Dems Make War On Bush's Iraq Plan

As GOP Opposition In Senate Grows, Democrats Push Resolution Opposing U.S. Troop Buildup

(CBS/AP)  In a calculated snub of President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed plans for a troop buildup in Iraq on Wednesday as "not in the national interest" of the United States.

"The president has made his decision," Vice President Dick Cheney fired back, a response that made it clear the administration would go ahead anyway. "We need to get the job done."

The committee vote, 12-9 along party lines, capped hours of debate in which Republicans and Democrats vented their frustration and anger — both with the administration and their own past unwillingness to change the course of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives," said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

"This Congress was never meant to be a rubber stamp," added Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "Read the Constitution. The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."

Hagel was the only one of 10 committee Republicans to support the nonbinding measure.

He is also one of at least four senators on the committee thinking of running for president. "They know their votes are going on the record, and could be thrown back at them on the campaign trail," reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

In the wake of midterm election losses, Mr. Bush announced two weeks ago that he would order an additional 21,500 troops into the war zone. In Tuesday night's State of the Union address, he implored skeptical lawmakers to give the strategy a chance.

According to a CBS News Poll conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the speech, a slim majority of speech-watchers — 52 percent — favor sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. This is an improvement from before the speech, when just 43 percent of the same people supported sending more troops.

Several of the panel's 11 Democrats said they favored stronger legislation to register their opposition to the war.

Less than 24 hours after the speech Sen. Joseph Biden. D-Del., the panel's chairman, said tougher measures were likely to follow.

"Unless the president demonstrates very quickly that he is unlikely to continue down the road he's on, this will be only the first step. ... I will be introducing ... constitutionally legitimate, binding pieces of legislation. We will bring them up," he said.

Taken together, the committee's vote and Cheney's response suggested the Democrats and the White House were on a collision course — lawmakers drafting ever-stronger measures to change policy in Iraq, and the president exercising his prerogatives as commander in chief — and his veto pen.

"We are moving forward," Cheney said in an interview with CNN in which he was asked about the troop buildup. "The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding. But in terms of this effort, the president has made his decision."

The vice president added: "We've consulted extensively with them. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done."

If the president was almost humbly pleading with Congress to give his plan a chance last night, the Vice President today played what has come to be his typical role: the enforcer, saying firmly "We’re going forward," reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

Inside the Senate committee, all Republicans but Hagel opposed the measure, denying Democrats the strong bipartisan vote they had sought.

[edjohn66]

"Impeach Bush!"

hear, hear!

[karlimhof]

IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY,

[Bettiej--2008]

Impeachment sounds pretty good, until you remember%u2026then we have to contend with Cheney! Take your pick. Stupid and Dangerous or Evil and Dangerous.

[Bettiej--2008]

Impeachment sounds pretty good, until you remember%u2026then we have to contend with Cheney! Take your pick. Stupid and Dangerous or Evil and Dangerous.

[hillaryin08]

The increase in troops is going to happen and there will be no impeachment.

[usloveit]

Impeaching Bush is not the answer. Give the Military what they need and let them do their job. To protect the freedoms you take for granted. I dont know about you but I dont want to be wearing a veil or speaking another language that isnt english. And that is what the US is coming to.

[frankly6]

The troop surge will happen and so will an escalation in death and destruction. It's too few troops too late in the game. Iraq has been so mismanaged by Bush and co. that there are few if any good options anymore.

[hillaryin08]

jh6379

Wishful thinking

[bobebenson]

"I dont know about you but I dont want to be wearing a veil or speaking another language that isnt english. And that is what the US is coming to. "

Just imagine if Bin Laden showed up on Long Island and declared, "Ok, You're all Muslims now!" and 300 million Americans said, "Nope."

[Syndicate]

They have to stop Bush before he can turn his poll numbers around. I honestly don't think the Democratic party is concerned about Iraq as much as solidifying thier hold on power.

[tejasdemo]

Look how much good has already happened for the good since the Nazis were thrown out !

Go get 'em. Throw Bush and Cheney out. Hold onto that power ! It is finally the power of the regular middle class voter.

The hell with Republicans and everything those empty suits stand for....Greed and Corruption

[one_american]

The Democrat's posturing means NOTHING.

The President has the plan, the Democrat's DON'T HAVE ANY PLAN, EXCEPT TO REJECT ANY PLAN OF THE PRESIDENT.

Screw the Democrats.

Worthless politicians, and none of them are LEADERS LIKE THE PRESIDENT.

[one_american]

Democrats are the revival of the "know-nothing" party.

[one_american]

Democrats lack any confidence to conduct a war against terrorism, so the want to cast it into stone for all of history to see by putting it to a vote.

Way to go, dumb Democrats!

[samthetvcat]

"-mocaleao, just curious. Al Queda's top terror leader shares these same type of views towards our president. So with this being said, are you agreeing with the TERROR chief of Al Queda?"
Posted by singinrick at 11:40 AM : Jan 24, 2007

I can't even be bothered to respond to One_American because he/she just keeps spouting out the same mantras no matter what facts and ideas any of us put forth.

Anyway . . . the WEAKEST stance one can ever take is to mistake taking an opposite stance to the enemy for true strength. It's weak because it's reactionary rather than leading. And I think Democrats are doing a fine job of demonstrating leadership with these kinds of resolutions. One step at a time . . .

[samthetvcat]

PS oops - I didn't finish that thought in my post below (he he) . . . their leading the way with a stance that will strengthen the nation rather than continue to debilitate it the way Bush's ideas have and continue to

[tuckerndfw]

Bush & Cheney should be impeached. They are both war criminals and until they are brought to justice, the US does not have the moral authority to tell anyone else how to run their affairs.

Until the US restores rule of law to the US, the "war on terror" is pointless. And that can only be done by bringing those responsible for the unlawful & unnecessary invasion of Iraq to trial.

[marcodele]

OneAmerican: Your simple minded logic is what got our country into this mess.

Terrorists don't like Bush.
A majority of Americans don't approve of Bush.
Therefore, a majority of Americans are terrorists.

Does your head cast a shadow?

[random_radar]

The key phrase is "approve non-binding legislation." The gutless wonders in congress will claim to oppose the president's plan while actually going along with it.

Congress could stop the President in a number of ways if they wanted to (such as impeachment or just cutting off funding). They won't because they are willing to continue the war.

So much for public opinion or voting in a Democratic congress. The government does what it pleases in spite of the People.

[samthetvcat]

"-SamTheTVCat, what is their solution?"
Posted by singinrick at 11:54 AM : Jan 24, 2007

What I've sensed (no guarantees this is correct - lol) is that most who oppose the war believe Iraqis are resigned to conducting a civil war and that the last hope the US has of thwarting this inevitability is to attempt a mediation between the warring factions. This can be done now, there's no need for Bush to wait for the surge to quell the violence, assuming this is even achievable.

The unfortunate reality seems to be though that with Iraq being situated over that ginormous vat of oil, Sunnis and Shiites may have more of a desire to want to go for all or nothing like they always have - if both parties think they can win in a civil war and they don't want to share, I don't think there's much the US can ever say or do to persuade them otherwise. But right now, Bush doesn't even seem to want to think about a plan B. That's why I like Senator Luger's resolution.

PS I used the word 'reactionary' in my post below - I think I meant 'reacting'...

[karlimhof]

random_radar

Sen.Kennedy has "fund-cutting" legislation prepared. Supposedly if the non-binding resolution passes (needs sufficient Repub support too) and Bush still refuses to stop the surge - then the heavy guns come out.

This is a nightmare for Dems; Bush &Co. has turned this into "either you support the troops or not" situation. ITS HIS WAR and he forces us to end it. Then we hear from years the Repubs screaming "they cut and run". What gangsters!

[gladys_over]

Things aren't going well for the Right.

Another Conservative icon has died:

"E. Howard Hunt, a cold warrior for the Central Intelligence Agency who left the spy service in disillusionment, joined the Nixon White House as a secret agent and bungled the break-in at the Watergate that brought the president down in disgrace, died Tuesday in Miami. He was 88."

[hlmercer-2009]

I don't usually comment on things, but I really felt compelled to today. I really feel sorry for a lot of you how are so obviously filled with anger and hate for our president. I think this anger and hate is blinding. Imagine if you were in his position. There is no way to make everyone happy, especially someone who no matter what you did was not going to like it. If Bush called for all the troops to come home and left Iraq in the mess it is right now (which is better than when we came in) and Iran,Syria, Al-Queda and Hezbollah would move in and strengthened there hold on the region. All you left wing wackos and critics would complain "he left the job undone and scream IMPEACH!" It seems alot of us do not have the strength and resolve our parents and grandparents did. If we were faced with Pearl Harbor and defeating the Germans and the Japanese today, I am afraid we would fail. Our left wing media would not alow us to win and neither would the Leftist. I do not vote party lines. I try to set back and watch the Liberial and Conservative reaction to events, and when I read some of these post, this whole Liberial agenda scares me to death. Does the North Trade Center mean anything to you all anymore. What did we do to provoke that. From the time these radical Muslims are children they are tought to hate The Western Civilization because of our freedoms and liberal ways. We have done nothing to them other than make there countries wealthy with oil exports.

[gladys_over]

RE: "There's a HUGE difference of not approving of Bush than there is showing blatant hate towards the man. I believe that hate has been more than proven on these boards, if nothing else." - singinrick

And your loving posts about Hillary Clinton have given us all such a wonderful example to follow.

Shame on us all.

[morbius12]

Bush like most RepubliKKKans are now the minority and have litle influence on the important decisions in this country.

[frankly6]

The above legislation against Bush's plan of escalation is bi-partisan.

The vast majority of those that watched Bush's speach are Republicans. That being said, aproval #'s are pretty low.

[morbius12]

Recall all RepubliKKKans

[gladys_over]

According to singinhypocrite, attacks on Republicans are hate-driven and evil.

Attacks on Democrats are wonderful examples of candid and honest "telling it like it is."

That's the Gospel according to singinhypocrite.

[frankly6]

Stop attacking poor singinrick. He can dish it out but he's sensitive and it hurts his feeewwings when he gets what he gives. So be nice to pooor pooor singinrick.

[gladys_over]

singinrick's an ok guy.

[morbius12]

Why 9/11?

Bush and other RepubliKKKans know the answer.

Do you?

[frankly6]

galdys

I agree. He means well. He's just a little nutty.

[hlmercer-2009]

I would LOVE to hear your view on this jh6379. I love other peoples views! Terriorist who hate our wonderful country tried once in the ninties (don't remember the year off hand) to blow up the WTC and failed. Tried again and succeeded. Afganistan harbored terrorist, Iraq harbored terriorist and Saddam the Tyrant was dangerous to our security. Iran also harbors terriost and I am afraid we are going to be drug into war with them along with our allied nations for our worlds security. That is a whole other matter though. The terrorist want us out of there so they can strengthen and finally defeat The West. So, this is why Iraq and 9/11 equal war.

[gladys_over]

"From the time these radical Muslims are children they are tought to hate The Western Civilization because of our freedoms and liberal ways." - hlmercer

They are trained to hate our liberal ways... That's interesting.

Ann Coulter doesn't have a burkha in her closet, does she ?

Is she secretly a Muslim fundamentalist ?

Just kidding... I know you were using "liberal" in a different sense of the word than the political.

[sharncedar]

Let's look at it from Bush's point of view. Start with his wrong assumptions such as that the US is much larger than every other country, that we are a great military power, that Americans are just better at doing things than other people are, that capitalism and free markets are the best system that makes everyone happy, and that the problems other countries have is that their systme is bad not the free market capitalist system we have which always leads people to be happy.

Geiven these assumptions, its nto unreasonable to invade Iraq with a small army. The excellence of our military and the excellence of the system we are bringing means it will be a tremendous success.

But it wasn't a success. Because our military is lame and ineffective, not excellent. As our defeat in Vietnam should remind people. Because the system of free markets and capitalism is not magic and perfect. Because America is not bigger and more successful than the rest of the world in the way we imagine.

But given George Bush's myopic assumptions, the war in Iraq would be a simple and short operation, it's hard to blame his decision. It's his lack of knowlege that was the problem.

[frankly6]

hlmercer

"..Iraq harbored terriorist and Saddam the Tyrant was dangerous to our security."



Really? I find this very interesting. What terrorists did they harbor exactly? How were they a danger to us?

Perhaps you can educate us as to the connection between Iraq and 9/11 or Al Qaeda?

[duhrer]

You can impeach Bush on a wide number of things which, in my humble opinion, exceed in offensiveness beyond the criteria used to impeach Clinton. Likewise, Cheney can be impeached on an even wider array of items. Problem, impeachment at this point wouldn't change things on the ground much, since it will take most of the rest of this administration's time to get it done. On the other hand, it would effectively tie their hands and feet so they couldn't do even more damage than what they have so far wrought.

[gladys_over]

Some nut called up Rush Limbaugh once to complain that colleges offered degrees in "liberal arts" but not in "conservative arts."

Even Rush had to laugh.

Like many words, "liberal" has several different meanings.

[hlmercer-2009]

Funny Gladys_Over! I am glad I don't have to go into explaining the sense I meant it to be in. Ha Ha Ha.

[samthetvcat]

hlmercer - exercises of power against antagonists HAVE to be proportional and specifically tailored, otherwise it incites retailation.

I think what bothers the majority of those of us critical of the war is that Bush has been too careless with his power to have made a net gain. Hence the intelligence report a couple of months ago that the war in Iraq has actually INCREASED the war on terror.

[hlmercer-2009]

Al-Queda has "Cells" all over the world.

[frankly6]

SharnCedar

Our military didn't lose this war. Bush and co. did. You are not only wrong on this but you play into every liberal stereotype that is put out by the GOP.

[random_radar]

http://www.warprayer.org is a Mark Twain piece about the glories of war. I love it.

[gladys_over]

"..Iraq harbored terriorist and Saddam the Tyrant was dangerous to our security."

Bush's own CIA blew that theory out of the water.

The reported to him a few years ago that Saddam Hussein regarded al Qaeda as a dangerous enemy, and Iraqi Intelligence (there's an oxymoron !) was searching for Osama bin Laden to arrest him.

I can hunt down the source for this if anyone disbelieves it.

[frankly6]

hlmercer

"..Iraq harbored terriorist and Saddam the Tyrant was dangerous to our security."



Really? I find this very interesting. What terrorists did they harbor exactly? How were they a danger to us?

Perhaps you can educate us as to the connection between Iraq and 9/11 or Al Qaeda?

[gladys_over]

RE "How do you know that the "vast" majority of those who watched the presiden't speech are Republicans????"

The poll sample was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Full disclosure required that to be published. It wouldn't have been a reliable poll otherwise.

[tejasdemo]

Singinrick,

Because only religious right Republicans care anymore what Bush has to say. He has never said anything different. The blue screen on my TV changes more often than Dumbya.

But, I'm sure he's glad you watched. See ya when you get back from calling the Rush Limpbaugh show.

[sharncedar]

"The terrorist want us out of there so they can strengthen and finally defeat The West."


Suppose the "terrorists" "defeated the west". would that mean for example that Miss USA would have to stop taking cocaine and kissing other women in public? Would it mean abortion doctors would get the death penalty, like they do in Islamic countries? Would it mean Donald Trump would have to behave in a moral fashion, and stop encouraging gambling? Would it mean alcoholism would be illegal, would it mean Hollywood would not be allowed to make soft-porn movies for children, would it mean bankers couldn't charge such outrageous interest rates?

That's what Islamists would do.

Maybe we don't want that, maybe we want Miss USA to be a tramp, and for our bankers to be crooks, and Hollywood to excite teens into murder and mayhem. Maybe that's what freedom means to us. Maybe we want illegal drugs and rampant crime, all the things Islam would forbid and punish. That's what freedom means. We want legal abortions for our tramp daughters, we want our freedoms.

So thanks, anti-terrorists. Thanks for protecting abortionists from that horrible strict and religious Islam. I think I'll go get some tramp pregnant and have an abortion to celebrate. Lucky the West hasn't been "defeated".

[frankly6]

The overwhelming consensus of all sixteen of our own intelligence agencies is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased both the # of terrorist attacks and the # of terrorists world wide thus making us and all free nations less safe.

Source: National Intelligence Estimate

[houser123]

I voted democratic in the midterm to show my support against this incredibly asinine war this president has put us in.Now he is attempting to tell us there is no differnce beteen Sunni and Shia and that a civil war in not being waged. All this while our great men and women are dying or being blown apart and our congressional leaders debate the verbiage of a non binding resolution. Wwe dont need a resolution with no teeth, we need real action on this real issue and its time for real leaders to step forward. If it means the only way to stop this debacle is to cut off funding for the "WAR", then we should do just that. No one and I mean no one wants to place our wonderful troops in harms way without all the proper support money can buy, but if we dont pay to keep them in harms way, we can get them home in one piece. The Iraqis want us out, most Americans want us out and everyone with any brains has stated a troop escalation in not the right thing to do. So I ask our congressional leaders to do just that " Lead Us out of Iraq", for this president will only keep digging the hole deeper.