 |
|
|
 Editorials | January 2007 
Bush's Speech Sets Stage for Showdown With Congress
 Matt Renner - t r u t h o u t
| | US Senate Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-IL, responds to US President George W. Bush's speech on Iraq in Washington, DC. Democrats wasted no time in slamming President George W. Bush's latest strategy for Iraq, although rifts emerged among them about how best to respond to his plan to send fresh US troops to the war-torn country. (AFP/Joe Raedle) |
Nearly four years after the United States invaded Iraq and after the deaths of more than 3,000 US soldiers, President Bush has admitted his Iraq plan was flawed and has been unsuccessful.
Yet despite the unusual admission, President Bush insisted that 21,500 additional troops must be deployed to stabilize the violence between Sunni and Shiite factions - all but guaranteeing additional bloodshed and the continued loss of American lives.
Perhaps the most startling revelation in President Bush's prime-time televised speech is the extent to which he is willing to go to achieve victory.
In stark contrast to the recommendation put forth by the Iraq Study Group last month that the White House enter into a dialogue with Iran and Syria, President Bush said he would authorize the use of military force against those countries if they continued to empower insurgents.
"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," Bush said. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will 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."
It was a threat that caught the attention of 2008 presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic senator from Ohio.
"President Bush appears to be setting the stage for a wider war in the region," Kucinich said late Wednesday. "He has blamed Iran for attacks on America. The president is vowing to disrupt Iran. He is going to add an aircraft carrier to the shores off the coast of Iran. He has promised to give Patriot missiles to 'our friends and allies.' Isn't one war enough for this president? It is time the media and the Congress began to pay attention to this president when he talks aggressively about Iran and Syria."
Despite President Bush's rhetoric, Democratic lawmakers responded swiftly to his long-awaited plan for stabilizing post-war Iraq Wednesday evening, saying they will not support his effort to escalate the conflict by sending in thousands of additional US soldiers. Instead, they have all but guaranteed that they intend to withhold billions of dollars needed to fund the new war effort.
Expressing their complete dissatisfaction with his proposed strategy, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin issued a joint statement following President Bush's speech, saying that they would seek support to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within four to six months.
"The president had an opportunity tonight to demonstrate that he understood the depth of the concern in the country, make a long overdue course correction, and articulate a clear mission for our engagement in Iraq," the lawmakers said in a prepared statement. "Instead, he chose to escalate our involvement in Iraq's civil war by proposing a substantial increase in the number of our forces there. Our military forces deserve a policy commensurate with the sacrifices they have been asked to make. Regrettably, the president has not provided that tonight."
Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said Bush's plans falls short because it does not set "hard deadlines."
"The president did not set benchmarks for the Iraqis that have hard deadlines and clear consequences for failure," Levin said, adding that the plan will ultimately "send the opposite message to the Iraqis by putting more American military men and women in the middle of Iraqi sectarian violence."
Even some staunch pro-war Republicans, notably Senator John Warner (R-Va.), distanced themselves from President Bush's proposal, calling it a mistake to increase the number of US troops on the ground without a clear mission and a plan for withdrawal.
"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," said Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). "Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."
Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) agreed. "I oppose the troop surge in Baghdad because it is not a strategy for victory," Coleman said.
Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) were also on record publicly criticizing the troop increase.
In an effort to politically isolate President Bush from both houses of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he intends to introduce a non-binding resolution next week that opposes Bush's new war plan. This resolution would force Republicans in the Senate to cast a vote on the issue.
Reid and other Democratic leaders in Congress made their intentions clear shortly after the president's speech.
"In the days ahead, Congress will exercise its constitutional responsibilities by giving the president's latest proposal the scrutiny our troops and the American people expect. The American people want a change of course in Iraq. We intend to keep pressing President Bush to provide it."
Reid said the Senate will likely vote on the measure in two weeks, when a number of Senate committees begin hearings on Iraq. Reid's resolution could end up leaving legislation introduced Tuesday by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) hanging in limbo or dying altogether. Kennedy's bill calls for President Bush to obtain authorization before sending more troops into battle.
Moreover, there are constitutional issues that will also be debated - specifically, whether the president, as commander in chief, has the final say on authorizing the use of additional force or needs approval from Congress.
According to legal scholars, it's the latter.
University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle stated that "this is a situation the War Powers Act was intended to deal with." After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Act to close loopholes that were exploited by President Johnson to escalate US involvement in Vietnam without Congressional approval.
Ohio State law professor John Quigley agrees. "If President Bush wants to send more troops, he is subject to the War Powers Resolution, which allows him to commit troops for only 60 days without an authorizing resolution from Congress," Quigley said.
Some US soldiers also registered their discontent with President Bush's new policy, expressing doubt that additional troops would bring about change or lead to a heightened sense of security in the region.
Lt. Col. Chris Beckert, who served in Iraq at the beginning of the US invasion nearly four years ago and now trains US soldiers at Fort Riley in Kansas, told the Associated Press Tuesday that the "window of opportunity" in securing Iraq has likely closed, and without a clearly defined plan, sending in thousands more soldiers won't help.
Zac McDonald, a 19-year-old who just completed basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, agreed. "They have to come up with a better strategy," McDonald told the Associated Press. "More troops isn't enough."
These are just some the issues that lawmakers are expected to debate next week in a number of closed-door hearings.
In the meantime, Democrats no longer fear verbalizing their utter contempt with the White House. One by one, the new majority leadership in both Houses of Congress issued statements well into Wednesday evening registering their disapproval with the president and his plan for Iraq.
"The president's Iraq policy has been marred by incompetence and arrogance as his administration has refused to recognize the military and political reality on the ground," said Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
Congresswoman Barbara Lee's reaction took the form of a question: "The question that Congress and the American people must now answer is how many people should die so the president can avoid admitting he has staked his presidency and his legacy on an unnecessary war whose implementation his administration has botched at every turn? How many have to die so the president can save face?"
Contact Matt at Matt@truthout.org. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us