay as she goes”. She’s already gone and borrowing her way…all the way!

Very strange. I think she’s lost control of things right from the start.
Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound for the United States.

The vote was a bipartisan 299-128, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) took the rostrum to announce the passage of the first legislation to clear under the new Democratic majority.

Democrats said the bill’s passage was a top priority.

“Our first and highest duty as members of this Congress is to protect the American people, to defend our homeland and to strengthen our national security,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

Several Republicans criticized the legislation as little more than political posturing in the early hours of a new Democratic-controlled Congress. Democrats want to “look aggressive on homeland security. This bill will waste billions of dollars, and possibly harm homeland security by gumming up progress already under way,” said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

In a written statement, the Bush administration listed several objections and said it could not support the measure as drafted, but stopped short of a veto threat.

Democrats have pledged to make fiscal responsibility a priority in the new Congress, but they advanced the bill β€” their first of the year β€” without even a bare-bones accounting of the estimated cost. The funding will require follow-up legislation.

Posted by: Stephen at January 9, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #202260

Oh, btw Paul, good article, and title. I refuse to call it a “surge.” That’s just more BS Neocon-speak. An escalation of the war is what it is. I believe we should all call it that.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #202269

Everyone, please heed the following reasoning.

Jack said: “We do not live in the past and cannot change it.”

But we can damn well learn from it. Iraq has been an instant replay of every mistake we made in Viet Nam. And now escalation is but one more repetition of another Viet Nam mistake by LBJ repeated by GW Bush.

Jack is a Republican. Don’t look to the past, it is an embarrassment for Republicans to do so.

When Saddam Hussein was captured, I wrote right here at WatchBlog, 500 dead American soldiers is enough. We accomplished the only mission we will ever accomplish in Iraq, and it is time to pull out and declare victory.

Some 2 years later and 2,500 + more dead Americans and Republicans now say we must escalate our dead and maimed because to do otherwise would be a dishonor toward those who have already sacrificed so much.

BULLCRAP. The dishonor of leaving Iraq is totally Bush’s and Republicans in the White House for not seeing the writing on the wall and heeding it. And absolutely no dishonor upon our fallen heroes in Iraq. But, to escalate now is the greatest dishonor of all of the next 1,000 American soldiers to die there, for no other purpose than to allow Bush, his cabinet, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon to save face.

That is the truth of the matter, no matter how you slice it. The end game for the White House is keep the death and war going until Bush leaves office. Only then can they rationalize that when the next President pulls out, defeat will be the next presidents, not Bush’s.

But the truth is, the White House defeated themselves from the very beginning, by not listening to General Shensecki, and heeding the lessons of Viet Nam. If you invade a nation, especially one prone to, or engaged in, civil war, you go in with sufficient force to lock the whole damn country down in martial law until restoration can be completed, OR, you invade to take out a specific target, and leave after doing so, OR, you don’t invade at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2007 1:19 AM
Comment #202284

Last I checked, as was pointed out earlier, the job of Congress is to declare war, not to dictate how it is conducted. Congress has abrogated a huge portion of its own responsibilites to an increasingly imperial presidency, now they want to overstep thier authority. Congress cannot dictate to the President how to fight the war. While Bush didn’t get a declaration of war, he did get Congressional authorization to go to Iraq. I’m pretty sure that Senator Kennedy voted to support this as well. If Congress refuses to fund the surge, that’s within thier power. If Congress refuses any funding to the Iraq war short of the costs to pull every American soldier and all of our equipment out, that’s fine too. I would disagree with it, but that’s in Congress’s power, not dictating to the Commander in Chief how to fight a war.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 10, 2007 3:39 AM
Comment #202288

The Constitution clearly gives the Congress and only the Congress authority to go to war. Do you support the Constitution?A yes or no question.

Posted by: BillS at January 9, 2007 06:29 PM
YES. Now,Do you?

Posted by: tomd at January 10, 2007 7:23 AM
Comment #202307

LT, read this bill and it’s findings submitted by Kennedy. I think it covers most of your points.
BTW; This is part of Kennedy’s statement when submitting the bill:

Many of us felt the authorization to go to war was a grave mistake at the time. I’ve said that my vote against the war in Iraq is the best vote I’ve cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate.
The vote he made was against the original force authorization.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #202319

Good. So you understand that congress has the authority to declare war or not. They have not. They also have the aythority to withold funds fromthe president and the duty to exercise oversite.


The presidents you mentioned HAD the public on their side for the most part.Also comparing Bush to the men you listed is laughable on its face.Your boys are old enough to help you set rip-rap. Are they old enough to to inlist? Should they take a chance on being killed or wounded to try and salvage a spoiled rich mans historical legacy? Sorry,too personal I suppose. My point is this is not some policy debate for the 20,000 brave men and women Bush wants to send to support a failed expedition. It is personal. Would he send them if his daughters were first on the plane? I doubt it.

Kennedy voted against the war resolution. Yesterday he called that vote the best vote he had taken in 44 years.

Posted by: BillS at January 10, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #202332

jc: Do you remember that old commercial, this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs? That brain is now the leader of our nation.

By today’s standard, what Kennedy did would be considered vehicular homicide and he would probably go to prison. Back in the 70’s, I knew three people who while drunk, wrecked their auto and killed one or two friends. None of them went to prison. When Bush was younger, he drove coked and drunk on many occasions. He is lucky he didn’t kill anyone.

This is not about Kennedy, It is about the people vs their president. The American People will not tollerate another, where not there to win, we are there to keep the bad guys from winning kind of war. The American people aren’t interested in fighting wars but, when we are convinced that we have to, we will and we expect to win. This Administration decided that it knew how to fight a war better than the military and you as well as the rest of us have seen the results.

We are sick and tired of leaders who don’t have the ability or refuse to learn from the mistakes of previous presidents.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #202361

Jack says here are the questions to answer:

- What are the alternatives?
- How do we know when we have won/lost?
- How much are we willing to spend in blood and treasure to achieve a desired alternative?

The alternatives are to stay until the bitter end regardless of how many Americans die (Bush’s approach), withdraw immediately, withdraw and ask Iraq’s neighbors to take over. I’m for withdrawing and asking Iraq’s neighbors to take on the job - in other words, negotiation.

There no such thing as winning. The original purpose was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and we did. There is NOTHING we can accomplish now that would cause anyone to say we won.

We already spent more in blood and treasure than was necessary or we wished.

Bottom line: Let’s get out and negotiate with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 10, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #202370

I think Kennedy’s remarks need inclusion here. They happen to reflect my feelings on this matter quite well:

Until now, a rubber stamp Republican Congress has refused to hold the White House accountable on Iraq… And the American people voted for change.
Many of us felt the authorization to go to war was a grave mistake at the time. I’ve said that my vote against the war in Iraq is the best vote I’ve cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate.
But no matter what any of us thought then, the Iraq War resolution is obviously obsolete today. It authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today, Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance.
The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress. President Bush should not be permitted to escalate the war further, and send an even larger number of our troops into harm’s way, without a clear and specific new authorization from Congress.
Our history makes clear that a new escalation in our forces will not advance our national security. It will not move Iraq toward self-government, and it will needlessly endanger our troops by injecting more of them into the middle of a civil war.
… Comparisons from history resonate painfully in today’s debate on Iraq. In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. Instead, each one led only to the next.
There was no military solution to that war. But we kept trying to find one anyway. In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it.
Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.
As with Vietnam, the only rational solution to the crisis is political, not military. Injecting more troops into a civil war is not the answer. Our men and women in uniform cannot force the Iraqi people to reconcile their differences.
The President may deny the plain truth. But the truth speaks loudly and tragically. Congress must no longer follow him deeper into the quagmire in Iraq.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #202473

JC: I had the right president, George Bush the alcoholic. I grew up under the thumb of an alcoholic father and I know what it does to your brain.

You are right, America is a nation of winners, that is why they have turned against the looser Bush. They voted against Bush’s Vietnam because they believe in victory and he didn’t deliver. The neocons rushed us into this war without adequete troop strength to win the war and keep the peace because they couldn’t wait and allow their phoney intelligence to be scrutinized. The neocons and their true believers have blamed the media, the liberals, the military and the American people. Next, they are going to blame Iran. They will blame anyone but themselves, the real culprits.

Posted by: jlw at January 11, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #202487

Dave1, BillS,

Ok, first, my bad about Kennedy voting for the war. I was thinking of Massachuttes’s other favorite son, Kerry. Forgiveness please. Also, looking over the bill, its perfectly in line with what Congress can do. I was under the impression from the original blog, that the bill’s purpose was to require the President to basically consult the Congress before any moves of troops etc. A bill banning any funding to be used for a troop surge is acceptable as I earlier stated.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 11, 2007 3:33 AM
Post a comment