Biden: We'll Change 2002 War Authorization

Biden Proposes To Repeal The Vote To Authorize The President To Go Into Iraq

(CBS)  With Democratic efforts to pass a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's troop "surge" stalled, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman said he will try to rework the 2002 measure that authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein. But, the committee's ranking Republican doubted that the idea would pass the Senate and, if it did, was sure that the president would veto it.

While the majority party in the House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution rebuking the president's Iraq strategy, Senate Democrats fell four votes short of pushing a similar measure forward in a rare Saturday session.

Appearing on Face the Nation the next day, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, proposed his alternate route to stopping Mr. Bush from sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

"I've been working with some of my colleagues to try to convince them that's the way to go – to repeal and restate the president's authority," Biden told Bob Schieffer. "Make it clear that the purpose that he has troops in there is to in fact protect against al Qaeda gaining chunks of territory, training the Iraqi forces, force protection and for our forces. It's not to get in the midst of a civil war."

Also appearing on Face the Nation,Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that Biden's proposal would never get enough support in the Senate. Even if the majority could pass it, he said, the president would veto it and the veto could not be overturned.

Biden, who is in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said he was confident that his proposal would pass where the others had failed.

"I predict to you you're going to see pressure mount," Biden said, "and it's going to be significant."

Lugar agreed that public pressure was influencing the Congress' votes on the war, but he said none of the current proposals would make it through both houses and to the president. He said the nonbinding resolutions are being proposed to make the President consider to the opposition.

"I think the president is paying attention," Lugar said, suggesting that the next move would be a true bi-partisan search for solutions.

"I think there've been some fledgling efforts to see whether a group might be formed in a bipartisan way – couple of them haven't worked out," Lugar said. "But for example, perhaps the president's situation is improved if he calls on Senator Biden and Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Speaker Pelosi, for example, and says, you know, 'We are in a war. We're in a situation of rather fractured political circumstances right now, and we need to think through this situation.'"

One of the most outspoken critics of the war, Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., offered a different approach for Congress to control the president's war plans. He described a series of provisions that would require the Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the troops, and for making sure they have enough time at home between deployments.

"I wouldn't favor it," Lugar said. "But I would just say again that it would not be passed by two Houses and signed by the president. And, once again, it's a debating tool, which makes the point."

Biden said that Murtha is trying to save the Army, not just stop the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

"You cannot keep extending these people," Biden said. "You cannot keep doing what you're doing here. You cannot be sending them back without the proper equipment."

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has said that Iran is shipping sophisticated weapons to Iraq to help Shiite militias. The increasingly hostile tone the White House is using against Iran has led to some worries that the U.S. might end up in another war.

"I don't think it's going anywhere, and my hope is that it would not," Lugar said. "I would hope very strongly that the diplomatic course is followed – that Europeans help some more – but clearly, we have got to go the diplomatic route."

Biden said the president is trying to regain credibility in the yes of the public.

"It's repackaged," Biden said. "Two years ago, I was briefed on this, a year ago I was briefed by General Chiarelli on these shape charges and how they're different."

[Razzl]

Shame on Republicans in the Senate for failing to honor the will of the public and protect the country from Bushes' massive abuse of power. I hope the 2008 election sees the extinction of the Republican Party in national politics. The party that Ulysses Grant turned into a tool of patronage and power-mongering for the wealthy classes has proven itself over and over of being incapable of exercising even the slightest degree of responsibility toward the best interests of the nation as a whole.

[ramos937]

Very simple...Senator Biden should introduce his legislation...the Democrats would support it....the House should have a veto proof majority...Question is the Senate...Those Republican senators up for relection in 2008 and voting again the Biden legislation would have to face an angry electorate.

[the_mirror]

With senators and reps in congress- "the will of the people" is limited to those who put them office to begin with-so it only makes sense conservative vote conservative and libs vote liberal. Just because the majority of congress is made up of Liberal Democrats does not mean conservative should lay down and surrender the power afforded them by their constituents. Not every party is is fueled by the polls.

[skyk-2009]

The People of this nation went to the polls and gave the President a message. Instead of listening to what the people said, he INCREASED the number of American's in Harms way. He simply told the American People they didn't matter, their democracy didn't matter, over 200 years of history didn't matter, he was superior to all of us and he would do it HIS way. Either we enforce the Will of the People through our elected Representatives OR we stop pretending. It's kinda rediculous to ask our kids to die giving OTHER people Democracy while we have a Dictator isn't it?

[skyk-2009]

Vote all these "SURRENDER MONKEYS" out in 08
Posted by b48151 at 03:34 PM : Feb 18, 2007

"Surrender Monkeys"? Because the People of this nation say we need to follow NEW leaders and find a better and different way of doing something they are "Surrender Monkeys"? Where is your Nazi Youth Camp? EVEN for a Fascist Group that's pretty stupid...concidering the FACT that Sir Lies-A-Lot has yet to win ANYTHING? But then what's new? You Fascist have always loved your party more than our country now haven't you? ROFLMAO

[skyk-2009]

With senators and reps in congress- "the will of the people" is limited to those who put them office to begin with-so it only makes sense conservative vote conservative and libs vote liberal. Just because the majority of congress is made up of Liberal Democrats does not mean conservative should lay down and surrender the power afforded them by their constituents. Not every party is is fueled by the polls.
Posted by The_Mirror at 03:24 PM : Feb 18, 2007

Excuse me? Who asked anyone to lay down and surrender anything? You fascist have been spewing your hate so long you can't tell when you are confronted with the WILL of the People. How it's supposed to work Sparky... the way those ugly old liberals drew it up, was the ELECTED Representatives sat down, debated the issue and voted on how to proceed. That has ALL been short Circuited by our Southern Fascist Leader. HE took it upon himself to go ahead with the increase FULLY knowing what the election was about and fully knowing what the American People voted for. That's not a "Liberal" or "Conservative" issue, that's an issue of DEMOCRACY and FASCISM. One way compromise and the Will of the People is expressed. The other one indiviual's opinion is the ONLY one and there is no debate nor any will of the people. IF the Congress is allowed to act then we will know the "Will of the People".

[skyk-2009]

What is this? Has the Reich Hate Machine competely broken. By now there should be at least 15 vile and hate filled message's about how Biden didn't look right or about how he was a "Lib" and can't be believed. Are they all in Fascism 101 getting a crash lesson in defeating the Will of the People while making it look like they are protecting us from Bin Laden? The Terror Threat Leavel should have jumped 2 levels by now as well.

[briwas101]

In response to "The_Mirror" there is nothing wrong with using polls as a guage of public interest. It is unfortunate that "polls" has become a negative word. But that is what we get when we have a president who is proud of not reading the newspaper. I have been waiting 5 years for the public to awaken and realize how evil Bush is. The public isn't there yet, but atleast people are starting to pay attention. The key is to keep reminding people of the chain of events that led us to this point, and show how NONE of it was in our best interest. Unfortunately the Democrats have been cowards and they have been afraid of appearing to "not support the troops". Public opinion finally reached the point where even cowardly democrats started to feel like they could criticize the war. Don't be surprised if most Dems are still hesitant to attack the war with force, but there will be SOME Dems who realize that the party will be hurt if it DOESN'T attack Bush and his stupid war. If we can wait 5 years for dems to fight back, surely we can wait a few more months as the public turns increasingly against the war. Bush's surge will not produce the results that are needed to turn around the public's opinion. When the public realizes that the surge results in maybe one or two less soldiers killed per month, they will realize that in order to achieve the results they want, they would have to add about 200,000 more troops.

[ressigmann]

to skyk
In a Republic the will of the people does not reign supreme. Our founding fathers choose this system so that if those in leadership felt the country needed to go into a different than what the people thought then that was the way to go.
"ELECTED Representatives sat down, debated the issue and voted on how to proceed" The constitution gives the President the right to veto what the "elected" representatives vote for.
"that's an issue of DEMOCRACY and FASCISM" both of these are non-issues in a Republic. Also President Bush is not a Fascist if he was you could expect to be arrested within the next few hours, since you will not be you might review the defining factors of fascism.
Just so you know the writers of the Constitution were social, moral, and religeous conservatives not old time liberals.

[walt1944-2009]

For those who think that the founding fathers of this country were Republican conservatives, I strongly advise that they read both the Declaration of Independance and the preamble of the Constitiution. It says, "WE, THE PEOPLE", not we the Republican conservatives, not we the Democratic liberals, not we the religious right, but the PEOPLE!! Isn't that what democracy is all about, something like government "of, for, and by the PEOPLE"; not government by the neo-cons, government by big profit business and special interests, and certainly not government by money and power hungry politicians who had delusions of godhood!

[rharrin1]

The right wing nut jobs that voted against will get their walking papers in 08 the soft job will be gone.

[fascistusa]

You CANNOT have a debate with a Fascist. They recite exactly what the State tells them to think and say. That is what TV and the Media is for. Telling the Fascists what to think.

Fascists will tell you the sky is Orange is the State tells them it is Orange.

We live in a Fascist Tyranny RULED by the Elite.

Nothing will change until we REVOLT.

[forthepeaple]

i would like to know by all who support this president this one thing. in this country we have laws about lieing,exspecaly to congress to go to war. so how is it that nothing is being done to our leader. biden is correct in takeing a new vote because of the president was not telling congress the truth so the authorizing of this war is by law not binding.and i cant beleive that no one has stared impeachment on the president and vice president yet

[fascistusa]

All the "Fighting" in Congress is a SHOW.

Oooh. Aaah. We're suppose to Hooray for whoever.

As long as Big Business is making BIG MONEY -

THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE. NONE. ZERO.

[generey]

Um, gee, we are already there so, this would change what? Just like taxes; once they are in effect, they dont go away so, this will accomplish what???

[bernieb14]

If the democrats are so bent on changing the war policy, why don't they have the cahunas to bring an up or down vote on funding the war instead of this non-binding resolution BS? I'll tell you why. They don't have the moral courage to stand up for anything they believe in without taking a poll to see how it will hurt them in the long run. If nonfunding the war goes badly for the people of Iraq and the soldiers that are still there, they will be held accountable. With a non-binding resolution they can continue to blame it all on Bush if it goes badly. Cowards!!! Always have been, always will be.

[bernieb14]

walt1944

'WE THE PEOPLE' was only meant for the smart people. Sorry you don't fall into that category.

[formrusmcsgt]

Considering the WMD's that were the basis for the authorization disappeared into thin air, so should the authorization.

[feelfree1]

Re: "Make it clear that the purpose that he has troops in there is to in fact protect against al Qaeda gaining chunks of territory,"

Mr. Biden,

There is no "al-Qaeda in Iraq". This is merely a psy-ops hoax directed at justifying the continued illegal and catastrophic U.S. war of aggression against Iraq.

You had a chance to stand up to the Bush puppet-Fuhrer, and you blew it.

Salvage some dignity. Apologise and step down.

[wubby14]

First,everyone talks about the President "lying" to Congress about why we should go to war. Just because there were never any WMDs found in Iraq doesn't mean Bush was lying. If he was led to believe they were there, then he wasn't lying to congress, he was acting on information from others. Second, Dems and most others have been hounding the President to do something about the war, so he comes up a new policy and nobody likes it because it doesn't involve bringing the troops home. Apparently when people say they want a new policy in Iraq what they really mean is they want to throw in the towel and call it quits completely. Everyone wants something done, but no one else has any "bright ideas" except "bring them all home." Third, all these people (most of whom will be running for President) who say "If I had been President we would never have gone to war with Iraq." Boy, it sure is easy to say such garbage when it wasn't you in the situation. The President (not just Bush but any president) has (I think) the hardest, most unenviable job in the world and deserves a little respect for that rather than unending criticisms from people who most likely couldn't do any better.

[gdmoore2]

bernieb14: A majority of American voters are bent on changing the war policy, and a combination of Democrats and Republicans are representing them. That is how a representative democracy works. Frankly, sir, I do not see a lack of courage on either side of the aisle. Americans are having a disagreement and we are working it out. In my experience, those who are given to casting the pejorative "coward" so easily, frequently do not have any other argument to rely on. If you want to have an online fuss, well that is your choice, but there were few facts in your rant.

[formrusmcsgt]

Cheney forgot his own advice:

In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, *** Cheney, made the same point:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."[

[formrusmcsgt]

Just because there were never any WMDs found in Iraq doesn't mean Bush was lying.
Posted by wubby14 at 05:53 PM : Feb 18, 2007

Google "Downing Street Memo" and you'll see that the British were told in July, 2002, that the intel would be made to fit the call for invasion. Bush knew alright.....

[tbweb]

I watched the Sunday morning programs and listened to these 2 Senators "Live". Suddenly I have a different view of the Iraq war! The question now seems to be "are the religious ties that bind stronger than the Iraq national ties that bind?" It looks like the Shiite ties that bind are stronger than the Iraq national ties that bind. In which case Shiite Iran must be laughing in the United States face because the US is helping build a Shiite dominated region which stretches from Iraq to Iran! If the US stops thinking Iraq the country and starts thinking Shiite the religion (which knows no borders!!) the US will notice the real mess its in! President Bush injecting his own religion into national politics further complicates the issue, ignoring the traditional separation of church and state! I hope the Shiite's of Iraq are really independent of the Shiite's of Iran but I don't think that's the case!

[formrusmcsgt]

In which case Shiite Iran must be laughing in the United States face because the US is helping build a Shiite dominated region which stretches from Iraq to Iran!
Posted by tbweb at 06:01 PM : Feb 18, 2007

Of course Iran is laughing up its sleeve at the stupidity of the neocons.

Iran could never expand its sphere of influence into SE Iraq while Hussein had the keys to the gate. The neocons took out the gatekeeper and handed Iran what they could never achieve on their own.

[stevex47]

wubby,
"Just because there were never any WMDs found in Iraq doesn't mean Bush was lying."

If there was proof Bush knowingly lied, would that change your thinking about this president and administration? And if there was that proof, would those actions be criminal?

[j0hnwi11iams]

For some people no amount of evidence is sufficient to change their minds because they are too feeble to have their own views outside of their social network. They can't risk being excommunicated.

[observantx]

wubby14

I'm sorry, but haven't you been paying attention to the Scooter Libby triaql?

Have you read the Downing Street memo?

The plain truth is our dear little king Georgie and his Uncle Darth just didn't ccok the itelligence for the runup to Iraq, they totally ROASTED it!

This war was started to promote the interests of the oil industry and the pro-Israel lobby. As far as making life wonderful for the averge Iraqi, they ranked 99 on a 1 to 100 scale. They are totally expendable along with our brave sons and daughters.

Please inform yourself before you try to comment on these postings. This is where the smart, well informed people hang out. Educate yourself. Don't just regurgitate the bullsh*t the neocons are spinning out.

[alphaa10-2009]

formrusmcsgt said, "Iran could never expand its sphere of influence into SE Iraq while Hussein had the keys to the gate. The neocons took out the gatekeeper and handed Iran what they could never achieve on their own."
---

What's more, the brain-dead Bush intervention upset a delicate balance of power between Shia and Sunni states, leaving the region in turmoil for the foreseeable future.

Though it appears the Shia factions have most of the cards, the Saudis are counting on us to clean up after ourselves and not leave their Sunni populations in refugee camps.

So, if we dismay the Saudis, we also can expect to see gas prices soar at the pump beyond anything we have had before. At the moment, the Saudis are pumping away to keep us happy, in hopes we alienate Iran and stall Syria. But that cannot last forever-- clearly, Bush cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

[formrusmcsgt]

clearly, Bush cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Posted by alphaa10 at 06:24 PM : Feb 18, 2007

....regardless of how much more treasure and how many more warriors are wasted in the attempt, I might add.

[wubby14]

You know, I don't even think the reason for us being there in the first place is even that important now. We ARE there and since we have started something, we should finish it. I think the greater injustice would be to leave the Iraqi people to their own devices with no more help from us to rebuild their country and stabilize their government.

[j0hnwi11iams]

The Republicans are obviously looking forward to losing more seats in '08.

Couldn't even get a NON-BINDING resolution reflecting the will of the people. Republicans are pathetic. Now there will be no one else to blame when the Iraq war drags on and on . . .

[formrusmcsgt]

We ARE there and since we have started something, we should finish it.
Posted by wubby14 at 06:25 PM : Feb 18, 2007

A united Iraq ceased to exist on March 20, 2003. Iraq has not been united since and will never be again.

Iraq will disentegrate into secular states regardles of how much treasure or how many warriors we waste. FOREGONE CONCLUSION.

Remember Yugoslavia?

[itchyb-2009]

"We ARE there and since we have started something, we should finish it."

Why do we have to compound a mistake with more mistakes? What is the sense in that. The Iraqi army is supposedly 320,000 strong. Let them do it, and get our troops, who are nothing more to the Iraqis than antagonsts and targets, out of there as soon as possible.

[coffeehead-2009]

We compound mistakes -- well -- lmao

G.W. - on the tube just now...

oh God help us

"not enough obgyn's practicing their "love for women" ??

Dorothy is that you?

[tbweb]

The United States really needs to be concerned about a conflict with Iran either accidentally or on purpose because if the Shiite ties that bind are stronger that the Iraq national ties that bind, the Shiites are not going to be loyal to Iraq the nation if Shiites in Iran are being killed by the US. Will the Shiite in Iraq continue to support the US military if there's a conflict with the Shiite in Iran? This question needs to be answered and can't be ignored no matter how uncomfortable, American lives are further at risk!!

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 6
More ominously, the Baker-Hamilton report notes an acute need for more money, more time and more effort by the US-- all with a simultaneous and graphic downturn in US congressional support. Even in the fantasy that price were no object, and rebuilding Iraqi might somehow be accomplished, congress has served notice it has American domestic crises and cities to rebuild. As if in confirmation, the American treasury has been found plundered by foreign misadventures and irresponsbilities. After the 2006 election, congress finally declared that Bush folly, deceit and ineptitude no longer need burden the American taxpayer or the American soldier.

When all the money and vain ambition is exhausted, the realists will enter, and Iraq may change radically at their hands. Every neighbor of Iraq has a stake in the outcome, with Iran mattering most of all. As the Baker-Hamilton report admits, the outcome of Iraq leans heavily on support from even people Bush does not like. If Bush cannot create an Iraq in his own image, let the respective nations of Iraq recover their own.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 5
The Baker-Hamilton report recognizes every sect and national group has a claim and counterclaim-- some even favoring a nominal national union, but only to the extent it realizes their narrow sectarian agenda. Shia and Kurdish groups display no common sense of an Iraq beyond their respective borders. Sunni want a federal state, but only provided they share in oil income from Kurdish or Shia territory. There is no national sense of what it means to be Iraqi, nor willingness to invest and compromise for that vision. While extreme dictatorial pressure from Saddam terrorized restive Kurds and Shia into obedience for decades, the concept of Iraq probably will not survive Saddam.

Today, some 1.6 million Iraqis are displaced, and 1.8 million Iraqis already have emigrated to Jordan, Syria, Iran and other areas. Effectively, the self-partitioning of 18 million Iraqis already has begun. The Baker-Hamilton report nods to all the familiar nostrums-- better and stronger police and army functions, better training, building up the social infrastructure, but these cannot build a nation where no national bonds and no Iraqi national identity exist, in the first place.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 4
The Baker-Hamilton report is flawed, however, because it continues a fallacy-- the Bush presumption Iraq is one nation, and that America must not leave Iraq until it can defend and govern itself. That fallacy ignores the fact Iraq never has been a nation. More than ever, people living in Iraq show their basic sectarian allegiances, proving Iraq is a fragile political composite made for the convenience of Europeans after WWI.

Meanwhile, Iraqi self-government, order and stability will not wait for Iraqis to sort out their sectarian differences. The Baker-Hamilton report notes collapse of even basic government services. Again and again, the report cites sectarianism or its collateral effects-- corruption at every level and weak judiciary and police functions.

Iraqi government is paralyzed with sectarian turf battles involving the very people supposed to provide stability. Ministries lack equipment, training and even a clear sense of mission. Besides the Iraqi army, some 205,000 uniformed, armed Iraqi ministry police, local police and national police are suspected of working with sectarian elements. As one frightening indicator, six Sunnis were recently burned to death in public by Sadr elements, while Iraqi army units nearby gazed impassively. American advisors note Iraqi army units will not pursue Sadr militia elements which have fired on them.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 3
In the same sense of mutual interest, partitioning resolved successfully the vicious civil war which issued India and Pakistan. In that model, lines are drawn and refugees allowed to pass to their home sector. In 1947, there was no effective officialdom to safeguard passage, and groups of refugees of opposite religions set upon each other with massive carnage. Obviously, US forces-- already in place, and under auspices of the UN-- might shepherd the respective groups.

The UN has successful experience with this work. Effective UN partition of the Balkans also demonstrates comparative stability after several bloody years without the UN presence, and there are other examples showing an international or regional body can defuse tensions in a way that allows lasting healing to occur. Of course, the UN itself does not do the healing, but promotes conditions to allow healing to occur.

Yes, Iran and its Iraqi Shia would get something out of it, but so would the Saudis and their Sunnis in secured protection. The end point being, regional resolution of a regional problem. As more than one diplomat has counseled, regional resolution is not only the most logical but most lasting.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq-- 2
Partitioning the country is plausible, simply because partitioning Iraq allows all sides to win something. Partitioning is also stable, since warring factions are not forced to compete for power in the same territory. The violence stops, and there is no longer the issue of US withdrawal from Iraq, because there is no Iraq. The Sunnis join Jordan and/or Syria, the Shia join Iran and the Kurds have no sponsor but us and a lot of diplomacy-- for example, letting Turkish Kurds migrate safely to the south to join Kurds in North Iraq (the Turks might buy in, if only to depopulate the Kurdish rebellion in south Turkey).

But the process demands a comparatively honest broker, one not identified with the US or UK or regional players like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran or Turkey. After his unilateralist invasion, how ironic Bush might find the UN useful, after all. Kissinger observed the best agreements, even with enemies, can be relied upon to work when they express mutual interest.

[alphaa10-2009]

End Game in Iraq--
With his only hope political damage control, Bush now plays to negotiate a receivership to the war he began. This, in fact, is a fire-sale, as even Iranian elements sense Bush is more than eager to do business, provided sufficient political assurances.

In marked contrast to the politician who wanted to "stay the course", Bush now will pay almost any cost. While Bush once may have wished to stay on in Iraq, Alamo-style, and entrench Americans indefinitely (if only to avoid the appearance of defeat), Baker and almost everyone else pulling levers have served notice the game is virtually over.

However, even as the Iranians see regional dominance in their grasp, we would do well to reconsider how we end the American misadventure in Iraq. A lasting solution to Iraq is not merely to substitute the Iranians for the British and other great powers after WWI. If Iraq is not truly a nation, but a political amalgam of warring and disparate political and religious factions, there is the viable alternative of partitioning Iraq.

[formrusmcsgt]

"But for example, perhaps the president's situation is improved if he calls on Senator Biden and Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Speaker Pelosi, for example, and says, you know, 'We are in a war. We're in a situation of rather fractured political circumstances right now, and we need to think through this situation.'"

Too bad Bush chose to lie to the Congress in 2003 instead of employing a common sense approach similar to Lugar's suggestion.

[tbweb]

--alphaa10

I've read all your end-game variations and as we know end-game is a Chess term. We also know that in Chess the objective is checkmate! I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're wrong too and that there is a sense of Iraq national pride and loyalty, but it really doesn't seem that way since each religion has an endless supply of members willing to load up cars with explosives and set themselves off in it!! And finally as in Chess I hope the United States is not in a checkmate net, otherwise known as a mating net, which is exactly what the US is in if the Shiites of Iraq are not as loyal as the US thinks they are!!

[formrusmcsgt]

I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're wrong too and that there is a sense of Iraq national pride and loyalty, but it really doesn't seem that way since each religion has an endless supply of members willing to load up cars with explosives and set themselves off in it!!
Posted by tbweb at 08:00 PM : Feb 18, 2007

religious zealotry will trump nationalism every time. Count on it.

They are Shias or Sunnis first, Iraqis second.

[formrusmcsgt]

Considering the following stats, how can supporters of this invasion/occupation contend that we are making progress and that more investment is justified?

US Dead 3/03-2/04 518

US Dead 3/04-2/05 947

US Dead 3/05-2/06 789

US Dead 3/06-2/07 803

[mdmx66]

"But for example, perhaps the president's situation is improved if he calls on Senator Biden and Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Speaker Pelosi, for example, and says, you know, 'We are in a war. We're in a situation of rather fractured political circumstances right now, and we need to think through this situation.'"

This is so stupid I can't even beleive it. The president is doing exactly what he wants. Why does his situation need to be improved. The Democrats are impotent whiners.

[skyk-2009]

This is so stupid I can't even beleive it. The president is doing exactly what he wants. Why does his situation need to be improved. The Democrats are impotent whiners.

Posted by mdmx66 at 08:09 PM : Feb 18, 2007
+ report this comment

Typical Fascist Response. The Incompetent LOSER they still call a President has 20,000 of our kids who he's holding hostage so he can continue to get the living *** kicked out of him. It's not like this joke isn't going to fail yet again.... that's a forgone fact, it's just that our Democracy is no more. The right of the American people to govern themselves has been taken away so.... it's necessary that these fascist be defeated. When WE the PEOPLE can no longer stop a Mad Man from conducting a War against the will of the People, our freedom is no more, our system is no more and we are living under a Fascist Dictator. This we can not allow.

[skyk-2009]

You know, I don't even think the reason for us being there in the first place is even that important now. We ARE there and since we have started something, we should finish it. I think the greater injustice would be to leave the Iraqi people to their own devices with no more help from us to rebuild their country and stabilize their government.
Posted by wubby14 at 06:25 PM : Feb 18, 2007

That is not at issue here. The Iraq Study Group gave us a real shot and leaving Iraq in some sort of reasonable condition. Sir Lies-A-Lot distroyed that as he's distroyed everything else in his wake. Now we are faced with the reality that he told the American People, when they instructed him to change course and get out in the last election, to Pound Sand the issue is the RIGHT of the People, through their representative to direct the President to do as any employee should do. The problem is Bush thinks he's a Dictator and not an employee. So NOW the PEOPLE will respond and it isn't going to be pretty!

[tbweb]

The real message here is that the American people are collectively smart. One of us (President Bush) is not smarter than all of us!!