September 16, 2007
The Most Important Bill Ever Ignored
This was going to be facts on democrats part nine, but I stumbled upon an unfound diamond at http://thomas.loc.gov. The bill is H.R. 1292: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other purposes. The bill is sponsored by Representative John B Larson (D-CT).
Because this piece focuses on just one bill below I quote the bill in full:
"To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other purposes. (Introduced in House)
HR 1292 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1292
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 1, 2007
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Contrary to the Weinberger Doctrine, which states that the United States should use military force only if it is in the vital national interest of the United States and only with clearly defined political and military goals, the United States went to war against Iraq in March 2003 without clearly defined political and military goals.
(2) Contrary to the Powell Doctrine, which states that if the United States is to use military force it should be `overwhelming' military force, the United States went to war against Iraq without the troop levels or strategy needed to secure a post-invasion Iraq.
(3) Ignoring the advice of United States military leaders and experts, the President sent United States troops into war against Iraq without sufficient levels needed for post-conflict success and without sufficient armor and related equipment, and has used the United States military in such a way that today it is straining under the weight of the war.
(4) The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq--that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had links to al Qaeda--have not, to date, been proven correct.
(5) On May 1, 2003, the President announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, thus starting an entirely new phase--the occupation of Iraq.
(6) The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq have shifted dramatically since Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), from combating the threat that Saddam Hussein allegedly posed to the United States, to establishing an Iraqi democracy, and to a larger vision of Middle Eastern democracy.
(7) Public Law 107-243 authorized the President to use force to `defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'.
(8) Currently, United States troops are not facing a military force or direct threat to the United States in Iraq, rather they are facing both a Sunni insurgency against the United States occupation of Iraq and a violent, long-standing struggle between Sunni and Shia Islam on the streets of Baghdad--neither of which pose a `continuing threat' to the United States.
(9) Public Law 107-243 clearly reflected the President's policies of preemption and unilateralism that have left the United States with an open-ended and ill-defined occupation of a country in the middle of a civil war.
(10) The President's policies of preemption and unilateralism that led the United States into Iraq now leave the United States with no clear exit strategy from Iraq.
(11) The escalation of the use of military force in Iraq continues the retreat from long-held United States policies of diplomacy, deterrence, and containment.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress should vote on a new authorization for use of force resolution that--
(A) reflects the current situation in Iraq;
(B) abandons the Bush Doctrine of preemption and unilateralism; and
(C) realigns United States policy with its long-held engagement priorities of diplomacy, deterrence, and containment;
(2) the United States should establish a quick-reaction United States military force with an over-the-horizon presence in the region to respond as needed to imminent security threats in the Middle East;
(3) the United States should enhance and intensify diplomatic relations that will provide the proper external environment and support for the difficult internal steps that the Government of Iraq should take to promote national reconciliation;
(4) the United States should increase efforts to engage all neighboring countries and the League of Arab States in promoting stability in Iraq;
(5) the United States should maintain its commitment to continue to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq;
(6) the United States should redirect diplomatic, economic, and military support to Afghanistan, where the Taliban continues to destabilize the region; and
(7) the United States should aggressively pursue Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that continue to pose an imminent threat to the United States."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1292:
First I want to point out the obvious that this bill is dead, as no action has been taken on this bill since it's birth on 3/1/2007 and furthermore not one single House member has stood up to co-sponsor this bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01292:@@@X
From what I have seen this is the most logical and complete writing from the left, whether be it from an organization, an individual's opinion, or a bill drafted for Congress.
This bill brings up what too many of us, on all sides, have stopped talking about, that this was a preemptive war. That the weapons of mass desruction argument and the link to 9/11 were a fallacy, "The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq--that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had links to al Qaeda--have not, to date, been proven correct." This bill also is truthful in that it is willing to state that we have been fed reason after reason for a continuation for the war after the 9/11 and WMD argument fell apart, "The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq have shifted dramatically since Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), from combating the threat that Saddam Hussein allegedly posed to the United States, to establishing an Iraqi democracy, and to a larger vision of Middle Eastern democracy."
This bill also is very clear in that it shows that we were ill prepared and did not do our homework before we went into Iraq. This is shown in the fact that we "went to war against Iraq in March 2003 without clearly defined political and military goals." It is important to look back to the beginning of this quagmire if we are too understand why we are in our current state of affairs. However, neither major party wants us too look back to what really happened because Republicans do not want the WMD argument too reappear and Democrats want us to forget that so many of them supported the war just a few years ago.
This bill goes beyond being a thought of the left, in that it shows that if we were prepared and would have gone in with enough troops and a well thought out plan we would have never needed a surge or such a long continuation: "the United States went to war against Iraq without the troop levels or strategy needed to secure a post-invasion Iraq.... Ignoring the advice of United States military leaders and experts, the President sent United States troops into war against Iraq without sufficient levels needed for post-conflict success and without sufficient armor and related equipment, and has used the United States military in such a way that today it is straining under the weight of the war."
This bill directly references the fact that we are no longer in a direct conventional war but are now instead involved in a sectarian civil war. This is shown in: "Currently, United States troops are not facing a military force or direct threat to the United States in Iraq, rather they are facing both a Sunni insurgency against the United States occupation of Iraq and a violent, long-standing struggle between Sunni and Shia Islam on the streets of Baghdad--neither of which pose a `continuing threat' to the United States."
Unlike many gutless wonders in the Democratic Party this bill directly references the fact that Bush has already said that this war is not going to end under his administration and actually could be never ending, shown in: " The President's policies of preemption and unilateralism that led the United States into Iraq now leave the United States with no clear exit strategy from Iraq."
This bill is especially interesting in that it repeals the original authorization, a unique idea that I personally have yet to see in not only any other Congressional bill but in any other writing altogether.
Even more sensible the bill states that, "Congress should vote on a new authorization for use of force resolution that--
(A) reflects the current situation in Iraq;
(B) abandons the Bush Doctrine of preemption and unilateralism; and
(C) realigns United States policy with its long-held engagement priorities of diplomacy, deterrence, and containment."
This is basically a do-over. So why don't Democrats support this? Is it that they are afraid that they would be so wimpy that they would make the same mistake that they did before?
It is sad, it is pathetic that not one damn Democrat in the House is willing to co-sponsor this bill. This bill represents the most logical, factual and honest account I have seen.
I am especially ashamed that Dennis Kucinich did not co-sponsor this bill of all people. Bad Dennis Bad.
I support this bill to such a degree that I am actually going to link to Representative John B Larson's website. Those of you who have read my previous pieces and know how much I despise Democrats should understand what this means in how much I support this bill that I am willing to link a Democrat's website to one of my articles.
As I link this uhhhh Democrats uhhhh website I also must have to say how ashamed I am of many other progressive House Democrats, whom I usually support, for not sponsoring this bill, they are: John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey, Jim McDermott.
Posted by Richard Rhodes at September 16, 2007 05:00 AMRichard, it’s a dead bill. Noble effort, dead bill. Larson is Don Quixote. The Bill is a windmill. You are Sancho.
Let’s move back to the land of reality and work with it as it is to remedy the situation. The real problem is one of getting other nations to pony up as we pony out. That is potentially doable in a number of different ways. But, they all require Bush having left office and being replaced by a Democrat, but, NO Republican, (with one exception, Ron Paul).
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 16, 2007 08:38 AMCongressman Larson isn’t just opposing Bush and the Republicans with this bill; he’s opposing his own party as well.
It’s getting more and more obvious that the Democrats have no plans on doing anything to oppose the Iraq war until after the ‘08 elections.
Oh, they’ll hold hearings like they did this week so they can make their soundbites, but in the end, they will give Bush all the support (and money) he wants. Just like they have been doing.
The reason Kucinich won’t support this Bill is because he is running for President on his own plan to end the occupation in Iraq. The candidates can’t afford the war ending before the elections.
The Traveler: There is only one problem with what you say. It is impossible for the Democrats to end our involvement in Iraq without the cooperation of a significant number of Republicans. Any legislation passed will have to have at least two thirds of the Congress willing to override a presidential veto.
The Democrats could possibly pass legislation by a slim majority and force Bush to veto it. If the Democrats were able to do this, the Republicans would claim that the Democrats were playing politics with the lives of our troops.
What would you say if for instance, the Democrats were able to pass legislation to cut off funds for the war? Would you say that the Democrats were depriving the troops of needed resources which would result in more of our troops dying? The Republicans would. They would proclaim Bush a champion of the troops when he vetoed the bill.
I wish the Democrats would force the issue but, without strong bi-partisan support, the Democrats will be accused of playing politics with the lives of our troops, aiding the terrorists and trying to destroy America.
The Administration has concluded that as long as they have a 35 percent approval rating on the war, come election time they can easily con another 16 percent to vote Republican by doing a little abortion, gay and illegal immigrant bashing.
Posted by: jlw at September 16, 2007 11:08 AM“The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq—that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had links to al Qaeda—have not, to date, been proven correct.”
First, there were valid reasons to think that it was probable that Iraq had WMD. They did have WMD that was not accounted for and couldn’t be found with inspections and Saddam was doing his best to block the UN from finding out what occurred to them. Context is important here…
Second, Iraq had links to
internation terrorism. Whether or not that is al Qaeda or some other organization, including the ones that Iraq directly funded, is what the concern was about. Remember, it is a ‘war on terror’ not a ‘war on al Qaeda’. If opponents of the war were more honest about that it wouldn’t make them look like wholesale peacenicks.
Finally, The two things that caused both of those is now dead and buried. The reasons that were there for going into Iraq is gone and we should have been gone as soon as he was deposed (or maybe stay until he was found, so he didn’t regarner support and get back into power). That we are still there is not what many of us signed up for, we did not want to put a US stamp on Iraq. Let Iraq be a free Iraq, free to fail and descend into chaos. It is only with this fear of ultimate failure that will force someone into getting that country back on track.
So yes, I and many others believe that we should no longer be there, but if the anti-war folks want to try and make support for leaving Iraq be that we should have never went in in the first place, no consensus that I believe is possible to end this nonsense we are in now will occur.
So, what do you want? To leave in the present or to try and make people accept your version of history? That is a question that most of the anti-war people should be asking themselves…
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 16, 2007 11:35 AMjlw,
Only hardcore party people are using that lame excuse these days. More and more Democrats are disappointed with their party because they want them to at least try to do something. Did you read Richard’s article? This bill can’t even get one co-sponsor. That’s because the Democrats (the party leadership, not the voters) want to keep the war on, and going as badly as possible. They need it that way to give them an edge in the ‘08 presidential election. In fact, because Republican support for the war is waning, Democrats are afraid to support such a bill in case it passes.
You see, they are conned the ‘06 voters into supporting a pullout that, for political reasons, they did not even try to achieve. Now they are doing it again.
The ironic thing is that the war has now become more beneficial for the Democrats than it ever was for Bush. It will backfire on them of course. More and more Democratic voters are seeing through the con.
Neither party’s stance on the war is particularly popular with the people these days. Neither side is willing to commit to either doing what it takes to win, or doing what it takes to pull out. It’s become all about the politics. People are starting to realize that. This will probably give third party candidates or someone like Ron Paul a boost next year over the party hacks who are now the current frontrunners. How much of a boost remains to be seen.
Posted by: TheTraveler at September 16, 2007 11:55 AMjlw said: “come election time they can easily con another 16 percent to vote Republican by doing a little abortion, gay and illegal immigrant bashing.”
And they may be right. A little terrorist attack next Summer or Fall will make illegal immigration the front and center topic, leaving Democrats in the Cold with their ‘Open the US to the world for plundering’ philosophy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 16, 2007 12:34 PMRhinehold said: “and couldn’t be found with inspections”
BINGO! Should have been one helluva big CLUE right there, don’t you think?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 16, 2007 12:36 PMThe Traveler: Your implication they haven’t tried is just about as bogus as it gets. Review the many bills to set a timeline by Democrats. They have tried to bring this to a close in the foreseeable future and Republicans and Lieberman would have none of it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 16, 2007 12:38 PMRichard Rhodes,
That does appear to have been good legislation. Too bad it was totally dead-ended. The same is true of Kucinich’s “impeach Cheney” movement.
They’re just dead …….. period. If something lacks even the slightest chance of advancing why waste time on it? This Dem congress is already earning the tag “do-nothing” which is actually just downright intellectually lazy ————- it should be “do the wrong thing”.
I’m pretty darn liberal (in the modern sense, Rhinehold), in fact I like your list:
“John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey, Jim McDermott” ……… If I were to jump ship and vote for anyone other than a Democrat (remember I’m in Kansas) at this point in time it would almost certainly be a Green Party candidate or someone not affliliated with any party.
But, I do see a multitude of problems with just cutting off funding to facilitate a precipitous withdrawal. As CinC the POTUS has the ability to order the Sec of Def to redirect DOD funding that’s already “in the pipeline” for other purposes. They would almost certainly cut back on maintenance and training.
How would you feel when Blackhawks starting crashing at 3 or 4 times the rate they do now due to cut-backs in maintenance. Or when you read about the new MRAPS stacking up at a loading dock because the Pentagon had no funds to pay for their shipment. (Yeah, we are outsourcing shipment, I believe largely to Russia)
Sadly how we leave is every bit as important as WHEN we leave. I’m certainly not willing to see an increase in the loss of American life because we CREATED a greater cluster#@!% than we’re already dealing with. But, I do share your frustration. The whole damn thing was avoidable.
Posted by: KansasDem at September 16, 2007 05:14 PMDavid,
Your implication they haven’t tried is just about as bogus as it gets. Review the many bills to set a timeline by Democrats.
Which very conveniently didn’t come close to passing. And don’t even try bringing up that fake “filibuster” either. So they made their speeches at night. Big deal. They made it look like they were forcing the Republican’s hand when in reality, they had no intention of trying to pass the bill in the first place. And the Republicans were more than happy to go along with the sham. No up-and-down vote from the Dems, no real filibuster from the Reps. Do-Nothing Congress, indeed! But people fell for it.
Face it David. This is an example of what you claim to hate the most: The duopoly at work. both parties are getting what they want, and nothing is accomplished.
The Democrats can ill-afford a large-scale pullout before next November, so guess who’s gonna get just what he wants from Congress in the meantime…
BINGO! Should have been one helluva big CLUE right there, don’t you think?
No, David, you are attempting to ignore that Saddam was playing so many games with the inspectors that they never had full and unfettered access to inspect where they wanted to inspect, when they wanted to inspect, etc. This was true right up to AND INCLUDING the final report given by Blix. Blix himself said, before the invasion after he was told to leave Iraq, that he would not be surprised if WMD were found in Iraq because of the way his team was blocked.
Saddam wanted everyone to think he still had those weapons. He did everything in his power to make people think he had those weapons. So why are we at fault for actually thinking he HAD THOSE WEAPONS?
So, it was not unreasonable to support the invasion. Some people did, some people didn’t. But knowing what we knew about Saddam, how he was treating his own people, how he had used WMD in the past, how he was blocking inspection attempts and wanting us to think he still had those weapons, how he was supporting international terrorism, including al Qaeda at Al Shifa, how he was shooting at US and UK planes on an increasing basis…. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.
But beyond that, instead of accepting that people aren’t bad for supporting the invasion in the face of what we knew then compared to what we know now, why are the anti-war people so insistent to alientate those of us who did but think we should be out of Iraq by now? Wouldn’t it make more sense to accept our differences of opinion of the reasons and motives for going in and focus on doing what it takes to get our troops home? Instead, every time the speeches start, they start off by pissing off the very people they are trying to reach out to to break the split…
It just doesn’t makes sense to me, but little that some people do does I guess.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 16, 2007 09:01 PMRhinehold, it didn’t have to be conclusive evidence there WASN’T WMD, Obviously. Because all their evidence there were WMD were inconclusive as well. See how that refutes your argument? Never, mind, I sure you don’t.
But, electing to go to war with a nation that has NOT attacked your homeland or even threatened to, requires something a bit more conclusive in the way of evidence of ‘imminent threat’. So, no. Your and the Republicans and Democrats justification for entering this clustersuck of bad and illogical reasoning called Iraq is just plain illogical and irrational.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2007 02:55 AMThe Traveler, the fact that it didn’t come close to passing is a result of insufficient Democratic votes in the Senate. The huge majority of Democrats did vote to set the timeline. Your argument lacks any merit. The voters control the mix of parties in the Congress, and the voters got what they wanted, enough Democrats to send a message to Republicans and not enough anti-war votes in the Senate to halt the war. That is what the polls showed the voters wanted.
You just can’t pin this on the Democrats. Not logically, anyway. They tried, and are still trying to impose a timeline for drawing down substantially from Iraq. Voters now support that idea, but, won’t be able to change the Senate mix to accommodate that majority opinion until the 2008 elections. In 2006, voters consensus on pulling out was not the majority polls show it is now.
Now, if you want to pin something on the Democrats, try border and national insecurity, they are overwhelmingly in favor of insecurity on the home front.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2007 03:03 AMBecause all their evidence there were WMD were inconclusive as well.
Except for the stores of WMD that was inventoried after the end of the first Gulf War and was not accounted for. Funny how we did find some later, but since they were not ‘new’ it didn’t count? In fact, we even found some sitting in the UN where it has been ‘misplaced’.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 10:07 AMSee how that refutes your argument? Never, mind, I sure you don’t.
Of course it doesn’t because is makes no sense. We *knew* that they had WMDs at one point because we inventoried them. They were under strict orders by the UN, that they agreed to as part of their surrender, to destroy their WMD in front of inspectors and allow inspesctors to ensure that they were not making any more. The destruction was suppose to take place within 90 days, yet 12 years later we still could not verify the whereabouts of a portion of the WMD stock we knew that they had. We didn’t know what happened to them, they were not destroyed as proscribed and we couldn’t get inspectors the access they needed to determine their fate. As I detailed we have since found some of those weapons, some in mortar shells in Iraq, others sitting at the UN. So they were not destroyed and did exist.
It’s like banging a head against a brick wall sometimes.
I’m *not* asking that you must accept that they had WMD, David. I am not demanding that you agree that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. All that I ask from the current anti-war group is not to *demand* that I say that going into Iraq was wrong because I do not think it was based on what we knew at the time, just in order to join the call for ending our occupation of that country. Instead of joining forces the purists are attempting to place a stake in the ground, and I will not join as long as they make that demand, just as this bill shows.
If the bill had stated that there is no reason to be there NOW and that our presence there NOW is hurting the situation more than helping, then I would certainly join on board as would many people who are upset but do not accept the opening statements of the current bill.
So all it would take would be a little consideration when attempting to unite for this noble cause. Instead we see why there is a divide in this country, both sides want to place their feet in the sand and draw lines. And in doing so those of us who are of different minds are told we aren’t welcome in the game.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 10:18 AMRhinehold, don’t clASSify my kind in the anti-war group. If this country is in imminent danger, I will fight and support that fight. You do the intelligence of your argument a great disservice to presume that those who oppose THIS war are all anti-war in general. A great disservice.
I don’t insist you think anything at all. I simply refute the weaknesses in your arguments and present the strengths of others. You didn’t address my central point. Electing to invade another country which posed no imminent threat to our homeland is now a matter of history. No one in the intelligence agencies or the Bush administration ever claimed that Saddam Hussein had the missile capacity to deliver any weapons of anykind onto our homeland. That fact was well known and in public circulation. And we had no evidence whatsoever, that he had WMD. We had supposition, we had heresay, but, NO hard intelligence of WMD in Iraq. We know that is true because the Bush administration had to fabricate evidence, now proven to be fabrication.
If America is going to ask its sons and daughters to give up their limbs, and lives and the taxpayers to give up billions in additional tax dollars in pursuit of an elective war against a nation posing NO risk to our homeland, don’t you believe our government has an obligation to insure the evidence for such a decision is sound and real? I do. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2007 11:42 AMRhinehold,
Remember, it is a ‘war on terror’ not a ‘war on al Qaeda’
Ah, the famous WOT doctrine. The place with the largest amount of good people being terrorized by bad guys should have been invaded and occupied first to stop terror to frighten these good guys and kill the bad guys using terror on them.
Wait.
Yeah, right after 9/11 this place was the USA. Right before Iraq War, it still was the USA.
Right now, where it is?
And who where/are the bad guys?
Stupide war doctrines. Next wars: war on sadness, war on death and war on time.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 17, 2007 12:38 PMRhineholod,
That we are still there is not what many of us signed up for, we did not want to put a US stamp on Iraq.
Only a naive could have *not* see this US stamp over Iraq coming. Stop swallow any official propaganda press releases like genuine truth.
And stop calling every people that were saying “we’ll stay in Iraq for decades, and do you why? Two words: oil control”. Check their arguments instead. Just because nobody is always right.
All that I ask from the current anti-war group is not to *demand* that I say that going into Iraq was wrong because I do not think it was based on what we knew at the time
Going into Iraq was wrong because AT THE TIME people who choose to go knew they were ignoring every reports, memos, warming that were saying to them: you’re wrong on your Iraq threat assertions.
The leaders already knew what have since leaked to john doe ears.
While Mr Doe could indeed claim he didn’t *sign up* for these reasons we know today were wrong or even forged, he should ask himself why he let his leaders betray his trust and why he *still* think his leaders knew nothing more than him AT THIS TIME.
Aka why he’s still so naive.
David,
You just can’t pin this on the Democrats. Not logically, anyway.
I’m not trying to do that. As I said, both parties are involved in keeping the war going. I do believe, however, that the Democrats now have a political need not to have a major pullout before the election and they are acting on that need. I also believe they now have more to lose than the Republicans if the war ends. That’s why they talk and talk about opposing Bush’s strategies, but continue to give him everything he wants.
I agree with you on border security, although Bush is partly to blame as well.
Posted by: TheTraveler at September 17, 2007 03:22 PMTheTraveler said: “I also believe they now have more to lose than the Republicans if the war ends.”
I do too! But, that speculation has not produced any evidence that it is their intent to forestall its ending, yet! And frankly, I don’t think any evidence could become apparent as long as Bush is intent on passing this war to his successor and Democrats lack 67 votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto. So, I think it is a moot point.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2007 03:54 PM
Those who believe that Bush just wants to keep this war going on his terms until he leaves office are wrong. If the Democrats and enough Republicans passed legislation calling for the slow withdraw of troops over a three year period or even a five year period, Bush would veto it.
Iraq is far to valuable a piece of property to capture and then abandon. It is the most stregic location in the Middle East. Iraq, not only has all that oil, it is the perfect place to stage an invasion of Iran, Syria or both. Don’t worry, there is more coming from this President and this time I think the primary alliance will be the United States, Israel and France.
David Remer: You said that the voters controlled the election in 2006 and got exactly what they wanted, enough Democrats to send a message but not enough to be effective. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Did independent voters conspired to throw the election to the Democrats just enough to make them seem weak and ineffective?
Posted by: jlw at September 17, 2007 06:24 PMjlw, no, Democrat voters failed to exercise their power to remove inept, corrupt, and ineffective incumbents, leaving the heavy lifting to the Independent voters, who took the majority away from Republicans but, could not give the majority to a responsible Congress due to lack of Democratic voter participation in their efforts to VOID incumbents unworthy of the position.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2007 10:45 AMjlw said :”Those who believe that Bush just wants to keep this war going on his terms until he leaves office are wrong. If the Democrats and enough Republicans passed legislation calling for the slow withdraw of troops over a three year period or even a five year period, Bush would veto it.”
These 2 sentences contradict each other. The latter sentence supports the opposite of the your first sentence.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2007 10:48 AMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
