You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
US Democrats ready resolution opposing Iraq war
2007-01-18
Senate Democrats working with a well-known Republican war critic are developing a resolution declaring that President George W. Bush's troop buildup in Iraq "is not in the national interest," says a person familiar with the document. The resolution also would put the Senate on record as saying the US commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress, according to an official familiar with the draft.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, is helping Democrats with the wording of the anti-war resolution. "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq," a draft of the resolution says.

More from the AP: Snowe to support resolution

WASHINGTON (AP) - A second Republican signed onto a Senate resolution on Wednesday opposing President Bush's 21,500-troop buildup in Iraq, setting a marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate from Maine, said she would support a nonbinding resolution that would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq can be sustained only with support from the American public and Congress. "Now is time for the Congress to make its voice heard on a policy that has such significant implications for the nation, the Middle East and the world," Snowe said in a written statement.
Posted by:Fred

#14  I thought Fred Thompson's comments on the radio this morning were interesting. This is my quick & dirty transcription:

You know, you couldn't turn on the TV yesterday without seeing a senator or a congressman announcing a plan to pull American troops out of Iraq, or stop the troop buildup in Iraq, or at least warn President Bush that there's opposition to his plans in Iraq. Its worthy of a comment or two.

Well first of all, preparation continues in the house and the senate for the introduction of a resolution disapproving of the president's plan to to send additional troops to Iraq in order to quell the violence there. The resolution will have no legal affect. A congressional vote to cut off funding could stop the troops or could stop the war all together for that matter, but the critics of the plan don't have the stomach for that. It might be politically dangerous.

One sponsor of the senate resolution said that the goal is really to demonstrate that the president is “on his own.”

Well last week I said it seemed to me that we ought to support the plan for the additional troops – which incidentally would still bring the troops up to a number that's less than the number that we've had there in the past – but support it because the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq are so great.

Understandably, people have strong feelings on both sides of this debate. I read yesterday in the Economist magazine, which openly dislikes President Bush, that they agree with the President's plan as “our last, best chance to prevail there.”

But I can see the arguments for the other side, in fact, I can even understand the vote to cut off funds for the war effort if one believes that we've clearly already lost the war, and is prepared to accept the consequences of that loss.

But what I can't see is this non-binding resolution of opposition. Is it really in our country's best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn't such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle?

And finally, regardless of our politics, is this the time to announce to the world that our president is “on his own?”
Posted by: Elmert Crosh5077   2007-01-18 22:21  

#13  We must do the very best we can to counteract the distorted picture that the MSM foists on Americans citizens everyday. [world for that matter]

We must also recognize that our enemies here at home are possesed by an evil that is tireless, and we must never forget that the job to defend liberty and freedom is a battle never done.

Plz contact as many people as you can [serving or civilians] and urge them to relate the vital importance of the WOT in Iraq; to Congress Criters, on major media blogs, put your 2 cents in everywhere you can. We must join the battle and defeat the bastards once again, for the sake of our children and grand children.

Posted by: RD   2007-01-18 14:10  

#12  #6 CrazyFool, I do not assume they care, I figger at best I get lumped into the "31% of the e-mailes are from wackos who do not support you, Senator" crowd.

But I do feel, from time to time, that it is my responsibility to make the difference between 30% opposed and 31% opposed. It makes me feel ...well...like I'm part of the democracy.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-01-18 13:04  

#11  Sulla?
Posted by: Dar   2007-01-18 12:49  

#10  The Chicken Dance continues.......
Posted by: OyVey1   2007-01-18 12:46  

#9  Procopius2k, I love the reference and the implications. History teaches us much.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-01-18 11:19  

#8  Here's the first test for McConnell. It shouldn't be too hard to make this stunt backfire on its proponents, but Frist would have botched that entirely.
Posted by: JSU   2007-01-18 10:20  

#7  I remember a Senate who sent a directive to one of their commanders to not cross the Rubicon with his troops. That opposition to a troop surge didn't work well for the Senators in the end. Keep playing politics boys and girls and ignore the pattern of human behavior known as history.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-01-18 09:42  

#6  You are assuming that these senators give a damn about that happens in Iraq, to the Iraqi people, or our troops.

I don't see it. In fact, with some congressmen I see the exact opposite - the strategy of the Democratic party over the past few years is that we have to lose, and lose big, in order for them to advance their agenda.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-01-18 08:21  

#5  I e-mailed Hagel and Snowe this morning:

I read two interesting articles on the Internet this morning, Senator. One was about how the troop surge in Iraq is already having an effect. Al-Qadea has directed their fighters to leave Baghdad, and the neighboring areas are afraid of the violence, so are cooperating with the Iraqi police and army.

The second article, Senator, dealt with your support for a resolution condemning the troop surge. Some of the most vocal opponents of the war have presidential ambitions, and I detest them putting their personal ambition above the safety of our troops.

My son served in Iraq, Senator, and I believe those who encourage a reduction in the war effort also encourage our enemies, prolonging the war. I saw it in Vietnam. I urge you to reconsider your support of the Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-01-18 06:55  

#4  REGAN > the Dems biggest challenger for 2008 may be from FAR/RADICAL LEFTY ELEMENTS within their own Party. WOT > Limited Socialism, Communism, Govt-ism, Totalitarianism, etal.; versus FULL.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-18 03:57  

#3  They proclaim to seemingly "oppose" the war but have yet to prove they are le seriuese about Congressionally stopping Dubya. THE WAR IS SO BAD FOR AMERICA THEY GOTTA LET DUBYA CONTINUE TO DO HIS THINGY???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-18 03:52  

#2  US Democrats ready resolution losing opposing Iraq war
Posted by: Spomort Greling4204   2007-01-18 02:38  

#1  Olympia Snow should change her party affiliation...the party name I won't write here in deference to the pleasant folk who are here.

It sickens me that these "Americans" are so eager to see us fail and that they have so little understanding of the consequences should we do so.
Posted by: remoteman   2007-01-18 01:57  

00:00