Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq

This strategy of holding the troops hostage for a policy opposed by the majority of the American people is political suicide.

The Congress can and will fund an orderly withdrawral.

If troops die because Bush is unwilling to accept this... their blood is on his hands.

Of course, Congress also has the power of impeachment. Impeachment procedings are currently opposed by the majority of Democrats (including myself).

But if Bush is so intransigent as to insist troops die instead of withdraw, use of the power of impeachment will become both possible and appropriate.

Congress's ONLY authority when it comes to military matters is to declare war and pay or not pay the bills.
The have no authority to decide when to end a war,or when to use the military.
Your original statement was quite clear.

You said...



So,I ask again...
Except by not paying the bills,what Constitutional authority does congress have to end a war.
You made the claim,so you should be able to prove it.
I even posted a link to the Constitution,just to make it easy for you.

That has nothing to do with subpoena's,investigations,oversight,or anything else.

Congress has the ability to say very simply.

We allocate $100 billion for use ONLY to conduct an orderly withdrawral from positions in Iraq with the execptions of [details here]. No money will be spent to main troop presence in Iraq after the date of [details here] except for [details here].

This is completely within their control over the funding.

But you are also wrong about your repeated claim that these are the ONLY powers of Congress.

My excerpts from Article 1 Section 8

Your nothing more than an apologist for Dummycrats.\


What is the point of keeping troops there until October? If they can leave in October, they can leave NOW!!!

Try to be objective in your explanation of what purpose it serves to leave the troops there until October.

woiyo called you an apologist for the dummycrats..... now you can call him a repugnican ass kisser. Now we're getting fair and balanced, and I truly believe this type of dialog will save the life of a few of our troops....

it's a win win situation really.

Answer the question. What purpose does it serve leaving the troops their until October?

You apparently are blinded by your partisenship and can not see that I want the troops out yesterday. Is that a Republican position?

for god's sake woiyo take a joke. I never wanted them there in the first place as you are damn well aware.

Go mix yourself another vinegar and tonic and relax.

Answer the question!

What purpose does it serve leaving the troops their until October?

woiyo wrote :



it was certainly known before the invasion that the arab nations didn't want to become involved .
they also did not want any western nations "to come to their help " .
saudi-arabia even to this day is making sure that they will NOT become entangled in iraq .
they seeemed to be quite satisfied to have SH control any religious fanatics in iraq .
even though the u.s. government tries hard "to hold hands" (remember president bush walking with the crownprince of saudi-arabia hand-in-hand ?) with saudi-arabia , they are happy to let the u.s. get stuck in the mud .
hbg

Whatever the outcome in Iraq, i have no doubt that conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular will spend at least a decade, if not longer, with sour pusses blaming the Democrats and godless liberal crypto-commies for a "defeat."

Well if the Dems cause a premature withdrawal who would be to blame?

Bush and Republicans, of course. They are the ones who-

- Lied the country into the war
- Didn't handle the early stages of reconstruction well
- Didn't handle the military situation with the insurgency well
- Didn't handle the political situation well at all
- Didn't restart the Iraqi economy with any competence.
- Don't have a plan for victory in Iraq whatsoever.

There is no 'plan' to win which does not rely upon hopes and dreams which have little relation to reality. Think of it as an 'intervention.' We won WW2 in less time than this has taken; crazy that you could call it an 'early withdrawal.'

Cycloptichorn

I am afraid it is a bit late for a premature withdrawal.

He lied the country into war?

Point 2 are you nutz? We have more crap running now than Hussein ever had!

Point 3 I agree with. I would have went in with a scorched earth policy.... But then you would have a whole different set of gripes....


Point 4 you need to expound.


Point 5 How would you propose he do that?

Point 6 sure we do. A stable and democratic Iraq. Help the Iraqis stablize thier country by providing security, support, and training.



If we fought Iraq like we fought WWII it would have been over in about 3 hours but many would be pissed and a lot more civillians would be dead....

Withdrawing now is premature as the fate of the Iraqi people and the resolve of la terroristas would be affected in a not so good way for us./

Because you're new here (welcome to A2K btw) I'll rehash a lot of ground which many of us have been over many, many times.

Yes, Bush (and mostly his crew) exaggerated WMD threats and played down any information countering his claims.



This is factually untrue. Power, water, and oil levels are not up to pre-war marks. Gasoline is extremely hard to get. Food supplies are tighter than before (though Saddam did feed many people with his state-run ration program, which is hard for us to replicate and not the fault of anyone here in the US).



Well, I don't believe in the indiscriminate killing of civilians, so I would think we would have a different set of gripes. I also fail to see how this would have been productive to any sort of actual goal at all.



I do? I don't think that I do.



By appointing competent reconstruction agents who had real-world experience and credentials. This is the exact opposite of what happened in real life, where the prime factor for consideration was 'how loyal are you to Bush?,' and many young Republicans who had worked on his campaign got sent to Iraq- where they failed to do the job.



You apparently have the same problem as many other Republicans in that you cannot discern the difference between a slogan and a plan. This isn't a plan. This is a slogan. A plan would have actual specific things that we would be doing, this has none. Noone has specifics that go from point A to point D without getting seriously muddy in the middle.



Well, while I'm sure that would have made you happy, it would not have accomplished any sort of actual goal.

Cycloptichorn

Giving a pass to your "side" are we?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


link





One article


Want more?





What a dark imagination you have there...... I meant hellfire on thier military, the insurgents, terrorists, and anyone shooting at someone else. i.e. combatants.





If you want the Good Reverend to get what you are saying and discuss it with you sure.....






Who are these competent reconstruction agents you speak of? Please name them.


And which campaign "young republicans"?!? I am afraid I am not following you here....






I see so we should all know detailed specific war and battle plans. Hell we should CC the enemy too!


Fact: Most of Iraq is peaceful.





What makes you so sure? Why would I be happy? This should be good....

The dimwitted jackass who started this unnecessary and unwinable war in the first place--something which your contributions at this site to date lead me to suspect is beyond you powers of comprehension.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to pick an more authoritative source than 'rightwingnews' if you expect to be taken seriously. I have no problem with opinion or advocacy from any place, but 'news' is usually reserved for organizations (both left and right leaning) which have a reputation of truth.



Yes, actually, b/c the article you linked doesn't say anything about power and water levels at all.



The insurgents and terrorists are indistinguishable from the regular population. How the hell do you 'rain hellfire' on them without hitting the civvies who live in the same area as they do?

There is no good way to tell a combatant from a non-combatant in a war such as this. You have identified our main problem in Iraq.



Anyone would be better than the group who was sent to restart the Iraqi economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html



They sent kids who were loyal to the cause over there to do a critical job, which they failed to do. The economy of the place never got back on its' feet and it has become a major problem for the US now.



We should know some details. You and Bush have provided none.

And most of Iraq is empty desert. Those parts are pretty peaceful, yeah. It's only the areas where people actually live that have problems





When the people you are trying to attack are intermixed with a civilian population, and you advocate a scorched earth policy (and grin about it), then you are advocating the mass slaughter of innocents.

Cycloptichorn

What an informative and intellectually prodigious post you have here. Did you come up with "dimwitted jackass" all by yourself? Very clever. I mean even with my diminutive comprehension skills I was able to figure out that you are not fond of Bush and anyone who does not agree with you whole heartedly.


What pearls of wisdom do you have for the Good Reverend next?




Well played.....