May 26, 2007
Denying The People's Will On Iraq
The Nation: Democrats Need To Become Unified And End The War
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Bush Embraces Benchmarks
President Bush is set to sign the new Iraq war funding bill, which congress approved last night. The latest proposal includes benchmarks that the Iraqi military will need to meet. Bill Plante reports.
-
Video
Bush Pushes New War Bill
CBS News RAW: During his speech in the Rose Garden, President Bush called on Congress to approve newly proposed legislation for Iraq war spending.
-
Video
Expert On Terrorism In Iraq
Terrorism analyst and security expert Paul Kurtz speaks with Harry Smith about terrorism in Iraq. Kurtz says that the U.S. invasion has created a fertile ground for terrorism.
-
Photo
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
It's beginning to look like Congress should take lessons in democracy from the Iraqi Parliament. The majority of Iraqi parliamentarians have signed a draft bill that would establish a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Iraqi politicians are responding to popular sentiment in their country, as reflected by polls that show 65 percent of Iraqis want the occupation to end. Would that American politicians were as responsive to public opinion here; a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 64 percent of Americans want out. But the Democratic majority in Congress is so razor-thin that in late May it finally gave up the attempt to pass a funding bill establishing a timeline for withdrawal. The caucus was further undermined by internal disunity, as the defection of Carl Levin, Steny Hoyer and others prevented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid from forcing a timeline on the Administration.
At least Pelosi and Reid are voting right. When the House on May 10 considered Jim McGovern's proposal to fund redeployment of U.S. forces and contractors from Iraq on a schedule beginning no later than ninety days from the measure's enactment, the 171 yes votes included that of Pelosi. When the Senate voted May 16 on whether to consider Russ Feingold's plan to set an exit timeline, the twenty-nine supporters included Reid.
Thanks to Senator Chris Dodd, who cut television ads for his long-shot presidential bid that highlighted his support for Feingold's measure — and in clear recognition of public antiwar sentiment — three Senate contenders for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, scrambled to join their colleagues in backing the timeline. But in the face of fears that they would be accused of "not supporting the troops," and with Republicans remaining loyal to Bush, House Democrats dropped the timeline and gave Bush a spending bill with only a few loose benchmarks for "progress," which he will be allowed to waive. As Feingold said, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action."
McGovern and Feingold recognized long ago, and more and more Congressional Democrats now understand, that only a decision by the House and Senate to use the power of the purse will end this war — a war that, as Stephen Glain's article on the refugee crisis powerfully illustrates, is spreading misery across the Middle East. Iraqis are fleeing not only continuing sectarian bloodshed but, as Nick Turse's article shows, a U.S. counterinsurgency and air war that are taking an unconscionable number of civilian lives.
Pelosi and Reid are right when they say this is not the end of the fight over money for Iraq. Congress will be looking at another spending measure in the summer or early fall. The problem is that there are still prominent Democrats who don't get it. Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin voted against the Feingold bill, attacking it on the Senate floor in language that sounded like a White House "support the President to support the troops" talking point. Particularly disappointing were some of the new Democratic senators, like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. In the House, majority leader Steny Hoyer was joined by key Representatives like Mark Udall, John Spratt and Ron Kind in voting with Republicans to block the McGovern amendment.
Make no mistake, Levin, Hoyer and others like them in the Democratic caucus are slowing movement toward unity in support of withdrawal. They are undermining the ability of their party to clarify the lines of debate and force wavering Republicans — like Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu and Norm Coleman — to either take an antiwar stand or face re-election defeat in 2008. These unacceptable votes should raise the ire of antiwar activists and the American people, and the members of Congress who cast them must be held accountable for extending the war. Americans must make it clear that when the next chance comes to use the power of the purse, our representatives should follow the will of the people and call a halt to Bush's disastrous war.
By the editors of The Nation
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation.
| If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |
Video and Galleries from Opinion
-
Video
Robert McNamara's Life
-
Video
Ginuwine On Jackson
-
Video
Andy Sheds Some Clothes
Why aren't we bombing the nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea?
Posted by downtowner97 at 10:20 AM : May 26, 2007
Russia, China and the United States have the power to destroy each other, for this reason each knows they cannot fight each other without destroying each other and possibly the world in the process. But they still fight each other by proxy via 3rd party countries which each sponsers. In order for the U.S. to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran or North Korea, the U.S. has to get the okay from their sponsers, the same is true if Russia or China wants to bomb Israel. The goal if you want to bomb a sponsered proxy is to successfully remove their support first, not easy to do but possible. If you don't, you risk World War III. This is the simplistic short answer!
I am proud to say Russ Feingold is my senator.
How is it that keeping the troops in harm's way is supporting them?
Posted by Britski at 10:53 AM : May 26, 2007
The Iraqi people let the U.S. down and the U.S. has every right to be disappointed. Technically speaking the U.S. should have been greeted as liberators! The U.S. removed Saddam and his party and their oppressive military from power and freed Iraq and the Iraqi people from that tyranny. The U.S. reward? Shiite dreams of forming a Shia cresent across the middle east which includes Iran. I may be wrong but I think the U.S. is angry over the double cross by the Iraqis and stays in Iraq to make that Shia cresent dream as difficult as possible. Russia pulled the same stunt, when Russia was down and out it acted like it wanted democracy but once Russia got back on its feet with oil profits Russia showed its true communist colors. You can't trust anybody these days! It was a gamble but the U.S. guessed wrong and lost out in both cases! Now what?
That is the most stupid comment I have ever seen on this board. If I went into your house and killed half the people and distroyed your home and infastructuer would you greet me with flowers or a gun? Wake up man open your eyes the worst thing that could happen to Iraq is end up with the so called "us type democarcy" you are run by a dictator.
That is the most stupid comment I have ever seen on this board.
Posted by middleman8 at 12:09 PM : May 26, 2007
There are many examples in nature of people and nations doing good things and being appreciated and rewarded for their efforts. But expecting a reward and appreciation goes against nature of the good will act itself. There are many stories where a human helps a wounded lion in the jungle only to come across that same animal again fearing death, but once the animal recognizes the human who saved them, walks away! You are right in one respect that what the U.S. did was bad. But the the bigger picture is that what Saddam was doing to the Iraqis was worst. What the U.S. did was the lesser evil and what Saddam did was the greater evil. The Iraqis has a chance for a fresh start and blew it. You are correct, I agree, but in a larger context you are also wrong too!
History will show that in the final analysis, what the U.S. did was give Iraq a new lease on its nation, a chance to start fresh and rebuild a new. But there was so much hate, anger, emotion, politics, religious conflict and revenge that the Iraqis could not see the opportunity before them and missed it! There will be many arguments and debates about how the U.S. went about doing this, but again in the final analysis history will also show the Iraqis missed a golden opportunity that many nations wished it had.
Welcome Independants!
Cindy and Corbett
Posted by tbweb at 12:54 PM : May 26, 2007
I hope our nation never has the "golden opportunity" to have an external power invade us and impose an alien system of government . . .
I hope our nation never has the "golden opportunity" to have an external power invade us and impose an alien system of government . . .
Posted by socrates392 at 02:54 PM : May 26, 2007
socrates392,,,
The problem with looking at the Iraq situation and reading a lot of these Post is that in most cases a particular issue involving Iraq is looked at in an isolated context. Looking at a lot of the issues involving Iraq as a stand-a-lone issue doesn't tell the entire story or paint the correct picture! A lot of these Post try to make it seem like the U.S. just up and decided to invade Iraq one day for no reason, forget Saddam's crimes, arrogance, ignoring U.N. resolutions, shooting at the U.S. in the No Fly Zone, diverting U.N. Food for oil money, paying suicide bombers families $25,000US to blow themselves up in Israel, gasing his own people and on and on! The Iraqi's hung Saddam, not the U.S.! The Iraqi's had a window of opportunity to start fresh and can't use the cover of the U.S. invasion to slaughter each other, 2 wrongs never made a right!
If the Iraqis thought the U.S. invasion was so bad, so wrong, why didn't the Iraqis put Saddam back in power when they had the chance and tell the U.S. to leave then? The Iraqis were happy to see Saddam and his party and the oppressive Iraqi military removed from power! From this point Iraq should have reconciled its political and religious differences and rebuilt Iraq. During this process Iraq had the choice of chosing any government system it wanted, the U.S. suggested democracy but the Iraqis could have choosen any government system it wanted, the U.S. did not force democracy on Iraq as its assumed, NOT! Instead the Shiites grabbed power and started revenge murders against the Sunnis and the Sunnis retaliated and off Iraq went into slaughtering each other in massive numbers! As bad as Saddam was, as bad as the U.S. invasion was, neither what the U.S. or Saddam did combined can match or exceed the daily massive slaughter of Iraqis and U.S. Forces at the hands of the Shiite and Sunni extremist, war crimes activity in my view!
Posted by tbweb at 12:20 PM : May 26, 2007
Far more people died under King George's rule in the last 4 years than did under the previous 27 years under Saddam. Under Saddam's rule, it's estimated that 50,000 Iraqi citizens died. Under the Emperor of America, AT LEAST 100,000 died with some estimates well over 500,000.
Note too that Saddam only brutalized his own people. Adolph Bush is torturing the lower and middle classes of America, while bankrupting them, AND killing Iraqi's by thousands.
I don't know where you learned math, but 1 + 1 = 2, and George Bush is a much greater evil than Saddam Hussein ever was.
I don't remember saying anything about whether Saddam was a great leader, or whether the Iraqis did or did not initially support the US invasion. For the record, Saddam was a brutal dictator. I'm glad he's gone, as are most of the Iraqis I'm sure. But that doesn't make the current situation any less horrific. To call the current civil war in Iraq a "golden opportunity" is cring worthy . . . Maybe in some mystical world of platonic ideals that is true, but not in reality. In reality it is a bloodbath-- an easily forseeable, utterly pointless bloodbath.
You want to know what the historical lesson out of all this is: you can't spread democracy through military conquest-- especially in regions that don't have a historical legacy of democracy. It simply doesn't work. There is probably also a lesson somewhere in all this about the efficacy of preemptive war. I'd doubt there are many historians out there who actually think that the Iraq war has made the world any safer for democracy.
Tbweb, you clearly have good intentions. I think most Americans also had good intentions when they initially supported the war, but good intentions don't change the nature of the war. The war was / is a disaster for the Iraqis, for the US and the world.
lobbiests.
I've gone through your statements and realized where the fault is. It apears to me all of your opinions are backed from propaganda statements and lies put out over the last few year's by the "decider". I have to admit He has a great smooth runing propaganda machine and a lot of people will be taken in,but try and rise above his word,it is evil.
To call the current civil war in Iraq a "golden opportunity" is cring worthy . . . you can't spread democracy through military conquest ...
Posted by socrates392 at 05:24 PM : May 26, 2007
socrates392,,,
What I was calling a golden opportunity was the beginning phases, prior to the Shiite and Sunni slaughter of each other, prior to the Civil War going on now. While the U.S. did not force the Iraqis to choose democracy the U.S. did sort of coerce the Iraqis in that direction by noting that the U.S. would not support or finance any other type of government, but even with that hanging over their the Iraqis were still free to choose any form of government the wanted. Things turned out bad, but on the whole the U.S. had good intentions for the Iraqi people. Many have said the Bush administration mismanaged the war, and tried to do it on the cheap with too few troops, I think the results speak for themselves.
tbweb old fellow
I've gone through your statements and realized where the fault is. It apears to me all of your opinions are backed from propaganda statements and lies put out over the last few year's by the "decider". I have to admit He has a great smooth runing propaganda machine and a lot of people will be taken in,but try and rise above his word,it is evil.
Posted by middleman8 at 06:03 PM : May 26, 2007
middleman8,,,
I'm a news junkie with multiple independent input sources, my thoughts are a compilation of that collection, I think I have it right but admit I could be wrong in some cases, many of my Post are thoughts and ideas, not facts. I also think its important to consider all sides, all angles and try and keep as much emotion out as possible, be objective as possible which is very hard to do!
You are tough on Pres. Bush, I'm not sure I would agree with evil. Stubborn, bull headed, cocky and not a team player are terms I would use to describe Pres. Bush.
Then we are more or less in agreement, except for one crucial point: I don't think the war, even in its beginning phases, was a golden opportunity. I think the current civil strife was a forgone conclusion, an inevitable consequence of us removing Saddam. Saddam's brutality was all that held the Sunnis and Shiites in check. By removing Saddam, we thus set the stage for renewed ethnic clashes.
If our leaders would have had even a cursory understanding of Sunni / Shiite relations in Iraq, they would have foreseen this sectarian violence. The tension between Sunnis and Shiites was no secret before 2002. In fact, Bush senior had stopped short of invading Bagdhad in the first gulf war because he was worried about enflaming sectarian violence. Bush Sr. wisely did not want the US to become an occupying force, trapped between warring ethnic factions.
The simple fact is that the Iraq War was a recipe for disaster from the beginning. Our good intentions clouded our reason. And now we and the Iraqis must pay the price. . .
tbweb,
Then we are more or less in agreement, except for one crucial point: I don't think the war, even in its beginning phases, was a golden opportunity. I think the current civil strife was a forgone conclusion, an inevitable consequence of us removing Saddam. Saddam's brutality was all that held the Sunnis and Shiites in check. By removing Saddam, we thus set the stage for renewed ethnic clashes.
If our leaders would have had even a cursory understanding of Sunni / Shiite relations in Iraq, they would have foreseen this sectarian violence. The tension between Sunnis and Shiites was no secret before 2002. In fact, Bush senior had stopped short of invading Bagdhad in the first gulf war because he was worried about enflaming sectarian violence. Bush Sr. wisely did not want the US to become an occupying force, trapped between warring ethnic factions.
The simple fact is that the Iraq War was a recipe for disaster from the beginning. Our good intentions clouded our reason. And now we and the Iraqis must pay the price. . .
Posted by socrates392 at 06:23 PM : May 26, 2007
socrates392,,,
Agreed! But the million dollar question will always be was it better to leave Saddam in place or remove him? Seems like a no win situation either way and with over 25,000 U.S. wounded and 3439 U.S. deaths maybe invading Iraq wasn't worth this price in U.S. treasure and its not over yet! :(
The Democrats have made a wise choice in accepting the current bill since they have been able to hold onto the message that they want out, yet they are not willing to leave at any cost.
Clearly, a timeline-based bill would have been vetoed.
Nope, nothing new here but war.
called NSPD-51??? It stand for Nation Security and
Presidential Directive. What it does in case of a
national emergency it institutes MARTIAL LAW!!!!!
The deciderer does not need any more POWER!!!! The
implications of changing the posse comitatus act are
ENORMOUS
SIG HEIL, BUSH!
Under the circumstances, where is there any chance of a "clear victory" if the Iraqi government itself doesn't wish to do the job of healing the country?
Gary Crooks of the Spokesman-Review could dig out that comment, why couldn't The Nation? Too busy attacking the Dems, I guess.
The Nation needs a little reality check... Why doesn't The Nation do some investigating into why the people aren't seeing an end to Iraq as to our participation in it? ...
Posted by Ananar at 11:31 PM : May 26, 2007
The British pointed out that the U.S. President serves term limits whereas the British Prime Minister serves in a Parliamentary system. So according to the British if the U.S. President was serving in a Parliamentary system the last U.S. election where the Democrats won both Houses of Congress would have been seen as a "No Confidence" vote and Pres. Bush would have been removed from office! But since the U.S. President serves terms instead, Pres. Bush stays in power! Interesting observation! Its the way our system of government works so we're stuck until the next election whereas the British would not be!! Hmmm, Parliamentary system anyone?
I'll be expecting a sharp increase in the value of my 'transfer tube' stocks, as a result of your collective performance!
Bush administration is Hated outside the bubble of Washington Republicans That is why they are covered in security and only speak at Military bases. If Bush went out in Real Public he would be stoned by the American People! We have been drawn to Iraq for the interest of things other than American National Security Interest?
This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.
CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!
http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipa
cClubs.htm
REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!
Bush administration is undermining the situation in Lebanon what a hypocrite!
EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! Here is the proof Read it, IF YOU DARE!
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
50 years of American involvement in the Middle East is enough. We Should get out of the entire Middle East! They have nothing worth one more American Life anywhere in the Middle East!
This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.
CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!
HERE ARE SOME OF AIPAC DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS! UP FOR REELECTION CONTACT THEM!
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Steny Hoyer
http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/
READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!
http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm
REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!
EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ar
ticles/070305fa_fact_hersh
50 years of American involvement in the Middle East ENOUGH it has nothing worth one more American Life!
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY STANDS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND IS NOT KNEELING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Of course, in some areas, esp. in the South, Blue-Dogs are often the lesser of two evils so they have little choice.
But a reevaluation is warranted since Blue-Dogs often give the GOP the advantage when writing & voting on legislation.
Posted by tbweb at 12:36 AM : May 27, 2007
Another aspect that I admire about the British Parlamentary system is the requirement that the PM face the MP's weekly for their question and answer session.
Dubya would have been laughed out of the docket on the first go around if we had such a requirement.
This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.
CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!
HERE ARE SOME OF AIPAC DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS! CONTACT THEM!
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
St
eny Hoyer
http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/
READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!
http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm
REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!
EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ar
ticles/070305fa_fact_hersh
50 years of American involvement in the Middle East ENOUGH it has nothing worth one more American Life!
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY STANDS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND IS NOT KNEELING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Posted by janem4
I know it's hard for right wing nuts like yourself to grasp the basic's of politic's! But, what has Bush's method done for terrorism? Literally nothing! Except make it 1000% worse! He has two wars going now that he is losing. The whole world hates our guts! We were safer in 2001 than we are today. Bush has diverted funds from protecting the US to his ill gotten war in Iraq. Because you Chickenhawks can't get it out of your muddled brains that a shooting war doesn't solve the terrorism problem! It just adds to it with more hatred and venom for the US. We are more vulnerable today than we were then. And still people like you don't get it! Clinton fought terrorism like it should be fought(and if Bush had a brain in his empty head he would)! Not with an Army but intelligence, law enforcement, courts and etc. That is literally the only way terrorism will be solved. But, I realize if all you Chickenhawks don't have a war that someone's getting killed in going. You don't think anyone is doing anything! Unless you see the body bags come home! So, when I hear one of you Chickenhawks spouting off I just consider the pathetic source it's coming from!
Now about GW. For about 9 months he made little to no public mention of the threat of terrorism. He made no move to address the U.S.S. Cole tragedy. Under his watch, we were seeing disasters striking of any size, shape and magnitude, including a submarine hitting a Japanese fishing boat that had a lot of students on board. February 2001, a 6. something magnitude quake, epicenter Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia... One could go on and on about GW's particular dismissiveness, domestic policy wise of how to treat Americans who elected him to office. Literally, his contempt for the sort of good government that the general American citizenry ought to be able to depend on. Katrina woke people up. But the earthquake in Western Washington was the first true warning sign of worse things to come in this administration. The "I don't care about you" Bush administration. That included ignoring terrorism until 9/11/2001.
-
by texmexborderswimmer
May 28, 2007 2:59 PM PDT
- Bring our troops home now. If the Arabs swim the Atlantic on their camels we can have target practice for our troops on our beaches, if they should get ashore don't panic they happen to be easy to spot in a crowd. At that point it would be open season on anyone who is middle eastern, they wouldn't stand a snow balls chance in hell of doing much here.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 47 Comments