Changing the Course in Iraq

[Luke_Wilbur]

US President George W. Bush conceded that efforts to secure Iraq had failed and that he was sending over 20,000 extra troops in a strategic shift to quell sectarian killings and hasten the day when US troops begin coming home.

 

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror -- and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

 

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

 

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

 

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

 

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

 

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

 

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

 

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

 

Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

 

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

 

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

 

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

 

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

 

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

 

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

 

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

 

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

 

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

 

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

 

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

 

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

 

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

 

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

 

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

 

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them -- and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.

 

This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States, and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad -- or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

 

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

 

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration; it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

 

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary -- and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American -- and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

 

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can, and we will, prevail.

 

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

[GenX]

I have been a Republican all my life. When I was young I really liked the fact that Ronald Reagan was strong and helped us win the cold war. I thought Jimmy Carter was weak and represented all the bad things that hippies did to question authority. Bill Clinton I thought was a disgrace to the country with his Monical Lewinsky antics. I never understood why George Bush Senior did not get elected. He honoured our military by winning Desert Storm and had the complete support of our allies. So, when George Bush Jr. came around I thought we were going to get a strong leader. When 911 happenned I saw him on TV in New York saying our country would get the ones responsible. I felt relieved that a Republican was in office. So when we went to Afganistan to fight the Taliban and Al Queda I knew we would prevail with the help from our allies. The world was on our side. Then Iraq came along and I believed George Bush when he said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to attack our country. Once again I thought the U.S. would prevail and we would win the war on terror with the help of our allies. But, then like everyone I started hearing all those hippie liberals stating this was an unjust war and it really got me mad. I could not understand what they were thinking. Didn't they remember 911. I was even angrier at some of our allies and especially Canada. Why were they not helping out in the war effort. When I heard George Bush's speech I realized everything I believed in was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to Al Queada. I remember in the debate that John Kerry stated that we let Osama Bin Laden go in Torra Bora. I really believed Kerry was a hippie liberal that lost his honour in the military. But, now I realize he was right. It pains me to say this. But, I hope my children question authority more than I did. I pray that the Republican Party will get their acts together. And I hope George Bush Jr. gets kicked out. He is a disgrace to our country. That is all I have to say. I just had to vent.

[Guest Jeffery Steinberg]

The following information has been provided by several Washington and Middle East sources, and should be assessed in light of President Bush's speech of Jan. 10.

 

First, a Pentagon public affairs officer has confirmed that the U.S.S. Stennis carrier group is headed towards the Persian Gulf and will arrive some time in mid-February, to supplement the U.S.S. Eisenhower carrier group already in the region (the Eisenhower group is temporarily off the coast of the Horn of Africa). At that point, the assets will have been put in place for a two-track provocation against Iran, intended to provide a justification for a U.S. or Anglo-American "retaliatory" strike against Iranian targets, including alleged secret nuclear weapons sites, according to one source.

 

The first track of provocations has already been initiated with the U.S. military action against Iranian officials visiting the Kurdish region of Iraq last week, and with bombings inside Iran that occurred around the same time. The second track, according to a Middle East source, will be initiated any time after the full U.S. Naval force has arrived in the Persian Gulf. Expect a U.S. Naval incursion into Iranian coastal waters, aimed at provoking an Iranian military action. This will be the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident (provoked, or, as in the original Gulf of Tonkin affair, fabricated) to justify an American military strike against Iran.

The sources emphasized that Vice President Cheney, in particular, is committed to a war with Iran, and, perhaps with Syria, before he leaves office.

 

Several Washington sources added further details. They noted that, beginning prior to Bush's Jan. 10, 2007 speech, unveiling the Administration`s "surge" plan, the Administration had shifted its propaganda line. White House claims about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons were deemed ineffective, given that the Administration had lied about Iraq's alleged WMD threat. Nobody, the source emphasized, is going to support a war against Iran on the basis of the discredited Bush-Cheney Administration's claims of "proof" that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program, about to build a nuclear bomb. The new propaganda campaign will focus on Iran's involvement in arming insurgents inside Iraq with the anti-tank weapons ("improvised explosive devices"--IEDs) that are killing American and British soldiers. With the new rules of engagement under Bush's "surge" policy guaranteed to increase the number of American soldiers killed and wounded, the Administration plans to cynically build up this propaganda front, hoping to force Republicans in the Congress, and even some Democrats, to back its calls for action against Iran to punish it for its continuing role in the anti-American violence in Iraq.

 

Add to this the factor of the U.S. Naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, the sources warn, and the elements are all there for Cheney's new war.

 

One source emphasized that the Bush speech of Jan. 10th sent shockwaves through the U.S. establishment. While many details of the Bush "surge" plan had been leaked out and briefings given prior to the speech, the emphasis on Iran and Syria in the President's remarks came as a shock, and prompted many who felt the Administration's war schemes against Iran had been contained, to reassess the situation.

[Guest Ari Goldberg]

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) strongly condemns President Bush’s plan to send more troops into Iraq as part of an escalation of the conflict. Rep. Nadler is urging Congress to pass legislation whereby appropriated funds can only be used to protect the troops or bring them home. His statement on the House floor yesterday:

 

 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, what a deaf President we have. The American people told him loud and clear on November 7 that we want to change course in Iraq. He doesn't hear them.

 

The Iraq Study Group told him loud and clear that we must change course in Iraq and certainly not escalate; he doesn't hear them.

 

His generals tell him that more troops won't do any good and will simply increase American casualties; he hears them, but he fires them and gets generals that will tell him what he wants to hear.

 

There is nothing more clear today than that the civil war in Iraq is a civil war, that there is no function for the United States to try to help one side against the other in that civil war. Indeed, one could make the case we picked the wrong side, and that we must withdraw our troops. We must tell the Iraqis that we are withdrawing, and we are withdrawing on a timetable. You make a deal with each other; you live together or fight your own civil war. We are not going to do it for you.

 

Mr. Speaker, for that we should not escalate. We should pass legislation in this Congress saying that appropriated funds can be used only to protect the troops and to withdraw them.

[Guest American for Progress]

Last week, President Bush proposed an escalation in Iraq, pledging to send another 21,500 U.S. troops into Iraq's anarchic civil war. The plan has been met with stiff resistance. Even reliable pro-war conservatives, such as Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), have indicated their opposition. More than six in ten Americans oppose Bush's plan. The proposal provides little hope that the stability sufficient to stop the carnage on the ground can be provided. According to recently-published U.N. report, "During 2006, a total of 34,452 [iraqi] civilians have been violently killed and 36,685 wounded." Bush has warned that the coming year in Iraq will be no different: "Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties." The Iraqi people are absolutely clear about what they want. “Seven out of ten Iraqis overall -- including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%) -- say they want the United States to leave within a year.” The American public, too, supports phased withdrawal. Despite Bush's claim that progressives don't have their own plan, the Center for American Progress has had a responsible Iraq strategy for over a year (Strategic Redeployment). Instead of adopting it, Bush has said there will be no "graceful exit" from Iraq, seemingly laying the course for a disgraceful one.

[Guest The Consortium]

Liz Cheney, a daughter of the Vice President, took to the Op-Ed page of the Washington Post to imply that Americans who didn't get in line behind George W. Bush's Iraq War were aiding al-Qaeda. She reprised one of Bush's favorite refrains, that al-Qaeda wants U.S. forces to leave Iraq and that to do so would "help the terrorists."

 

But intelligence analysts have captured internal documents indicating the opposite, that al-Qaeda actually wants U.S. forces to remain bogged down in Iraq. So, the question becomes: Who is helping the terrorists now?

[Guest American Progress]

Nearly seventy percent of Americans oppose President Bush's escalation plan, as do top military leaders, Bush's staunchest international ally, and the Iraq Study Group. After four years in the shadows, Congress has begun to use its power as a co-equal branch of government to do something about the administration's failed policies in Iraq. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution condemning Bush's escalation strategy. "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq," the resolution said, "particularly by escalating the United States military force presence." The Senate will debate this measure along with several others next week, and a "vote could come as early as the week of Feb. 5." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who strongly opposes escalation, explained why a healthy debate on the issue is crucial: "I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think?" Americans are mobilizing against the President's plan. A protest rally has been planned for this weekend in Washington, D.C., while other groups such as Americans Against Escalation in Iraq plan to lobby members of Congress "who have spoken out against the war, but who have so far declined to pledge support for a resolution denouncing Bush's plan to increase the number of troops." In response, the White House and others have put out several myths they think will win support for their plan. The Progress Report debunks the right wing's talking points:

 

MYTH #1 -- OPPOSING ESCALATION UNDERMINES THE TROOPS: A recent Military Times poll of active-duty forces found 39 percent of those polled think troop levels should remain the same or should decrease. Only 38 percent support sending more troops into Iraq, with 13 percent supporting a complete withdrawal. "Our troops are on the Internet constantly," Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said recently. "They know very well there's a debate going on in this country." Yet the administration and its conservative allies continue to push the false premise that opposition to the administration's failed policies -- which once again became painfully evident last Saturday -- means a lack of support for the troops. "In Iraq, all of this undermines the morale of the military and makes their task that much harder on the ground," the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page said about the ongoing debate. Vice President Cheney said of Senate passage of the anti-escalation resolution, "It would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops." Hagel hit back hard against the charges. "When I hear...impugning motives and patriotism to our country, not only is it offensive and disgusting but it debases the whole system of our country and who we are," he said. "Can't we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people? They expect it. Are we so weak, we can't do that?"

 

MYTH #2 -- PROGRESSIVES DON'T HAVE A PLAN: "It's the only game in town," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said of escalation. Cheney claimed "the critics have not suggested a policy." Tony Snow added, "If you've got a better proposal that will achieve success in Iraq, help Iraqis get swiftly into the lead, and will demonstrate support for American forces, let us hear it." Listen closely, Tony. Over a year and a half ago, the Center for American Progress released a responsible Iraq strategy that called for comprehensive strategic redeployment. The strategy, which was updated in May 2006, calls for reducing U.S. troops to 60,000 in six months and to zero in eighteen months, while redeploying troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf to contain the threat of global terror networks. The plan also calls for engaging in diplomacy to resolve the conflict within Iraq by convening a Geneva Peace Conference, establishing a Gulf Security initiative to deal with the aftermath of U.S. redeployment from Iraq, and putting Iraq's reconstruction back on track with targeted international funds. The American public and the Iraqi public support phased withdrawal.

 

MYTH #3 -- WE OWE THE PRESIDENT ONE LAST SHOT: "Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq," Bush said during his State of the Union address, "and I ask you to give it a chance to work." "I think it deserves a chance to see if it will work," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said. "We should do everything in our power to help make it work," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said, "and that begins by giving it a chance and not criticizing it before the strategy even has a few days to work out." This talking point ignores the fact that similar strategies have been tried -- and failed -- twice before. During the last six months, the United States has increased -- or "surged" -- the number of American troops in Baghdad by 12,000, yet the violence and deaths of Americans and Iraqis has climbed alarmingly, averaging 960 a week since the latest troop increase. This past summer, Bush announced a major effort to secure Baghdad, stating at a news conference that thousands of U.S.-led coalition troops would be moved into the city. Violence intensified throughout the country, and U.S. deaths in Iraq spiked.

 

MYTH #4 -- HAGEL IS THE ONLY CONSERVATIVE CRITIC: The White House is trying to downplay the growing discontent among conservatives about Bush's policies. Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Cheney recently if they were losing the support from conservatives. "Well, I don't think Chuck Hagel has been with us for a long time," Cheney said. Asked for a comment on the escalation resolution, Tony Snow said there had been "no real surprises" because Hagel voted for it, ignoring the fact that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was the only member of the Foreign Relations Committee to express support for the president's plan. Other influential conservative voices -- including those of Sens. John Warner (R-VA), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Sam Brownback (R-KS) -- have said they will not support the plan.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Here is a interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer with the Vice President on the escalation of troops.

 

The biggest problem we face right now, is the danger than the United States will validate the terrorist's strategy, that in fact what will happen here, with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq. ... That we don't have the stomach for the fight. That's the biggest threat." - Vice President Dick Cheney, January 25, 2007

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html

[Guest White House Press Secretary]

Q General Casey testified today that securing Baghdad would take fewer than half the additional troops that President Bush has proposed, and he said that he had asked for two brigades, based on the recommendations of his subordinate commanders. So how did we wind up with five additional brigades?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, the President has talked with -- you also know that General Casey supports the plan. And the plan is to bring in five brigades into Baghdad, and also another 4,000 Marines into Anbar, not only to take care of immediate security concerns, but to make sure that we have adequate force structure as the Iraqis begin bringing brigades into each of the nine districts of Baghdad, and the Americans also into those nine districts, in support, that we have adequate resources and forces to deal not only with the media, but also potential threats to security.

 

Q But why the disparity in numbers? When he's talking on the Hill about asking for two, and the President asked for five?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, there were a number of conversations, and the President, after talking with General Casey and other commanders, came to the conclusion that he preferred to have five brigades into Baghdad and 4,000 Marines into Anbar. And again, what General Casey was talking about is some suggestions he'd made earlier. The President has made his decision, and it does reflect the wisdom of a number of combatant commanders. And again, it does have the assent of General Casey.

 

Q Let me get one more. General Casey, do you think that he's kind of been all over the park on this? He's first of all, said that additional troops weren't warranted, and then he went along with the President, and now he's saying this?

 

MR. SNOW: No, I think what you've had is you had a shifting series of circumstances within Baghdad. Keep in mind the assumption originally of Operation Together Forward was that we would not need extra forces. But it became obvious that we did need more simply because we did not have the capacity to put in grounded forces and to leave them 24/7 within the districts of Baghdad.

 

Equally important we needed significantly more Iraqi forces on the ground. And that really is the key element in this plan. It's one that we tend not to stress because we're thinking about our troops. But the Iraqis are going to be putting significantly more forces, additional forces into Baghdad, as, indeed, already they have more forces in the city, as well.

 

David.

 

Q Tony, on that -- the resolution. So you've got more Republicans and Democrats coalescing around some language which at its core opposes the troop increase. You've made the argument about what message that kind of resolution would send. That's an argument. People will agree or disagree with that. What will the President do when there is an actual resolution?

 

MR. SNOW: The President will continue to exercise his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief and do what he thinks is going to be best for American security.

 

The other thing he will do is what he's done already, which is to encourage people to give the plan a chance. It has not yet begun to take effect. The Iraqi forces are not yet into Baghdad, they're on the way. The U.S. brigades are not yet deployed, they're on the way. What you have seen already, however, perhaps as a result of -- signals of American determination, are real signs on the ground, again most recently, Muqtada al Sadr telling his people, lay down your arms. You have seen a move back into the political process of members of al Sadr's party. You have seen open attempts by Shia and Sunni groups to try to figure out how to create the basis for political reconciliation. You've also seen tough military action against Shia and Sunni groups that were operating outside the law. The Prime Minister has given a series of speeches about what he intends to do.

 

So what you are seeing, David, is many of the actions that members of Congress say they want to see are beginning to take place already. We think it's important, because, again, as you know and everybody else knows, the money is in the budget now for the five brigades into Baghdad and the 4,000 Marines into Anbar, and we would encourage everybody to take a look at what happens.

 

Q But isn't there -- when this resolution comes to pass in whatever form is final, isn't there a realization on the part of the President that he's effectively lost the public and then lost Congress, and so the answer to the question of, give it more time, is essentially, why should we trust you, Mr. President, to mend this thing?

 

MR. SNOW: No, I don't, because, again, there are a number of things being floated around, including language that says the finances to support troops in the field. There is a general recognition among members of Congress that we can't afford to fail in Iraq. And there is fairly significant agreement that that means Iraqis able to handle their own security. So I think there's still a basis for further discussion on this.

 

Also, Americans want to see results and they do want to see an improvement in conditions in Baghdad. I don't think you should take public opinion as something that is chiseled into stone. This is something that can change, based on the realities on the ground. As a matter of fact, the President -- he's made the point a number of times, if somebody were polling him on the situation right now, he would not approve of what's going on, which is precisely why we've come up with a new way of deploying forces, new rules of engagement, new strategies involving such things as much greater presence of provisional reconstruction teams, economic development teams within Baghdad. All of these are a recognition of what was going on before didn't work, and we need to succeed.

 

Q Fair enough. But there's still a realization that if his request was for patience and allow this to work, the answer, at least where public opinion is today and where congressional opinion is -- if we get this resolution, is, we don't trust you to carry it out.

 

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that's right. I'd take a look -- well, well, based --

 

Q You can make an argument, but I mean based on what? What would you --

 

MR. SNOW: Based on -- for instance, if you take a look at when people got a chance to listen to him at the State of the Union address. You've seen the flash polls, and they indicated the people did think, okay, we get it. I think that there is still a basis for the public wanting to see success in Iraq.

 

I think to the extent that the public doesn't like what's going on, we agree with them. And as I would suggest again, facts on the ground are going to shape opinion. We know that. The President has an obligation as Commander-in-Chief to do what he thinks is necessary to keep this country safe.

 

And one of the things vital to keeping this country safe is to prevent the creation of a vacuum in Iraq that could create conditions of terror that certainly could influence this country, not only our safety but our economic security.

 

Q Just one final one on this. You make assertions about the public gets it, the public wants this based on I don't know what --

 

MR. SNOW: No, I mean, we've done --

 

Q And what I'm -- the question is, do you think the American people and Congress trust the President to fix what's wrong in Iraq?

 

MR. SNOW: I think the American people want to see results. I think -- I don't know how you say -- let me explain why I think trust is a little loaded. The President is a man of his word, and he's a man of honor. And trust is often associated with that. Do Americans have absolute confidence that what we have laid out is going to have 100 percent chance of success? No, they want to see results. So I think the reason I'm reluctant to answer the trust question is that that bears on character. And I think people do, in fact, trust the President's character.

 

Q I'm using it in terms of track record.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, that's why I'm -- I'm taking issue only with that particular term. But the fact is, you got a skeptical public. Absolutely. And it's got a right to be skeptical. They want to see results. And what we're saying is we want to see results, as well. That's why we have changed a whole significant number of the elements of our force structure, the way they operate, the way they interact with the Iraqis and all that. And therefore, I think it is important to let the public see what this program can achieve.

 

Already a sign of American determination has changed behavior for the better, it appears, on the ground in Iraq. But certainly that is only a very, very, tiny, modest down payment on what we all want and need to see.

 

Martha.

 

Q Tony, you talk about progress over there with the Iraqis. And on the surface it appears that way. But General Casey in his testimony said some of the ministries are so corrupt, they won't make any progress. You talk about al Sadr telling his followers to lay down their arms. He's done that so many times before. And whenever he wants them to pick them up again, they do.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, and that bears on what I was just talking about, Martha, which is there's a different approach. In the past, you would have forces going in by day and out by night. And that's not a very effective way to deal with militias that are gathering up arms. The Prime Minister has made it real clear that anybody who is trying to build up armaments on the sly is going to be operating outside the law. The difference now is that you're going to have Iraqi brigades with U.S. battalions in support in each of the nine districts.

 

Q In Sadr City.

 

MR. SNOW: In Sadr City.

 

Q Including patrolling, and how big a presence?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I don't know exactly how the map carves up Sadr City, but it's certainly going to be at least one of the districts and perhaps maybe even falling within more than one district. And so you're going to have an Iraqi brigade and you're going to have U.S. support.

 

In addition, as you know, part of the deal is, you go door to door. You build confidence with the forces. And by the way, this bears on your corruption question, which I'll get to in a moment, and you also try to collect intelligence. It is absolutely vital to get real-time intelligence. The Iraqis are going to be better at it than we are. Also to try to force people to make choices -- are you going to do the political path, or are you, in fact, going to try to operate outside the law?

 

There have already been operations within Baghdad in recent days that have made it clear that the Prime Minister is not only willing, but understands the necessity of using force against those who are trying to amass arms to weaken him in his government. So the fact is, you have a different approach. You have different rules of engagement. Nobody can call off an engagement because they're afraid some political ally might get into harm's way. And there is a determination on the part of the Iraqi government not merely to move forward, but to have a 24/7 presence in those districts. I will not give you --

 

Q But you've got 2.5 million people in Sadr City.

 

MR. SNOW: I know.

 

Q And you're talking about a brigade with support from Americans?

 

MR. SNOW: Yes. Again, I'll have to go back -- and you've probably seen the maps, as well. Let's go back. We'll take a look at -- if you want an operational description, it's where I talk about --

 

Q I don't want an operational -- but when you come up and you say, it's great, he's going back to the political process, he's asking people to lay down their arms. But you've got 2.5 million people and you've got a brigade, and you've got somebody who has broken their promise a zillion times.

 

MR. SNOW: I believe also that I have said that it's a very tiny down payment on progress that people expect to see. You've also seen one of his key lieutenants arrested -- not released. These are signs that something different is going on.

 

Now, I trust that you and everybody else will keep a watchful eye on what goes on in Sadr City. And I think if you want to get into operational detail, it's probably better to talk to the Pentagon about that.

 

Q I'm not getting into operational details.

 

MR. SNOW: Let me -- well, you were asking an operational question, how are you going to deal in Sadr City. Now as for the corruption question --

 

Q But that's the way you answered it, so I get to ask the questions.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, the corruption question is also very important because absolutely it's a problem. You've seen another shake-up in the police this week. We have made no bones about it, there have been corruption problems. And they have to be addressed and addressed aggressively because if you've got that kind of corruption, especially the situation where people don't know if police are there to save them or kill them, that is not the way to build confidence. You have to have a government that creates confidence among those who are the governed.

 

And we made it clear to the Iraqis that that is going to be vital for their success. So on that front, I agree with you. Corruption has been a problem. And, yes, we've talked about addressing it before. What we did didn't work as well as it needed to, and obviously, there needs to be more aggressive efforts there.

 

Q Can I just go back to the question about General Casey and the brigade, saying he felt fewer than half of what the President has planned were needed. You say he supports the plan now. He says he does, but it seems like a very diplomatic way to say, not really, and I don't have to be there to carry it out. So who did the President rely on heavily when he made these decisions? The commander on the ground did not, it appears, agree with the President's bigger, larger plan for more brigades. The commander of Central Command apparently did not. So the President relied mostly on outside people, or the people who he was trying to get to go in --

 

MR. SNOW: I've often been asked about internal deliberations, and I've always given the same answer, which is, I'm not going to characterize them. It is worth noting that General Abizaid and General Casey, both of whom you've described as being in opposition to the plan, publicly have supported it. And so I'll let you --

 

Q But what he said today didn't quite fit that, Tony.

 

MR. SNOW: I'd refer the questions back to him and I let him clarify.

 

Q How much responsibility do you think General Casey bears for a failed plan?

 

MR. SNOW: The President has made it clear that if anybody bears responsibility, it's the President. And he does not want people second-guessing commanders who have been acting on his orders.

 

Q Is the President disappointed that some key Republican allies like Senator Warner have been instrumental in pursuing this resolution?

 

MR. SNOW: Again, let's see where these things go. Even this issue is in considerable flux. And we're aware of the conversations that have been going on on Capitol Hill; we've been monitoring them. But as I said also, we're not going to get into the business of writing resolutions. As David has pointed out, we've laid out benchmarks about what we think people ought to consider, and they'll do that.

 

The other thing is we've got a way forward that acknowledges all the faults and defects of previous plans that you have noted and others have noted. This is not an attempt to ignore problems, it's a commitment to address them. And so, as Congress thinks about this, we also would expect members to take a very careful look at how this programs proceeds -- not expecting overnight results, because nothing can yield overnight results, but the problems we have are significant. But we also believe that we have the force structure and the doctrine in place, as well as the commitment on the part of the Iraqis, that will get us to the situation where the Iraqis, as quickly as is feasible, assume lead positions on security and other functions within their government so that they are going to have that free-standing democracy.

 

Q Tony, back on the issue of Iraqi brigades that you mentioned. What is their status? They're not all there yet, obviously, but --

 

MR. SNOW: Well, we're talking about five brigades, and as you know, it takes time to get there. What the Iraqis have talked about is within the next four to five weeks trying to get three deployed within Baghdad. So we'll see.

 

Q Because one of the things that a senior official said on January 10th, when the President was going to deliver his Iraq address, was that the American people are going to have these signs --

 

MR. SNOW: Right.

 

Q -- very quickly they'll be able to see whether or not the Iraqi government is coming through. And one of the things that was talked about as an example of that was this move to get Iraqi brigades in -- and it's February 1st now, and --

 

MR. SNOW: Go back and look what the senior official said, too, it will be mid to late February. So it's still within the time frame I mentioned to you.

 

Q Well, I believe one of the dates was February 1st there would be at least one Iraqi brigade --

 

MR. SNOW: No, I think -- go back and take a look. I think it was 15, one; 30, two. But go back and check. The point is we're still within the time frame of that. The other thing is that people have always said, look, you may have a day or two here -- I know you've got the stopwatch going, today is February 1st, but there's progress on that. And, yes, there will be an opportunity to see how quickly people -- how quickly the Iraqis get their forces into Baghdad. So we're taking a look at it. But I don't think that there's any sign right now that indicates that they're not capable of meeting this.

 

Mark.

 

Q Back to Casey and his questioning today. Senator McCain was pretty scathing in questioning Casey's credentials and saying all these mistakes were on his watch and he should take responsibility for them. You're just saying that you think the President takes responsibility for that --

 

MR. SNOW: I know he does.

 

Q -- does that mean Casey is off the hook?

 

MR. SNOW: No, look, the President is not in the business of putting his commanders on the hook. He's the Commander-in-Chief, and he has said -- he said it yesterday with The Wall Street Journal -- I'm the Commander-in-Chief; I do not want you second-guessing people who have been carrying out my orders.

 

And so the President says he takes -- the President takes full responsibility for what has not worked, and he understands that he is going to be held accountable for what happens in the way forward. That's what happens when you're a Commander-in-Chief, you have to make decisions.

[Guest LAW]

A report released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CB) shows that the real troop increase associated with President Bush’s escalation policy could be as high as 48,000, more than double the 21,500 soldiers that Bush has claimed. Moreover, despite administration assertions that the escalation would cost $5.6 billion, the CBO report estimates that "costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment." The new facts about escalation come just as Congress is set to receive a long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, the first such document from the U.S. intelligence community since 2002. According to the Washington Post, the NIE "outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration."

 

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7778&sequence=0

[Luke_Wilbur]

House Armed Services Subcommittee Chairmen Neil Abercrombie (Air and Land) and Solomon Ortiz (Readiness) pushed Pentagon leaders for assurances on the military preparedness of U.S. Army and Marine Corps units being deployed to Iraq as part of President Bush’s “surge.”

 

 

In a joint hearing this week, members of the two subcommittees questioned Thomas Mullins, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Plans, Programs and Resources, Major General Vincent Boles, Army Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, and other Army logistics and supply leaders over apprehension that units in Iraq are already experiencing shortages of vehicles, armor kits, communications equipment, certain weapons, and protection and countermeasure devices, and that adding 17,500 additional troops to the force will just make a bad situation worse.

 

“Extended and continued deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, with nearly constant combat under unbelievably harsh conditions, has wreaked havoc on billions of dollars of warfighting and support equipment, and put terrible stress on our men and women in uniform,” said Air-Land Chairman Abercrombie (D-HI). “Military readiness, including the ability to supply and resupply units with everything they need — has suffered. Adding five additional combat brigades can only make the problem that more critical.”

 

The Subcommittee members cited testimony in a committee hearing last week and a report issued on January 25th by the Department of Defense Inspector General indicating equipment shortages for combat units currently in Iraq. Despite assurances from Brig. Gen. Charles Anderson, director of Force Development for Army G-8, who said, “They are going to be properly equipped,” legislators expressed their concerns.

 

"As urgent as the problem is because of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has serious longer-term implications, as well," Ortiz said. "The readiness crisis facing the nation today means the United States is really rolling the dice. We are engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we face potential threats from Iran and North Korea. The damage done to our Army and the readiness of our force would prevent us from responding effectively should threats from either of these nations materialize. We simply are not ready."

 

"This readiness crisis comes into particularly sharp focus now, with Congress being asked to approve a reported $100-billion Fiscal Year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriation request, which includes operational funds for President Bush's troop escalation," said Abercrombie. "The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been paid for through emergency supplemental requests - year after year. It shows that this Administration is determined to hide the real costs. The practice has led to critical repair and reset needs going unfunded, and has brought us to this sorry state of affairs."

[Luke_Wilbur]

Here are some excerpts of the Press Conference by the President

 

I have just finished a conversation with General David Petraeus. He gave me his first briefing from Iraq. He talked about the Baghdad security plan. It's the plan that I described to the nation last January, and it's a plan that's beginning to take shape. General Petraeus and General Odierno talked about how the fact that the Iraqi government is following through on its commitment to deploy three additional army brigades, Iraqi army brigades in the capital. We talked about where those troops are being deployed, the position of U.S. troops with them, as well as the embeds with the Iraqi troops, and we talked about the plan.

 

He also talked about the new Iraqi commander. The commander who Prime Minister Maliki picked to operate the Baghdad security plan is in place; they're setting up a headquarters and they're in the process of being in a position to be able to coordinate all forces. In other words, there's still some work to be done there to get the command and control center up and running in Baghdad.

 

We talked about the fact that our coalition troops that are heading into Baghdad will be arriving on time. In other words, I'm paying attention to the schedule of troop deployments to make sure that they're there, so that General Petraeus will have the troops to do the job -- the number of troops to do the job that we've asked him to do.

 

We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces. And I would characterize their assessment as the coordination is good. In other words, there's good conversation, constant conversation between the commanders of our troops and their troops, and that's a positive development.

 

The operation to secure Baghdad is going to take time, and there will be violence. We saw on our TV screens the terrorists will send car bombs into crowded markets. In other words, these are people that will kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective, which is to discourage the Iraqi people, to foment sectarian violence and to, frankly, discourage us from helping this government do its job.

 

Yesterday there was a suicide bomber. In other words, there's an active strategy to undermine the Maliki government and its Baghdad security plan. And our generals understand that, they know that they're all aimed at, frankly, causing people here in America to say it's not worth it. And I can understand why people are concerned when they turn on the TV screens and see this violence. It's disturbing to people, and it's disturbing to the Iraqi people. But it reminds me of how important it is for us to help them succeed. If you think the violence is bad now, imagine what it would look like if we don't help them secure the city, the capital city of Baghdad.

 

I fully recognize we're not going to be able to stop all suicide bombers. I know that. But we can help secure that capital; help the Iraqis secure that capital so that people have a sense of normalcy -- in other words, that they're able to get a better sense that this government of theirs will provide security. People want to live in peace; they want to grow up in a peaceful environment. And the decision I made is going to help the Iraqi government do that.

 

When General Petraeus' nomination was considered three weeks ago, the United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm him, and I appreciated that vote by the senators. And now members of the House of Representatives are debating a resolution that would express disapproval of the plan that General Petraeus is carrying out. You know, in recent months, I've discussed our strategy in Iraq with members of Congress from both political parties. Many have told me that they're dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. I told them I was dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. And that's why I ordered a comprehensive review of our strategy.

 

I've listened to a lot of voices; people in my administration heard a lot of voices. We weighed every option. I concluded that to step back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for people in America. That's the conclusion I came to. It's the conclusion members of my staff came to. It's the conclusion that a lot in the military came to.

 

And the reason why I say "disastrous consequences," the Iraqi government could collapse, chaos would spread, there would be a vacuum, into the vacuum would flow more extremists, more radicals, people who have stated intent to hurt our people. I believe that success in Baghdad will have success in helping us secure the homeland.

 

What's different about this conflict than some others is that if we fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that. And that's one of the main reasons why I made the decision I made. And so we will help this Iraqi government succeed. And the first step for success is to do something about the sectarian violence in Baghdad so they can have breathing space in order to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in Baghdad, factions that are recovering from years of tyranny, that there is a hopeful future for them and their families. I would call that political breathing space.

 

And by providing this political breathing space, in other words, giving the Maliki government a chance to reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve reconciliation, it'll hasten the day in which we can change our force posture in Iraq. A successful strategy obviously -- a successful security strategy in Bagdad requires more than just military action. I mean, people have to see tangible results in their lives. They have to see something better. They not only have to feel secure where they live, but they've got to see positive things taking place.

 

The other day, the Iraqi government passed a $41 billion budget, $10 billion of which is for reconstruction and capital investment. There's a lot of talk in Washington about benchmarks. I agree -- "benchmarks" meaning that the Iraqi government said they're going to do this; for example, have an oil law as a benchmark. But one of the benchmarks they laid out, besides committing troops to the Iraqi security plan, was that they'll pass a budget in which there's $10 billion of their own money available for reconstruction and help. And they met the benchmark. And now, obviously, it's important they spend the money wisely.

 

They're in the process of finalizing a law that will allow for the sharing of all revenues among Iraq's peoples. In my talks with members of Congress, some have agreed with what I'm doing, many who didn't -- they all, though, believe it's important for the Iraqi government to set benchmarks and achieve those benchmarks. And one benchmark we've all discussed was making it clear to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in the future of their country by having a stake in the oil revenues. And so the government is in the process of getting an oil revenue law that will help unify the country.

 

The Iraqi government is making progress on reforms that will allow more of its citizens to reenter political life. Obviously, I'm paying close attention to whether or not the government is meeting these benchmarks, and will continue to remind Prime Minister Maliki that he must do so.

 

We've given our civilians and commanders greater flexibility to fund our economic assistance money. Part of the strategy in Baghdad is to clear, and then to hold, and then to build. We've been pretty good about clearing in the past; we haven't been good about holding -- "we" being the Iraqis and coalition forces. So we spent time today talking to General Petraeus about the need, his need and his understanding of the need to hold neighborhoods so that the people, themselves, in the capital city feel more secure.

 

But also part of the strategy is to make sure that we build. So we're giving our commanders flexibility with reconstruction money that they have at their disposal. We're also sending more PRTs, provincial reconstruction teams, into Iraq, trying to speed up their arrival into Iraq so that the Iraqi people see tangible benefits from the government that they elected under one of the most progressive constitutions in the Middle East.

 

Later this week the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq -- before it has a chance to work. People are prejudging the outcome of this. They have every right to express their opinion, and it is a non-binding resolution. Soon Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. Our troops are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C. to provide them with the support they need to do their mission. We have a responsibility, all of us here in Washington, to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the resources and the flexibility they need to prevail.

[Guest Congressman Moran]

I have included my Iraq resolution speech which was delivered Tuesday evening on the first day of debate. The President's actions have shown that he is ignoring the message the American people sent this past November. The time has come for the legislative branch to provide the checks and balances on executive power that our Founding Fathers envisioned.

 

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

(House of Representatives - February 13, 2007)

 

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to paraphrase a poem that Rudyard Kipling wrote upon the death of his son in World War I that seems particularly apt to the war in Iraq:

 

When they ask why the young men died

 

Tell them it's because the old men lied.

 

Madam Speaker, when the White House announced 4 years ago the U.S. military would attack Iraq under the guise of the global war on terrorism, there wasn't one single uniformed military officer who believed that Iraq was part of a global war on terrorism. Saddam had had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

 

Saddam wasn't harboring any al Qaeda cells that did attack us. In fact, they understood that starting a new war would distract us and limit us from accomplishing our immediate need to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Saddam was a vicious, secular, despotic dictator, but he saw al Qaeda as a threat to his control, and al Qaeda viewed Saddam as an enemy of their religious extremist world vision.

 

The U.S. Intelligence Community knew that there was no clear evidence that Saddam was a threat to the United States. There was no failure of our professional Intelligence Community, but there was an abysmal failure of our political leadership.

 

So how did we get to this point? First we were scared with the threat of Saddam's arsenals or weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda training camps, an Iraqi meeting with the 9/11 hijacker, mobile labs, aluminum tubing, yellow cake uranium. But there were no weapons of mass destruction, Madam Speaker.

 

The training camps didn't exist. Mohamed Atta never met an Iraqi agent in Prague. The White House knew, before they informed us about the mobile labs, that our experts had determined that they were not in any way related to chemical or biological weapons. Likewise, the aluminum tubing was bogus information. Well before the so-called yellow cake uranium from Niger was cited as evidence at an attempt at nuclear armament, our Intelligence Community had informed the White House that it was a hoax.

 

Yet we were told repeatedly by the President and the Vice President that Saddam was a threat to global stability, that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11. We were told in the buildup to the war that our troops would be greeted by the Iraqis as liberators, being offered flowers in the streets. This was propaganda that the State Department warned the White House not to believe, but they nonetheless peddled it to the Congress and to the American people.

 

We were told that to liberate Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy, to keep oil out of the hands of potential terrorist-controlled states. We were told that the war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenues. Yet all we have done is to finance our enemies, the insurgents and Iranian Shiia interests.

 

After Baghdad fell, we were told that America had prevailed, that the mission was accomplished, that the resistance was in its last throes, that more troops were not needed. As things went from bad to worse, we were told of turning point after turning point, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi Government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam, all excuses for triumphant rhetoric while the reality on the ground continued to worsen.

 

We were told, as they stand up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. Now we are told that there is a new course, but it is in the same misguided direction. Falsehood after falsehood unravels each day, with the morning paper reporting even more deaths.

 

Now the American people are being asked to put 20,000 more sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives into the line of fire, and into the dead zone between the sectarian sides of a civil war. A message was sent to President Bush on November 7, 2006. This surge of more troops into Iraq defies the will of the American people.

 

But this is a new Congress. We will no longer be cowed by leaders using 9/11 as a political ploy against sensible people who oppose the administration's failed Iraq policy. Today for the first time since the war began, Congress will go on record opposing the President's failed Iraq policy. Some will argue that it is a nonbinding resolution, that it will not have the impact of a law, that it will not stop a roadside bomb or bring a single soldier home to their family. But the President understands what this resolution means. It is the beginning of the end of this wrong war of choice.

[Guest Tom McMahon]

According to House Minority Leader John Boehner, I'm a "terrorist sympathizer," and you probably are too.

 

Just days ago on the floor of the House of Representatives, the Republican leader claimed that "al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at home. Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies that we will not take the bait."

 

This isn't the first time Republicans have linked Democrats with terrorists at the time of an important vote. In fact, it's become the norm.

 

In October 2004, then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert claimed that al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" and would be more comfortable if John Kerry were elected.

 

This past August, Vice President Cheney claimed that anti-war voters in Connecticut were encouraging "al Qaeda types" to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay the fight and complete the task."

 

And just days before our landslide victory in the November midterm elections, President Bush claimed that "the Democrat[ic] approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

 

The Republicans know the mess they're in. In a desperate letter to their Republican colleagues, Congressmembers John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra wrote:

 

"The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

 

Why are Republicans scared of a debate on America's top issue? And why can't they stand up to the Democrats on the current situation in Iraq?

 

Because it wasn't the Democratic Party that led us into a war on false pretenses. Democrats didn't alienate our global allies by ignoring diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful resolution. Democrats didn't reject the advice of our military leaders, who recommended we change the course. And Democrats didn't decide to put more of our troops in harm/s way to interfere in a bloody civil war with no end in sight.

 

The Democrats didn't start this war, but we're working to end it -- and the House resolution is an important first step to changing the course and bringing our brave men and women home.

 

Don't let John Boehner imply that we are terrorist sympathizers. Don't let the Republican leadership continue these publicity stunts.

 

While they try, we'll be busy fighting back and governing.

[Guest Mike Duncan]

The Democrat strategy on Iraq is finally clear.

 

We've known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they've been afraid to confront President Bush directly. Today, Democrat Rep. John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.

 

They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs. They will introduce riders onto bills to prevent certain units from deploying. They will try to limit the President's constitutional power to determine the length and number of deployments. They will attempt to keep the Pentagon from replacing troops who rotate out of Iraq. They may even try to limit how our troops operate by, for example, prohibiting our armed forces from creating and operating bases in Iraq.

 

'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?

 

'Slow-bleed' cannot become law. Luckily, we have an opportunity to stop it. The Murtha plan depended on stealth. Now, however, the press has broken the story. And now we can act.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html

[BlingBling]

That is no news web site. Politico.com is a prop for the GOP. I laughed when I heard President Bush promote Politico.com. Its phony just like him

 

THE PRESIDENT: Michael. Michael, who do you work for? (Laughter.)

 

Q Mr. President, I work for Politico.com.

 

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me? Politico.com?

 

Q Yes, sir. Today. (Laughter.)

 

THE PRESIDENT: You want a moment to explain to the American people exactly what -- (laughter.)

 

Q Mr. President, thank you for the question. (Laughter.)

 

THE PRESIDENT: Quit being so evasive.

 

Q You should read it.

 

THE PRESIDENT: Is it good? You like it?

 

Q David Gregory --

 

THE PRESIDENT: David Gregory likes it. I can see the making of a testimonial. (Laughter.) Anyway, go ahead, please.

 

After some big laughs by the Press Corp. You see how Politico.com setup the President to take a jab at the Democrats and help him talk about his agenda.

 

 

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke hopefully about your ability to work with Democrats, their willingness to work with you in this new world. I wonder how that's going so far, what you've learned about how they think, and does the current debate constitute grounds for divorce?

 

THE PRESIDENT: Interesting way to put it. First of all, I think they're patriotic people who care about our country -- back to Hutch's penetrating comment, or question. I do. I was very appreciative of the reception I got at the State of the Union. It was a cordial, respectful reception that gave me the chance to talk about what I believe. I was also very grateful for the reception I received at the Democratic retreat that I went to there in Virginia.

 

You know, my impression of the meeting there was that we share a lot in common; we're people that actually put filing papers down and ran for office, we were willing to put our families through the grind of politics, we wanted to serve our country, that we care deeply about what takes place in Washington, America and the world.

 

My hope is, is that we can get positive pieces of legislation passed. I think there's a lot of expectation that the difference of opinion on Iraq would make it impossible for us to work on other areas. I disagree with that assessment. And I hope I'm right, and the best way to determine whether I'm right is will I be able to sign legislation that we have been able to work on.

 

One such piece of policy is a balanced budget. There seems to be agreement that we should have a balanced budget. I laid out one way forward to achieve that balance. And it shows that we can balance the budget without raising taxes and do so in a five-year horizon. And I'd like to work with the Democrat leadership, as well as, obviously, my Republican folks, to get it done.

 

Secondly, an interesting opportunity is immigration. As you know, I strongly believe that we need to enforce our borders and that -- and have taken steps to do so. But I also believe that in order to enforce the borders, we need a temporary worker program so that people don't try to sneak in the country to work, that they can come in an orderly fashion, and take the pressure off the Border Patrol agents that we've got out there, so that the Border Patrol agents don't focus on workers that are doing jobs Americans aren't doing, but are focusing on terrorists and criminal elements, gun runners, to keep the country -- both our countries safe -- Mexico and the United States safe.

 

I also know that we need to deal with the people who are here -- the 12 million people who are here illegally. I have said multiple times that we can't kick them out of our country. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to do that, and I don't think -- maybe some feel that way, but I don't feel that way. But I also don't believe we should give them automatic amnesty -- automatic citizenship, which I view as amnesty. And look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to have a comprehensive immigration plan.

 

Energy is an opportunity for us to work together. We've done a lot of work in the past on promoting alterative sources of energy. America has done more than any nation in the world in promoting alternatives and renewables, all aiming to make sure our economy grows, that we have energy independence, and that we're good stewards of the environment. And I look forward to working with the Democrats on the Energy Independence Initiative I laid out.

 

One such initiative was the mandatory fuel standards that relies upon alternative fuel to power automobiles. Ethanol is the first and most notable place where we can start, but we also need to spend monies to develop technologies that will enable us to make energy out of products other than corn -- switchgrass or wood chips, for example.

 

The problem with relying only on corn is that -- by the way, when the demand for corn stays high, the price tends to go up, and your hog farmer gets disgruntled with the alternative energy plan. And, therefore, what's going to matter is that new technologies come online as quickly as possible to take the pressure off of corn ethanol, or corn, as a result of being used in ethanol, and we can work with Congress to do that. That's an area we can work.

 

Health care. I got a letter the other day from a group of Republican and Democrat senators talking about the desire to work on health care. And they liked some of my ideas. But my only point is that there's an opportunity for us to work together to help the uninsured have private insurance so they can be -- so they can get good health care. And there's an opportunity to work together there.

 

The governors are coming into town soon, and I'm going to have Secretary Leavitt describe to them the affordable grants program that is a part of our comprehensive approach, including rewriting the tax code.

 

Finally, No Child Left Behind needs to be reauthorized. I fully understand that if you read your newspaper articles -- which I do sometimes -- and listen carefully, you'll hear voices in both parties saying they don't like No Child Left Behind --it's too much testing, or, we don't want to be held to account, or whatever they say. The bill is working. It makes a lot of sense.

 

There's an income gap in America that I talked about when I went to Wall Street. And what's clear to me is that our kids have got to have education so that in this global economy, the jobs of the 21st century stay here at home. And it starts with good education. And, therefore, I will argue vociferously the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be reauthorized, it's working, it's an important piece of legislation, and will reach out to Democrat members, as well as Republican members, to get this bill reauthorized.

 

And so there's a lot of areas, Mike. I'd say it's a little early in the process. This is a two-year term. We've got time to work together to get important pieces of legislation done. And I'd like to start. As a matter of fact, this afternoon I've got members of both parties, both chambers coming down to visit about how we can continue to work together to get some legislation done.

 

As I told the Democrats, and as the Democrats have made clear to me in my visits, that neither of us are going to abandon our principles, that I don't expect them to change their principles and they shouldn't expect me to. But there's ways for us to work together to achieve legislative successes for the common good. That's what the American people want to see, and that's what I believe we can do. Is it going to take work? Yes, it's going to take work. But it's okay, that's why you pay us all this money.

 

 

You can see the whole setup here

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070214-2.html

[Guest LAW]

I would not go that far. Politico.com is part of Albritton Communications and on News Channel 8 and WJLA-TV (after Albritton's initials).

 

http://www.allbritton.com/

[Guest Wesley Jr.]

Oh, the same Joe L. Allbritton who wanted blood money from totalitarian Augusto Pinochet and destroyed

the bank that was on the dollar bill. I gues no one remembers

 

November 14, 1997, from Riggs Chairman, Joseph Albritton, after a visit with Pinochet at the Lo Curo Military Club in Santiago:

 

Dear General Pinochet:

 

I am pleased to report the business relationship between Riggs and the Chilean Military is prospering. I am also grateful for our thriving personal friendship, which you have demonstrated through your gracious hospitality and stalwart support of the Riggs. …You have rid Chile from the threat of totalitarian government and an archaic economic system based on state-owned property and centralized planning. We in the United States and the rest of the western hemisphere owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude and I am confident your legacy will have been to provide a more prosperous and safer world for your children and grandchildren. …Warmest personal regards

 

October 31, 1997, Allbritton's wife Barbara, wrote a similar thank you letter:

 

My dear General Pinochet:

 

It was a great pleasure and honor to be with you on Wednesday at tea at the Military Club. You were so very gracious to allow us this time with you and I was extremely pleased to have this appointment to meet and be with your son Marco Antonio. …The elegant lapis lazuli box you so kindly gave to me shall be used and displayed with a great deal of pride and pleasure. It shall be a reminder of this special time we spent with you during our trip to Santiago.

 

With appreciation and respect for you and all you have done for our world.

 

Here is a humor to lighten up the subject.

 

Lil' Johnny goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?" Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way. I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me Capitalism. Mommy is the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you The People. The nanny, well, consider her The Working Class. Your baby brother, we'll call him The Future. Now go think about this and see if it makes sense."

 

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying and runs to his room only to find that his diapers are very soiled. So the little boy goes to his parents' room. Mom is sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he looks through the peephole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

 

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand what politico.com is now."

 

"Good son, tell me in your own words then what is politics."

 

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep ***brown trout***."

[BlingBling]

Dick Cheney has accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of proposing a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq that would "validate" al-Qaeda's strategy. But captured al-Qaeda documents and other evidence indicate that if anyone is playing into al-Qaeda's hands, it is Cheney and George W. Bush.

 

The chief motive behind the 9/11 attacks was to draw the United States into a clumsy overreaction that would alienate the Muslim world and rally a new generation of jihadists to al-Qaeda's banner. Today, that banner might well read, "Mission Accomplished."

[AmericanChick]

The Democrats cannot stop trying to micromanage the War in Iraq, despite the fact that they still have no plan for victory. First, they put forward their 'slow-bleed' withdrawal strategy, which would have gradually reduced resources for our men and women in uniform while they were still in harm's way. The resulting uproar from around the country forced them to backtrack.

 

This week, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha waited until the President was out of the country before announcing their next attempt to take over the duties of the commander in chief: they want to set a date certain at which we will leave Iraq, whether that nation is stable or not.

 

We all want our troops to come home, not just from Iraq, but from every front in the War on Terror. But Republicans understand that how the war ends matters. Does it end with the United States being chased from the Middle East and leaving Iraq in the hands of terrorists? Or does it end with a free Iraq working as an ally against Islamic fascists? The terrorists are not naïve, and they are not stupid. If we tell them that we will leave Iraq on a certain date no matter what, then they know that all they have to do is last that long. And they will.

 

Even some Democrats are concerned with the Pelosi-Murtha attempts to force a withdrawal from Iraq. According to the Washington Post, Democrat Representative Stephanie Herseth responded to the latest Pelosi-Murtha plan by saying "There's a fine line that I hope will not be blurred between micromanaging the war and assuring accountability." Democrat Representative Dan Boren said, "It's still micromanaging the war."

 

Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha can put different faces on their plans. They can try to spin us every time they unveil a new version. But in the end, their only goal is to force the President to withdraw before Iraq is stable. The result would be disastrous. If we leave too soon, we will be leaving Iraq in the hands of vicious terrorists. Not only will they terrorize the Iraqi people, but they will turn Iraq into a base of operations. It will be like Afghanistan was before we defeated the Taliban, with one major difference: Iraq has oil, which would mean unlimited resources for our enemies.

 

We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow al Qaeda to reconstitute in Iraq. We must keep them on the run. And that means we must defeat the latest Pelosi-Murtha attempt to force an early withdrawal from Iraq.

[BlingBling]

American Chick,

You are like a horse wear blinders. You only follow the path that your RNC master guides you.

 

"The president is as isolated, I believe, on the Iraq issue as Richard Nixon was when he was hunkered down in the White House," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yesterday. This analogy is far more apt. Bush's credibilty with the American people has evaporated. Iraq critics in Congress are broadly united on setting a timeline for withdrawal, while conservatives face immense pressure to distance themselves from the president's disastrous war policy. And they are already beginning to crack. The Politico reported this week that a "diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group to negotiate with the White House on a compromise Iraq spending bill." Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) said he and others in the group "will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq." This is the key for Bush: compromise. For the sake of our national security, it is time for him to accept the multiple invitations of Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to sit down and compromise on a bill that fully funds our troops and finally brings them home.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/26/...ket-Attacks.php

Edited April 12, 2007 by BlingBling

[BlackSun]

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney believe they can back down the Democrats over legislative timetables for leaving Iraq and wedge between national Democrats and their anti-war base.

 

But all the political maneuvering in Washington is not likely to change the desperate facts on the ground in Iraq, where the White House military strategies are in dangerous disarray.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Did anyone hear Kissinger's Comments to the AP on April 1?

 

 

The problems in Iraq are more complex than [Vietnam], and military victory is no longer possible. - Former US Secretary of State, Henry Alfred Kissinger

 

That must have been difficult for him to say.

[Guest Vanessa Kerry]

I campaigned for my dad back in 2004 on a lot of campuses, and of course, one of the main subjects that many young people talked to me about was Iraq. People in college have had and continue to have friends in Iraq, or know someone who joined the Reserves to pay for college and ended up in Baghdad; I have friends who have served this way also. Knowing this, I've always been especially proud of what my dad did last year, when he stepped out ahead of his party and started demanding we set a deadline to get the troops out of Iraq.

 

Now his position has become the unified Democratic position, and I have noticed that a lot of reporters in the last week or so are realizing that fact: John Kerry's position is now the Democratic position. And I just wanted to share a few of those articles with you.

 

Over the weekend, the AP wrote an article about how nervous Republicans are getting over Iraq, and included this part about my dad, John Kerry, and his efforts last year to set a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq:

 

Democratic strategists fretted about the impact on senators seeking re-election and challengers to Republicans in swing states.

 

The plan drew the support of 13 Democrats.

 

"Now it's the unified Democratic position," Kerry correctly e-mailed his supporters last week.

 

"In May, Republicans were dismissing even tough questions about the escalation. Now, they're falling all over themselves to distance themselves from the president"

 

And the Boston Globe remarked: "Another of his bold moves -- leading the filibuster against confirming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito -- now looks very smart to liberals, after Alito provided crucial votes to eviscerate liberal positions on school desegregation, late-term abortion, and campaign finance restrictions."

 

And the Chicago Tribune does a good job of putting this political fight in the context of my dad's life:

 

Few living American politicians have had their lives so defined by war as Kerry. His wartime service and wartime protest stoked his political career in Massachusetts. His military background burnished his credentials among Democrats seeking a nominee to run against an incumbent president during wartime in 2004. And now, in a quieter time, his hair gray and reading glasses perched on the bridge of his nose, he finds himself again opposing his government's conflict.

 

"It's very dismaying to me at this stage of my life and career and being in the Senate, seeing us repeat those mistakes," said Kerry (D-Mass.). "It's very disturbing. We are owed something better than that."

 

This fight is far from over, of course, but people like us, who believe that we have to get a new course in Iraq, need to keep up the pressure. It will make a difference as we are beginning to see. My dad will write soon with more everyone can do to help; but I wanted to share those articles and let you know he is continuing to fight everyday and making a difference.

 

Thanks,

 

Vanessa Kerry

[BlingBling]

I voted for him. Now its time for Barack Obama to get his out of Iraq.

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/DebateSC