Today, the House of Representatives approved a bill containing a provision calling for the withdrawal of most American forces from Iraq by September, 2008. President Bush immediately launched a rhetorical offensive against the bill, describing it as an attack on the troops and their families and promising to veto the bill if it reaches the White House. In passing the bill, the House also approved another $100 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also provided funding to improve the military healthcare system and bolster hurricane relief efforts.
In all likelihood the bill will fail to pass in the Senate. President Bush has repeatedly promised to veto any leglislation containing a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. In passing the bill, the House of Representatives has placed Bush in an interesting position. They have approved his request for another $100 billion to spend on Iraq and Afghanistan but hinged that support on presidential acceptance of a deadline for ending the war.
President Bush is arguing that Democrats in Congress are effectively denying the troops funding by passing this bill. This argument hinges on the inevitability fact that he will veto the bill. But the only thing being denied here is reality. The bill provides funding for the troops. But if President Bush employs his veto against the bill, then the fundingprovided by this bill will be trapped in a vacuum of stubborn partisan politics.
President Bush has yet to accept the fact that America has turned against the war in Iraq. The passage of this legislation by the House of Representatives is a clear sign of shifting political winds. The House of Representatives provides a good measure of American political preferences because its representatives are elected every two years, most recently in 2006. Although some Senate seats were up for grabs in 2006, many senators have not had to face the voters since 2002. The Senators who face elections in 2008 should realize that the mandate voters gave them in 2002 has long since expired. President Bush would do well to realize the same, he has lost America's trust.
The bill passed by the House today is hardly radical. It provides the president with over a year to bring the war to a satisfactory conclusion. And it provides the war funding the president requested. President Bush's tantrum over the outcome in the House indicates that he remains unable to accept even the most moderate criticisms of his policy. Had the president listened to the advice of others earlier, the war might have gone alot smoother. Both the Senate and the President should listen to American and accept this bill as it is.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 71
If the American people thought things would change after Nov 2006 , they were sadly mistaken. You can't change anything without the help of republicans. The party that has proven time and time again it doesn't care for or what the majority of Americans want......
Bush didn't lie about Iraq because he knew it was the only way he could justify this war. He gave the wrong information because he was convinced that he had it right and everybody else had it wrong. If I tell you something wrong because I believe in my heart of hearts that it's the truth, I'm not lying, I'm just incompetent.
Last time I checked incompetence wasn't a criminal act. If it was, we would have to lock up the vast majority of Congress, the executive branch and quite a few of our courts.
Such as the immigration laws his justice dept ignores.
Get bush under oath and impeachment would be easy.
the man is incapable of telling the truth.....
Benedict Arnold Pelosi
You said: //Unfortunately American politics has become so dumbed down to accomodate Bush that very few politicians understand the viability of impeachment//
Some call it Washington Concensus. I call it elite mind-money meld. Bush, and his republican supporters and quite a few dems [shockingly many I daresay if we bothered to check the votes] have no intention of stopping this war and they don't give a hoot about the damage already incurred or any future damage. Halliburton and others will have all the more to fix up.
This mind-money meld explains quite nicely why Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the sole hold out on the original war authorization. They're all drunk with their power and their sense of invincibility.
Somewhat off topic -- but lopping a few years of the senate terms, coupled with campaign funding restrictions that really have some teeth, are the only thing that will put a dent in their arrogance. As it is, they can have their way with us. Once every four or six years just doesn't do it.
Time for a viable third party and at the very least the prospect--or spectre--of spoiler votes.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769
Members of Congress have proposed bills to cut funding for the war. But only the bill that passed the House yesterday enjoyed enough support to pass. This falls in line with public opinion, as polls have shown that most Americans seem to prefer a gradual withdrawal over an immediate one.
I do agree that this bill is a great example of political game playing. One might say that if the Democrats had any guts they would simply cut funding for the war. But pragmatically, this bill was their best shot for passing legislation that included a timeline for withdrawal. Is it better to be principled and right or strategic and win?
You know you are making progress when the dim-witted Bushies can only fall back on calling Speaker Pelosi a traitor.
Public impatinece and anger about this war is growing faster than the Congress realizes.
If Bush does get a bill that he vetoes, it will doom the Republicans for sure in the next two election cycles _ they are already facing huge losses in the Senate in 08 (21 seats to defend, 10 are very vulnerable).
Like every patriotic American, I would like to see the Congress assert it's lawful perogatives more forcefully. The trash-talking, Republican slime machine has scared people for too long.
Subpoenas for White House liars is a great first step.
Wendy: But how long do we persist for? To what lengths will we push to get the job done? If the goal is to rebuild Iraq and make it a stable Democracy, the U.S. is making little progress. We are so focused on the military element of the mission that the effort to rebuild Iraq has become an after thought.
Wendy forgets that Republicans, and the airheads on Faux News COMPLAINED about the Clinton bombing.
You can't trust a Republican on national security.
We're at a turning point in history, and instead of fighting the enemy, we're fighting amongst ourselves. My own Senator has flip-flopped 3 or 4 times, and always has some excuse to save his own a--.
Nobody blaims only Republicans for this illegal war, the Democrats were just as stupid to support it. Besides, we declared "mission accomplished" about 3 years ago, and our troops are still there? Significantly better? Another 50 or so Iraqis were killed by bombs today! You idiots who don't count Iraqi lives as meaning anything are just that, idiots!
It is not a full blown civil war at this time, but there will be a power struggle if we leave tommorow, or ten years from now, and our country will be broke, and without an army by then. As far as I am concerned, anyone who supports this illegal war is a terrorist since you condone the senseless killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis! Many more innocent women, children, and men have died because we started this war, than were killed on 9/11, and those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia!
Americans seem to forget the terrorist activitities of our own country that have occured over the years. Funding geurilla warfare in many countries world wide where countless innocents were killed. Supporting Saddam Hussein, and Bin Laden in the past! Supporting the Shah or Iran..the list goes on! And many many thousands of innocent people died under those leaders! Not much media coverage of our own country's terrorism around the globe! Our covert government actions were not in support of democracy, only control for our government!
The bullcrap about bringing democracy to Iraq was a last ditch effort to get the American people to support this debacle! Democracy will not work in Iraq for two reasons...there are too many sects, and divisions in the country, and democracy is flawed because the rich end up controlling government, and wealth ditribution as they do here, and if that occurs in Iraq, then all out civil war will errupt eventually between the haves, and the have nots! It will most likely eventually come to that in America as the rich, and ultrarich slowly continue to become a smaller portion of our citizens, and control an ever increasing amount of power here.
p.s. I'm not complaining at all, only pointing out the true hypocrisy of Americans with our global actions...God is not on our side..believe me..he is fed up with America!
WE WOULD'NT HAVE OVER 3000 COUNTRYMEN DEAD BECAUSE OUR LEADER WANTS TO INVOKE HIS WILL ON A PEOPLE,WHO HAVE BEEN SET IN THEIR WAYS,AND BEEN FIGHTING CIVIL WARS IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD FOR OVER
A THOUSAND YEARS.
It's unfortunate that a consensus can't be reached. Too bad Bush Jr. doesn't have the negotiating and consensus building skills his father had.
A political solution that resolves Iraq's multiple humanitarian crisis in needed. Military solutions alone cannot win this. Yet our policy has become increasingly military in focus, sacrificing our ability to rebuild Iraq and truly win hearts and minds.
What's sad Rich? Reality or fantasy? I suppose if you adopt the running and ever shifting fantasy of Dubya and his war then you are delighted. If you look at the facts, history and reality on the ground, then it might get a little sad, don't you think? Delusion is usually on the bright side.
Bush has accepted the fact that the American people have turned against this war. That is why he sees it as his obligation and duty to obfuscate, deny, misrepresent, stonewall or anything else to prevent the people's will from prevailing. His agenda does not allow for change!
If Bush goes down as a great or even a competent leader it will be in the "new America" not in the one in which I grew up! The one in which I grew up had as a principle tenant, that the president worked for and tried to accomplish, the will of the people. The president of that country was not elected to "be a dictator for 4 years" office! I agree that history, not contemporaries, will ultimately judge each presidency. That is why Harry Truman goes down as a great president today. He was highly vilified at the end of his term.
And history may like people who stand up to tyrants, but it doesn't care much for the tyrant or tyrant wanna be!
You talk a lot about "haters" so I assume you have a way to know the minds of people which I don't, but I want to assure you I don't "hate" Bush. He came to office with a horrible agenda and has religiously pursued that agenda without a twitch. I deeply resent his following his agenda instead of what he promised the American people - remember "I don't believe in nation building!" And I resent his unwillingness to listen to and follow the will of the people. But hating Bush would be like hating a lizard for being a lizard! He might be a great neighbor but is a disaster as president!
///- laying the foundation of a new US policy - proactive against countries that support, harbor, etc. terrorists. Granted its not perfect, but he took action///
He took action all right! He essentially threw away our moral compass and sold the citizens of this nation down the river with his pro-active stance toward establishing a Pax Americana with his war of imperialism! There was a very good reason his daddy and Clinton did not fall into this error! New US policies should come from the people, not a self serving elected official. Through their elected representatives, of course.
You seem to downplay Bush's destruction of our civil rights but those rights are what made America! To loose them is essentially the destruction and abdication of the country given us by those who fought so bravely to give us these rights!
I do agree with you about the borders. They need to be enforced. Bush doesn't care, for whatever reason. Bushes spending is very limited to insure further war making so it doesn't impress me. His foray into education sucks as that is a local matter. Whether the war is legal or not I can't say for sure but I believe it is legal. But something can be legal and still be unethical, immoral, self defeating and wrong which pretty well describes this so called war.
Since 911 it has only been six years so it's a little premature to consider the timing of terrorist attacks as success yet. I hope it is terribly successful then perhaps 3000+ Americans won't have died totally in vain. Bringing democracy to the two countries is still a pipe dream and not going to happen! It could have happened in Afghanistan if we hadn't cut and run to invade where thee was oil under the ground! But no, Bush wasn't interested in a permanent democracy in Afghanistan so he pulled out! I supported Bush totally in his invasion of Afghanistan! We could not ignore the attack on the world trade center. But when he cut and run there it proved that he had another agenda on his mind and it wasn't one given him by the American people! So his greatest accomplishment will go down as destroying the moral character of the United States, misleading its citizens and functionally altering our constitution, at least for a time! One to be proud of!
Do appreciate your comments and the exchange of ideas!
Yes, I do indeed remember Harry Truman. And Bush is certainly no Harry Truman! And the Korean war was not Iraq. That was fought under the UN with no intent of imperial gain, invading the North, or anything else but doing our share to protect South Korea. That's more like Bush I and Kuwait, we went in and, in conjunction with the UN, stopped Saddam and pushed him back into his own country and then got the hell out! Iraq is unlike anything in at least recent American history in that we invaded a sovereign nation which had not attacked our nation! Unprecedented, wrong, unethical and immoral! It has led to the divisiveness of this country today and looks a lot more like Viet Nam than Korea!
For all the flap about the president's IQ or lack thereof, frankly I couldn't care less! It's not IQ which makes a great man or great leader. It's character, integrity, ethics and a willingness lead a nation where its people want to be led, not where a self serving elected official wants it to go!
When Truman left office we had the highest stature possible in the world, all our constitutional rights were firmly in place, we wanted to remain safe but not, definitely not, take over the world! And at that, Truman's popularity failed to drop to the level of Bush's today. Truman would have been immensely popular but he fired General MacArthur who had gotten completely out of hand and thought he no longer had to respond to the president because he was popular. Truman provided him a little education on how things work here, at the expense of his own popularity. Nothing in common with Bush!
A quote to keep in mind is:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Bush acted? Funny how you guys can't get far without Clinton and his pecker problems as if that had anything to do with Dubya's pre-emptive war mongering. Comprehend this: It's not funny and if you are weak enough mentally you won't get it. This nation and international law was built upon evidence establishing guilt. Bush threw out that fundemental premise and considered suspicion the only requirement for "action." He then violated American rights to privacy, Constitutionally guarenteed, and instituted massive wiretapping, computer key word searches upon US citizens and found vitrually nothing. He then extended his reach across the globe, straining relationships with friends and hardening foes with abductions of foreign nationals, "rendidtions" and torture without credible evidence that the subjects had any useful info. Next he and his crew bastardized the intel system and cooked data for a invasion of Iraq that yeilds the cesspool we are currently in.
Bush acted? You have ask yourself if you are an American or if some new creature, some creation of fear and despotism. Bush went into office with the sole ambition of invading Iraq. 9/11 set those plans in motion. It is beyond belief that anybody claiming any token of perception has the frailty to defend this idiot and his machinations. History will be unkind to Dubya but historians will be more interested in how a people with such strong traditions of law and democracy were so willing to give them up to follow a ideological despot. Not funny at all.
I'll skip the effort to outdo anyone at name calling and just point out that the "war" we are in and the actions of Bush are not those of a brave and courageous leader. They are the actions of a man who blindly pursues a preconceived agenda witch did include the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of several successful programs in this nation such as Social Security and Medicare!
Bush couldn't have done his job better had he been on the payroll of the PNAC instead of the American people! We are living Dwight Eisenhower's nightmare!
To do what Bush has done required not courage, but total lack of a moral compass! And it helped to have a puppet master by the name of Cheney to keep him on track. Future generations won't credit him with taking on and taming terrorism because he has not had the stomach to do that chore! Had he been after terrorism he would have remained in Afghanistan and if necessary, Pakistan until the job was done instead of the cut and run to Iraq for purposes not related to terrorism in any way! I give him credit for being unwavering but unwavering when you're wrong is not a virtue!
On the name calling, lets just each take our pick of all that has been offered, apply them to ourselves, and let it go at that! Lots simpler that way!
Your last comments were the most articulate and expressive of anything I've read from you and are appreciated. I agree with many things you say including Bush's patriotism.
However, we then begin to see things differently from that point. One of my big gripes is that the US population is still supposed to be the controlling force in this nation and it is clear that Bush's idea of what is the correct thing to do is going to always take precedence over the people. The people have the right to be wrong and this right is inherent in a democracy or constitutional representative republic!
Next, what Bush thinks of as the best thing is, like anyone else, strongly colored by his own background, history and ideology. It's like the Chairman of General Motors who, many years back, stated that "What's good for General Motors is good for the United States!" Those with Studebaker Packard Corporation might have seen some difference there!
If you read my comments and posts you'll never find where I"ve called Bush stupid or dumb or said that he lacked intelligence. I don't know about that. I'd certainly never accuse him of being lazy! But I do know that the plan to invade Iraq was espoused before Bush ever took office, by the PNAC. I also know that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others close to the president were founders of the PNAC. It really stretches my credulity to not think that the invasion of Iraq was preconceived and the assault on the WTC was a convenient excuse to go ahead with an invasion of Iraq at the time.
Can you understand my difficulty with this? I strongly supported Bush in his going into Afghanistan but was totally disappointed when he couldn't wait to invade Iraq!
While I never though of Bush as a desirable president mainly because of domestic issues, I didn't dream he would get us embroiled in this quagmire, especially after "I don't believe in nation building!"
To say that the war was not about oil is to neglect to recognize the influence of oil on this nation and this administration in particular and bring naiveté to a new high for an obviously intelligent person. Oil is the biggest single reason for our presence in Iraq, IMO.
The argument "All Saddam had to do . . . . " is specious as it asks proof of a negative! It can easily be answered that all Bush had to do was read through the documents presented by Saddam which he scorned to do or all Bush had to do was wait a few months for the inspectors to do their job. It seemed to me that he didn't want to wait because if he did the proof might be such that his opportunity to invade no longer existed! Can you understand why I have a problem with this one?
I too would disagree that Bush went into office with the sole purpose of invading Iraq. I believe that was not the top of his agenda at all. While it was on the radar screen, the domestic issues, which didn't require a 911 to take on, were the top of his very aggressive agenda. Gut social security, eliminate Medicare and get it into the hand of the insurance/banking industry and strengthen the power of the administrative branch over the legislative and judicial branches of government were the keystones of his agenda. Whether these are good or bad goals is for a separate discussion, but they were clearly the goals.
Bush senior went into the region with a world collation and clearly defined goals which gave him a stopping place and didn't obligate the US for the indefinite future. He acted on and accomplished those goals and ended the period with very high marks from the American people! The economy and a third party candidate sank him! Bush Jr. never had any real exit policy as he did not go in intending to exit! That is why he would never even give a generalized time table for such an exit or tell what a "wind" would look like.
The only flaw in trying to get democracy in the Mideast as an ideological philosophy is that the people of the Mideast don't want democracy as we know it! They are ill prepared for democracy with the teaching in their youth being against a secular society. Their history does not support the beginnings of democracy. We still refer in talks about the situation, to the tribes. Also, they hate each other almost as much as they hate us. How is that ever going to make for a democratic society? There must be another way, whether it is the strong man (Saddam has played that role ruthlessly for many years), splitting the nation into three or something else that remains undefined at this time. But a unified country with a democratic form of government is not going to happen in the current generation IMHO.
I feel that following up to get Ben Laden, and puting the rest of the estimated (so far) 2 trillion dollars we are spending of our grandchildren's money, into getting us off Mideast oil and eventually fossil fuels would have been a much better investment! We all know it must be done sooner or later.
And you are right, we could all be wrong about this so called war and what the need, consequences and future analysis will be. But I assure you that our differing opinions are each valid and worth sharing with each other!
I understand what you are saying but feel that the president has no authority except that given him by the people and that is does not including imposing his will when he knows full well that the overwhelming majority want to go another way! However, I recognize the validity of how you see it as well.
As far as experts goes, the presidential requirement are a born citizen over 35 years of age only. This does not imply any particular expertise to me. And if I consider this administration as "experts" it boggles my mind! Actually, they are experts on raising funds, getting votes, twisting arms, etc. but no expertise in running a nation! And his replacement will probably be the same as are all administrations! I just still believe in government "by the people" as it were!
Thanks for your perspective!
When you abandon reasonable standards of evidence you lose persepective, you lose bearings, you lose your identity and moral base. No dependable standards of justice means the terrorist reduce us to their level and defacto win.
When you lose basic Democratic fundementals for the sake of temporary security you prove yourself unworthy of the freedoms earned in blood for over 230 years.
Since most of the security forces are Shiite or Kurd, most of the good equipment goes to them, and that plus superior numbers will make for a very one-sided war. Once the Sunnis are disposed of, the Shiite factions will probably fight it out,with Iranian-backed back-to-the-middle-ages types against the rest of the Shiites who have seen how well that worked out for Iran and want no part of it.
With US troops no longer in the area, and with Iraq in a series of civil wars, Turkey may well try to take control of the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. There is a large Turkish minority there, and oil, and this was part of Turkey back in the Ottoman empire days.
What I'm saying here is that when the US leaves, which I'm pretty sure it will eventually, things will collapse into an incredibly bloody mess. Think Rwanda only with AK-47s instead of machetes. That bloody mess will almost certainly draw in surrounding countries and may well start a regional war.
I think that the real question in Washington is whose watch that mess will happen in. The Democrats figure that there will be a Democratic president in 2008. They would prefer that the next president not have to be the one that pulls the plug on Iraq and thus triggers the chaos. That's why they want the troops out while Bush is in office.
George Bush would rather keep things from totally falling apart until we get to the next president. To be honest, I don't consider either of those positions exactly profiles in courage. The ideal would be to have the two parties put their heads together and say "We as a country have a problem. How are we going to solve it?"
Instead we get irrelevant arguments about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. I say that those arguments are irrelevant because unless you have a time machine, there isn't a thing we can do about that. This is now. We're there. Saddam's dead. His regime is gone. The question is, how do we as a country handle the situation we are now in so that we don't end up with troops there indefinitely and/or have a series of civil wars, ethnic massacres, and probably a nasty regional war in an economically vital region?
I'm not hearing many people talk about that. We need to start though.
Good analysis! A factor that is being overlooked or at least not discussed, is how do we get others in the region like Saudi Arabia, who has both people and money, to step up and start taking the responsibility the United Sates has needlessly assumed? They can fill a body bag just as well as our people but would be stupid to do so as long as the good old USA is willing to do it all. Throughout the world it is time for all to share in the policing and protecting of people, resources and human life. We cannot do it all in perpetuity as we are trying!
What about the words "appeaser", "cut-and-run", "liberal", "terrorist sympathizer".
You might just as well have uttered "child molester".
Republicans are real good at making false accusations, and they are also good at saying things over and over again, just like the Communists.
And why not? Some of them are one step away from being fascists.
From that point, after we prove to the world that America can hold it's errant leaders accountable and we regain a small portion of "honest broker" status, perhaps the Arab Shi'ia, Sunni and Kurd will understand their best bet is some political solution of THEIR OWN CREATION to preserve lives and treasure. As long as they can pit us against each sect at will, milk us of tech and infrastructure, as long as they can study our strengh and weakness for future possible use, as long as we are there to agitate and frustrate their sense of national and religious independence the blood will spill. Why this is difficult to understand is a mystery.
2. The Iraqi military isn't ready to be on its own. They can take on most insurgents, but they would never be able to defend themselves against an outside force. The vehicles they use are over 20 years old. Most vehicles need to be towed to different areas.
3. Leaving would dramatically decrease forces against insurgents. It would put more pressure on the Iraqi army than before.
4. Leaving also openes up opportunities for Al-Queda to strike vital oil fields in the Middle east. There is a Saudi island that refines, stores, and transports much of the worlds oil by itself. An attack with a plane could easily bypass Saudi, Iraqi, and Kuwaiti defenses. They could triple the price of oil overnight.
5. Iran will win if we leave. Until we can defeat the Iran-backed insurgents, vicotry can never be achieved. But we are on the verge of breaking them. Another 2 years and they will be gone,
6. We are so close now. The Iraqis are getting beter equipment and training with us there. Soon The Insurgetns will be defeated. Another 2-3 years and opposition will almost cease.
7. The world is really being a bunch of pussies on this. They want 2-hour movies and its over. They don't know that war changes over time. Its not going to be ww2 fighting, with massive caualties in open fields. Its going to be small fighting. the weaker opponent can't afford to fight like that. They resort to small hit and run tactics. They try to draw out the war until they either get an advantage, or the opponents population opposes the war. That means wars are going to last for many years, not 4-5 anymore.
8. It took America 8 YEARS to make a stable government. So far, We have only given Iraq 6 years to rebuild. We expect to much of them. They have built a government, but need time to impliment it. We had the courtesy of having France support us. France went bankrupt liberating America from Britain. The American revolution was fought by Americans, Against the British, and won by the French as it is said. Iraq doesn't have us bankrupting ourselves to support them. Iraq just needs some more time.