Archive for the 'escalation' Category

While the House debate on the anti-escalation resolution culminates in a vote today, a handful in Congress are working on the follow-up, binding resolutions, that will address our continued occupation of Iraq and seek to end it.

Speaker Pelosi has linked support for Bush's funding request to stricter standards for training, equipping, and rotations, and Biden is looking at repealing the Iraq AUMF:

Congressional Democrats signaled a willingness to directly challenge and curtail Bush's warmaking powers, a move that will almost certainly spark a legal or constitutional confrontation. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a Pelosi ally, is rewriting the president's spending request to limit Bush's options in prosecuting the war, and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he will seek to repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for Bush to wage war in Iraq and substitute legislation that would narrow the mission of troops there and begin to bring some home.

"If we are going to support our troops, we should respect what is considered reasonable for them: their training, their equipment and their time at home," Pelosi said in an interview with a small group of reporters. "What we're trying to say to the president is, you can't send people in who are not trained for urban warfare . . . who are not prepared to contend with an insurgency."

Those stricter standards are likely to come in the form of that legislation being written by Rep. John Murtha. The Left Coaster has more details:

By mid-March, Murtha will unveil legislation that he says would set such stringent rules on combat deployments that Bush would have no choice but to begin bringing troops home.

His legislation would dictate how long troops can stay, the equipment they use and whether any money could be spent to expand military operations into Iran. Murtha says few units could meet the high standards he envisions, meaning Bush's plan to keep some 160,000 troops in Iraq for months on end would be thwarted.

Under his plan, he says, Democrats would be helping and not hurting troops by making sure they have what they need before being thrown into combat.

"This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction of the war," Murtha, D-Pa., told an anti-war group in an interview broadcast on the Internet Thursday.

"The president could veto it, but then he wouldn't have any money," he later said.  [emphasis mine]

By setting the rules of the continued occupation, Murtha will set the bar for what "supporting the troops" means. Beyond this, Murtha's bill would close Abu Ghraib, reduce reliance on contractors, and defund permanent bases in Iraq. And it's done in a politically smart way. By setting benchmarks for troop safety, the opposition is going to have a hard time arguing it would be abandoning the troops. And if Bush vetoes, he doesn't get any money.

Remember when Sen. Dick Durbin was forced to issue an apology for the mere mention of the word "Nazi" back in June 2005? The Washington Post summed up the situation pretty well, I think:

It prompted yet another episode in what has become a familiar Kabuki in American political discourse: Someone invokes the behavior of Nazis in some non-genocidal context. This is followed by an outcry (in which members of the opposing party are "saddened"), condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League, futile attempts by the speaker to "clarify" his remarks, repeated calls for him to apologize and, inevitably, some acknowledgment of regret, often tearful.

Joining in the condemnation at the time...

Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell and John Warner condemned Durbin on the floor two days later. They were followed by about two dozen Republican senators (in news releases), Majority Leader Bill Frist (who called on Durbin to apologize on the Senate floor), Vice President Cheney, White House press secretary Scott McClellan and a host of veterans groups and conservative commentators.

The latest entry in the Nazi invocation sweepstakes: John Warner's Virginia colleague, Rep. Frank Wolf.

This is the answer! This is part of the solution to bring the country together! It can not wait! This is like, '37 to '38 in Nazi Germany coming. We cannot wait for other months and other times and other things!

What the hell is he talking about? Good question. I'm not even sure he knows.

But apparently, noted human rights champion torture voter Wolf has decided to perform The Forbidden Dance in order to highlight the inhuman atrocity of... denying him a vote on a non-germane amendment to the straight upperdownvote^TM on the escalation.

See, Wolf believes that instead of voting on the escalation itself, we should be voting on whether we think the Iraq Study Group's report was a nice thing or not. And if we don't, well, it's just Nazi Germany all over again.

But thanks to a leaked Republican talking points memo, we now have a clearer idea (as if we didn't already) of why Republicans feel it's so important that we not-see (heh) a straight up vote on the question: "If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge^* or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

So let's all just hold our breath and wait for Mitch McConnell, John Warner, Dick Cheney, et al. to demand Wolf's apology, shall we?

Yeah, right. IOKIYAR.

^*N.B.: The "surge" is what idiots who like to fool themselves call the "escalation."

Update [2007-2-14 17:26:38 by Kagro X]: Here's Frank Wolf's stab at taking the discussion into our territory, at The Hill's Congress Blog:

Democrats Set Dangerous Precedent With CR
February 1st, 2007

The Democrats are setting a precedent that is very dangerous. We should have been able to add amendments...I introduced legislation last month based on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. Am I going to be shut out because I can’t offer any amendments? That’s been the story for the last month.

Permalink | Comment on this story

Posted by Va. GOP Rep. Frank Wolf

Aww. That's been the story for the last month, huh? How tragic.

It was the story for the previous 12 years. With your help, Frank.

Steny Hoyer's gotten hold of a wayward "Dear Colleague" letter from GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra that shows a little too much leg (PDF):

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.  

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

I've decided to help you find the key nugget, with a little bolding. Didja catch it?

If we have an upperdownvote ^TM on the escalation, Republicans lose.

Because nearly everyone in America opposes it, including a significant number of the Republicans who received this letter. And if there's a straight-up vote on it, they lose.

So naturally, the Republican plan is: try to make the vote about something else.

News flash, fellas. There is nothing else. The war is everything, and piece by piece we will have our votes, and you will lose them.

"Elections have consequences."

Debate starts tomorrow on Iraq resolutions in the House of Representatives. Each representative has been allotted five minutes to speak during the next three days, with a vote coming Friday.

The Republicans think they can win the war of words in this debate:

Democrats will file a nonbinding resolution against the Bush plan while Republicans will try to broaden the dispute and seed doubt in the Democratic approach. Although Senate Republicans were able to block debate on a resolution condemning Bush's war policies last week, it will be much easier for Democrats in the House to bring a measure to the floor.

The GOP, whose members have conceded they are likely to lose, is treating the debate like a mini-political campaign, deploying a rapid-response team to counter Democrats' statements, aggressively trying to get its leaders on television and radio, and creating a "resource center" off the House floor where members can fill their arms with maps, research material, videos or other visual aids to use during their floor time.

Too bad they couldn't put that much planning and forethought into the actual war in Iraq.

Update: The Democrat's resolution is here.

Salon has published a floor statement made Tuesday by Senator Jim Webb on his support for the Warner/Levin resolution. With all due respect to our new Senator, it's a bit of a disappointment. The Senator describes his surprise and dismay that the administration has not used diplomatic efforts "to bring order out of this chaos," then goes on to say:

The bottom line of all of this is that this administration and its supporters must understand the realities that are causing us, as a Congress, to finally say enough is enough. That the time has come for a new approach. That the answer in Iraq, and to our fight against international terrorism, and to our diminished posture around the world, is for us to show not only our prowess on the battlefield but also our leadership in the diplomatic arena. That indeed we have an obligation to the men and women who have served so selflessly on our behalf to match their proficiency and their loyalties with the kind of thoughtful leadership that will bring this effort to a proper conclusion.

If there are other ways to persuade this administration to change its ineffective, one-dimensional approach to the situation in Iraq, I would welcome them. But after five years of political disarray I do not believe this is so. So I support the Warner-Levin resolution as a first step in reclaiming America's strategic purpose and international reputation. And I urge my fellow senators to do the same.

Senator Webb, do you seriously have any confidence that the administration will do any of the things that you prescribe--that they will understand these realities? Given the history of the last four years, of the administration's efforts in the run up to the war, the conduct of the war, and now the conduct of the occupation, can you reach any other conclusion than that stated by your colleague, Senator Feingold:

There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that’s not their responsibility."

Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It’s not going to stop us."

Senator Webb, you described your support of the Warner/Levin resolution as a first step. But it seems clear that neither the now moribund Warner/Levin resolution, nor any other non-binding wrist slap from the Senate will persuade this adminstration to change. You must know this now, after five years of disarray in this debacle. It's past time to stop trying to persuade the most unpersuadable administration in history. Instead, it is time to show him the way, as you stated in your response to the State of the Union address:

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two.  And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas.  If he does, we will join him.  If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Senator Webb, it's time to show the way. Your son deserved and deserves better leadership from his Commander in Chief. He did not get it, and he will not get it. He also deserves better leadership from our Congress. Unlike the President, you have shown realistic, intelligent, and hard-headed leadership on this issue. Your son, all of the men and women serving in Iraq, and the American people deserve nothing less.

Senator Feingold had a conference call with bloggers after the Warner/Levin Iraq escalation resolution fiasco, and had some strong words for his fellow Democrats. From Bob Geiger:

"This is not a time to finesse the situation. This is not a time for a slow walk. This almost reminds me a little bit of the way Democrats behaved in October 2002, which was trying to play it safe, trying to use words such as 'well, we're going to vote for this resolution, but what it really means is that the president should go to the UN. That stuff doesn’t fly. And this kind of attempt to go a little bit of the way just to show you're on the other side of the president doesn’t fly either.

"This is an important moment to see if we're really going to try to end this war and, frankly, I am disappointed that Democrats are playing it too safe on this....

"They want to be immune from criticism from the White House. That's not how you win, by being afraid of the criticism. You stand up to the criticism and you say 'they were wrong. They took us in there on a fraudulent basis, they’ve screwed this up, they've screwed up the war against terrorism, they’ve weakened out military. We are going to take a completely different approach.'

"But the tragedy that we're facing, is that people simply will not do the strong thing when it needs to be done. They wait and they wait and they wait -- and in the meantime, thousands of Americans have died unnecessarily."

He also discusses the pernicious influence of the DC Democratic consultant class on keeping this war going. Sirota has the audio links here, and I've transcribed the most damning part (all errors mine):

What I think is happening is that the Washington consultants, particularly those who were part of the previous Democratic administration, come in to a room with the leadership and tell them, "Look, if you propose a timeline or if you try to cut off the funding Republicans will tear you apart. So I think it comes from the other side. I think it comes from teh Washington inside crowd that sets the parameters of this debate. This Washington inside crowd was for this war and they can't figure out how to get out of this situation. . . .  So this assumption that somehow it's Democratic Senators coming in saying you know this is a tough vote for me--I don't think that's where it's coming from. I think it's coming from the power structure in Washington that's desperately trying to figure out how to explain how they made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of our country. And that's why you have to go right at them. The people of this country want this over. Washington consultants supported this. So it's us versus them on this issue.

It is us versus them on this issue. Actually, on a lot of issues, but this one just happens to be the most critical issue we've faced in recent history. The people of this country do want this over, and that's why they sent Dems to Congress last November. Senator Feingold understands that implicitly. It's our job to make sure that the rest of them get it, too.

Update: Crooks and Liars has the video of Senator Feingold's appearance on Countdown last night. Don't miss it.