Senate Weighs Measures Urging Bush Set Limits in Iraq
Edited on Mon Nov-14-05 10:40 PM by ECH1969
The U.S. Senate opened debate today on measures that would put the chamber on record for the first time asking President George W. Bush to set limits for keeping American troops in Iraq.
The Bush administration ``needs to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission,'' say resolutions introduced separately by both Republicans and Democrats.
While the measures express a non-binding ``sense of the Senate,'' together they're ``early pressure on a major U.S. military operation, in contrast to the Vietnam War'' where congressional resistance didn't occur until the early 1970s or about eight years after the start of the major military build- up, said Louis Fisher, a senior specialist on congressional war powers for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
The measures will prove attractive to Republicans up for re-election next year who want ``to distance themselves from the White House,'' Fisher said.
The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.
Mr. Warner said the underlying message was, "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." The senator, an influential party voice on military issues, said he did not interpret the wording of his plan as critical of the administration, describing it as a "forward-looking" approach.
"It is not a question of satisfaction or dissatisfaction," he said. "This reflects what has to be done."
Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
Read: Senate Republicans getting sick of whatever "staying the course" means
4. Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq
In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war. .... Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
Mr. Frist said an important reason for the Republican proposal was to offer an alternative to the Democratic call for a withdrawal timetable. "The real objective was to get out of this timeline of cutting and running that the Democrats have in their amendment," he said.
Mr. Warner said he decided to take the Democratic proposal and edit it to his satisfaction in an effort to find common ground between the parties on the issue.
8. Senate Repubs Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq
Edited on Tue Nov-15-05 03:32 AM by Freedom_from_Chains
Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.
You dont sit and tell generals how its going to happen. Maybe thats how LBJ did it - but that is also a recipe for disaster.
Yeah, imagine someone with no military experience telling generals how a military campaign is going to go down. That'd be stupid.
Hell Man!! Where have you all been!! There are no Republicans and Democrats, there all Socialist!!
That would explain all of the socialist programs they've inacted in the past 5 years, like tax cuts for the rich and, uh. . . dicking seniors out of their prescription benefits. Plus all of those cuts to "there" education funding.
BTW, instead of "ending" the "war" in Iraq, we ought to be discussing securing our new Iraqi allies by ending the terror regimes in Syria and Iran.
Not only does it help Israel, but it also provides a conduit for military movement into the Middle East and parts of Central Asia without entering the Persian Gulf through the dangerous Straits of Hormuz. An attack on Iran could then proceed without running the gamut of Russian Sunburn missiles in the Persian Gulf or begging the Turks to let us pass.
Syria also could provide an outlet for Middle Eastern and Central Asian oil and gas, bypassing not only the Persian Gulf, but also the Red Sea whose outlet is a pirate haven and the Black Sea and Bosporus, which are really controlled by Russia.
Such a route would also bypass Turkey, which refused, at the last minute, to let our troops and equipment transit into northern Iraq. Bypassing Turkey also allows the U.S. to make promises to the Kurds that would infuriate the Turks, like supporting an independent Kurdistan.
There is already a pipeline from northern Iraq through Syria to Syrian Mediterranean ports. The pipeline was in use just prior to the war. There is also a small, 8-inch pipeline running through Syria to Haifa in Israel dating from 1947 or so. That pipeline would be replaced with a much larger one.
There is also a pipeline running from Iraq's southern oil fields to the Syria pipeline. That could conceivably be extended to Kuwait or even southwestern Iran.
The likely Bush/PNAC plan would then have the U.S. attack Iran. Theoretically, it wouldn't be necessary to control the entire country, but instead, attempt to break off the southwestern oil field area which abuts Iraq and is populated withe Shia Arabs, like southern Iraq. A pipeline could then be built to join with the southern Iraqi pipeline system for export through Syria.
The U.S. would then secure northwestern Iran which has a high population of Azeris and Kurds. The Azeri areas could be returned to Azerbaijan and the Kurdish area joined with the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria to form a Kurdish state. A pipeline could then be built from Azerbaijan south through the new Azerbaijani provinces and Kurdistan to link up with the pipelines going through Syria to the Mediterranean. The pipeline would then displace the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline through Georgia and Turkey, bypassing the Bosporus and other trouble spots and leaving the errant Turks with a port at Ceyhan but not much oil to go through it.
I doubt that the PNAC crowd will be able to even try any of this in the present climate, especially considering what is now going on in the Senate. And of course, neither the Syrians nor the Iranians would give in. The guerrilla attacks on the current Iraqi pipeline system could pale in comparison to what would happen in Iran.
Nonetheless, the PNAC and thus the * administration will fight hard to take Syria as the first step in their plans to take over the Middle East and then the world. When they are defeated in 2008, they will just then go into opposition and wait for their chance in 2012. They have a long term time frame. So should we.
Edited on Tue Nov-15-05 03:56 AM by Freedom_from_Chains
Yeah, what needs to be done is to put the madman in the WH out of control so they might still be able to save some of the 06 election.
The freepers are now trying to spin it that this was Jr's game plan all along. The NYT is just trying to make it look like Congress is going to overrule him. Another vast left wing conspiracy you know. They are just too funny.
What a bunch of mindless idiots. Sorry, there's not an intelligent comment amongst them. Apparently, they think we can carry n this glorious delusion for decades as we drain our treasury of 100's of billions/year and waste 50,000 or more Americans fighting a war that's creating more and more hatred against us every day.
24. You are right they are really starting to come unglued
Yes, that's right. The war should never end. That's a real conservative position, and I'm sure that it's one the Senate Republicans favor.
10 posted on 11/14/2005 7:20:42 PM PST by churchillbuff
But then again it's hard on them when reality finally starts to breakthrough and shatter their delusions of grandeur. These people are so psychotic they actually think that the Congress, and even the President, monitors their comments to make decisions on policy matters.
Now common sense tells one that Bush doesn't have an account there as his screen name would be too easy to spot. It would definitely be something like NoOneCanTellMeWhatToDoNow, or maybe, MomSaysI'mInCharge, or possibly, depending on how tanked up he was when he created his screen name, it might be something like Who'sTheirFavoriteSonNowJebYouLowlyPunkAssGoverner
"There's no way in hell I want those troops coming home before complete victory. I have too much respect for them, to sign on to that. And if Drudge wants to join the leftist drumbeat in the attempt to force it, he can kiss my ass!"
I knew it! The Freepers have TOO MUCH RESPECT FOR THE TROOPS to withdraw them!
28. Why aren't we hammering on this war as a purely political war?
It was a war of choice and political calculation, not based on national security or imminent danger. The cravenness of this move for withdrawal is purely political too. These corrupt beings are willing to kill people to have power.
29. At this point it is just a little to complex for the masses
Let's be happy that they are at least starting to sense that something is wrong and use it to get us out of Iraq. After the regime is ousted when can then turn to educating the masses as to the political realities of tyranny.
35. Like the looters in a bad Ayn Rand adaptation, the 'in-charge' GOP...
...has no idea how to fix the problems they've caused. Like Thompson and Taggart, republicans seek a Galt-like Democratic plan to repair the country's Iraq-based errors.
Of course, in reality, our GOP had to first castigate that plan. They asserted through the media that the Democrats have no plan for Iraq except cut and run. Notwithstanding the fact that their characterization of a withdrawal plan as 'cut and run' was splashed in our faces by that media, withdrawal as a option was being discussed by Democrats and vilified by republicans. The GOP promptly told Americans that such discussion sends the wrong message to the troops and to the enemy. They said a time line for the removal of US troops would provide a target date to the enemy where they could say, "Just get to their withdrawal date and Iraq will be ours!"
Now Frist comes out with a potential withdrawal plan. Doing so out of a conviction that the proposed withdrawal is the best policy for the country would be one thing but to flip-flop on so serious an issue for partisan political purposes not only endangers our troops and the country but reveals their lack of character, as if that needed more revealing. Watching the party in power flip-flop in response to the polls and to the recent election results on an issue of such monumental substance (2065 American lives lost with who knows how many Iraqis dead and $300 billion spent) must give great comfort to our enemies and aid all of those who oppose our forces.
Has anyone called or will anyone call him on the earlier GOP comments suggesting that the withdrawal option would bring about the end of civilization as we know it?
(This was posted in another thread. I guess I should have checked further to see if a relevant thread existed.)
39. This is because of lack of leadership from Dems
The Dems are just handing this issue over to the Repukes by refusing to take a stand on ending the war. If the national Democratic figures would make a unified stand on immediate troop withdrawal then they'll kick ass in '06. Instead, they'll waffle, triangulate, and be Repuke-lite. Then the Repukes will put forward a plan to take the troops home, they'll come home, and the Repukes will take total credit for it.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.