Which candidate do you think has the best plan for ending the War in Iraq?

Read and respond. 

Posted Sept. 14, 2007 – President Bush told the American people last night two things: His strategy is working, and the job of ending the war will be on the next president.

 As predicted the president called on Congress to “come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East” and to support the recommendations of Army Gen. David Petraeus on troop levels.

“Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.  The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together,” Bush said.

 Congress, the American people and now the president agree bringing troops home is a good idea – but they differ on the important issues of how many should come home and when. 

Last night, the president called for decreasing the number of Americans in Iraq in 2008, which would reduce the the troop level by the time he left office.  But it would strap the next president 100,000 troops still in Iraq and the challenge of ending the war. In other words, Bush will leave office fighting the war his way and pass the aftermath of his stubborn approach to future presidents.  

Last night every presidential candidate was put on notice: The job you’re seeking will be a tough one, and this war will be your war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) responded to the president’s speech saying, “The president has offered only a commitment to endless war that will continue to take American lives, deplete our treasury, and divert our focus from fighting an effective war on terrorism against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), in his televised response to the president, reminded American’s of the domestic sacrifices. “We think it’s wrong that the president tells us there’s not enough money for our veterans and children’s health care because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.” 

Democrats want a plan to begin a reduction of troops and place more responsibility on the Iraq government to run its country.  That message has been hard to get in the headlines. 

Now those seeking to take on the job as president in 2009 know what their getting into, but will they know how to get us out?

Posted Sept. 13, 2007 – Before President Bush can address the country tonight, Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings  (D) is making it clear that he’s expecting the same old, same old.

“I am confident, before even hearing the president’s speech tonight, that it will entail more of the same deceptions and distractions from this administration to which we have become accustomed during the course of this War.“I expect the president to claim that the troop surge is working but that we need more time to see its full effects. I anticipate he will criticize Congress for demanding the will of the majority of Americans to change the course in Iraq,” Cummings said.

In his comments to the American people, Bush will likely point to the testimony of Army Gen. David Petraeus and a recent poll by Rasmussen that shows that  43 percent of the American people are also prepared for the predictable.     

The poll by Rasmussen found only 38 percent opposed the strategy to withdraw about 30,000 troops, as Petraeus outlined, and 71 percent said it’s likely that “a large number” will remain in Iraq for the next five years.

Cummings says Bush will ignore any news that doesn’t support that the surge is working.  “I will also not be surprised if the president uses his report tonight as an opportunity to paint this drawdown of troops as a change in strategy or as an indicator of success,” he said.

We’ll all be watching to see just what Bush has to say.  I don’t think anything can surprise the American people. 

Do you think the war in Iraq will help to end terrorist attacks? 

Posted Sept. 11, 2007 – The timing of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ report to Congress was no mistake. Congress and the Bush administration were smart enough to get the report 24 hours before the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Why?  It only gave Petraeus one day on the front pages of American newspapers before attention turned to the “reason” for the war.  ]

Yesterday, Petraeus gave the country mixed reviews on the “war on terror,” proposing a reduction in troops following the “surge” of an additional 30,000 troops.  Petraeus recommended that the United States begin bring about 30,000 troops home beginning next year. He fell short on doing much more.

 “Our military cannot sustain its current deployments without crippling our ability to respond to contingencies around the world,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in response to Patraeus’ report. “It’s time for a change of direction that brings our troops home.”

Shouldn’t our troops be more focused on Osama Bin Laden?  The leader of al-Qaeda is still making videotapes and has successfully avoided capture since the attacks on 9/11. 

Presidential hopeful Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said it’s time for the United States to  “quickly and safely” end the war in Iraq and use “the resources we had been expending there to reinforce our efforts to secure Afghanistan and hunt down the real terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks.”

Six years after 9/11, Congress is working to pass the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act.  The bill will enact the recommendations of the bipartisan commission into law and work toward securing our ports and protecting the most vulnerable cities in country from terrorist attacks.  

Time is of the essence; let’s hope the next anniversary will be able to mark the capture of bin Laden.

Do you think the congressman crossed the line or do are people over-reacting? Read and post your comments.

 Posted July 20, 2007 – About two weeks ago, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) was speaking to a group of atheists at a forum in Minneapolis when he reflected on the attacks of 9/11 as the turning point that opened the door for the U.S. government to enact laws that it otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do.

Addressing a group of atheists is, by itself, enough to evoke public outrage in a nation where “God-fearing” is the label of choice. But Ellison – already the target of skepticism and mistrust by those who find it absurd that a Muslim could be elected to Congress in this post-9/11 era – did nothing to win over his critics when he alluded to the “N”-word in describing the Bush administration’s war in Iraq.

No, the other “N”-word. “Nazis.”

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that – after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted,” Ellison told the 300 or so members of Atheists for Human Rights.

Ellison was referring to the Reichstag German Parliament building that burned in 1933, an event that Hitler used to justify suspending the German people’s civil liberties. The run-up to the passage of the Patriots Act is a lot like that historic event, said Ellison, a steady critic of the administration.

The ensuing public outrage was prompt and powerful.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League, immediately called for Ellison to retract his comments and to apologize to the American people. He issued the following statement:

“Congressman Keith Ellison’s comments, comparing the rise of Nazism in the aftermath of the burning of the Reichstag to the War on Terror in the aftermath of 9/11, is outrageous and offensive to all Americans. Whatever his views may be on the administration’s response to 9/11 and the conduct of the War on Terrorism, likening it to Hitler’s rise to power and Nazism is odious and demeans the victims of 9/11 and the brave American men and women engaged in the War on Terror. Furthermore, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and his Nazi regime perpetrated.”

Seeking to mitigate the political backlash from his remarks, Ellison wrote in a July 13 editorial in The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune that, “I spoke to constituents about religious tolerance and the erosion of civil liberties in a post 9/11 America. It is precisely in the aftermath of a tragedy like 9/11 that we must be most vigilant about our precious civil liberties. Unfortunately, some have tried to misconstrue my remarks.”

A spokesman in Ellison’s office told me he wasn’t comparing Bush to Hitler and, in an interview with The Associated Press, the congressman said, “In hindsight, I wouldn’t have used that reference point.”

But he didn’t back down on his assessment of the administration’s policy blunders. “Bush and his team seem intent on enlarging his authority and defying those who would challenge him or his administration,” he said.

Posted July 13, 2007 – There were passionate pleas by Black lawmakers on the House floor Thursday urging the president to follow the will of the American people, and not his own misguided mission, when it comes to planning next steps in Iraq.

“One thousand, five hundred and eighty-one days, 53 months, or more than four years since this president led this Nation to war in Iraq.  Over 3,600 soldiers killed; 2,600 American soldiers seriously injured; 60,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed;  $10 billion per month; 500 billion American dollars spent on this War!” said an emotional Rep. Maxine Waters.

And Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), reminding us that the president told us the “surge” in troops is just beginning when he deployed more troops six months ago, said the time for patience has passed. “We cannot wait,” Lewis said. “We cannot be patient. The American people want to end this war and end it now. How many more of our young people must die before we realize enough is enough?  One more day of involvement is too many. One more death is one too many. This war is not worthy of another drop of human blood!”

It is apparent that the riveting cries from Waters, Lewis and others hit deep as 223 of Thursday’s 424 voting members agreed that the time has come to extract U.S. troops from a rapidly declining situation in Iraq. In passing H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, American troops will begin returning to their families within the next 120 days. By next April, they should be home. 

It was the president’s glum interim report to Congress – ahead of a status report on Iraq due in September – that oiled the passage of the bill, even without defections of House Republicans loyal to the president. Only 10 Democrats joined the few GOP loyalists. … What did some of the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have to say about our current direction in Iraq?

Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.):

 “Just a few months ago, the president told us that ethnic militias were undermining the security and stability of Iraq.  Now they are the guarantors of the stability and security of Iraq?
 
“When the president’s strategy for victory involves arming the people who just a few months ago were our sworn enemies, it becomes difficult for any of us to explain to our constituents what our troops are still doing there in Iraq.  The troops have done their job.  But they will not be successful if the president cannot decide what the mission is.
“The surge is not a strategy….”
Black Caucus Chairwoman Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.):
“Despite the fact that we are not making progress in Iraq, the president expects America’s families to be patient as he requests more troops, more time, and more tax dollars. We cannot wait any longer. We must change course and stop funding failure instead of initiatives that promote the priorities of and provide protection for America’s families.”

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisc.):

 “This stubborn administration is choosing to ignore the American people’s will, but make no mistake: Americans – my constituents in Milwaukee – want our troops home. We will continue plugging away for a change of course in Iraq because it is our duty to fight for the safe removal of troops from Iraq and to keep our focus on America’s security.”
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.):

 “The president’s surge is not working; more than 3,600 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq; the Iraqi government has failed to meet key benchmarks; political reconciliation in Iraq is non-existent; and readiness levels of the U.S. military are at an all-time low. 
The American public and the Democratic majority believe that this war must end.  When will President Bush and the Republican minority agree?” 
 
 

Posted July 12, 2007 – It appears that nothing is going to budge President Bush off his present course on Iraq. Bush, who sees the glass half full, told reporters that it’s too early to draw conclusions from his early report, which he presented Thursday.

In May, Congress ordered the White House to submit a report on progress in
Iraq by September. Amid a growing congressional movement to withdraw U.S. troops from the rising tide of violence and civil war in Iraq, Bush presented a preliminary, or interim, report ahead of the September update.

“Today, my administration has submitted to Congress an interim report that requires us to assess … whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks [in Iraq] is or is not being achieved,” the president told the American people Thursday. “Those who believe that the battle in
Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism.”

To pack up and leave now would send the wrong message, Bush said Withdrawal “would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It means risking mass killings on a horrific scale” and would “allow terrorists to establish a safe haven.”

But the president’s “interim” report landed on Capitol Hill with a “thud” as members of Congress assessed his analysis. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Today’s report from the president confirms what many had suspected – the war in Iraq is headed in a dangerous direction. The Iraqi government has not met the key political benchmarks it has set for itself, and Iraqi security forces continue to lag well behind expectations.”

The Congress had set 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and the first report only gives the troubled leadership a “satisfactory” grade on eight of them. While the Democrats are not happy with the report’s results, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) requested the report from the White House as part of the last supplemental funding bill.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) wasted no time in blasting the administration. “Don’t tell us we’re making progress in Iraq when the last three months have been some of the deadliest since this war began for our brave troops who have sacrificed so much,” he said. “And don’t tell us it’s progress when the Iraqi leadership has done nothing – nothing – to take the political steps necessary to end their civil war.”

It’s clear from the 25-page report that the Iraqi government remains weak, while al-Qaeda is rebuilding and reorganizing in the region. Meanwhile, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says he isn’t surprised the terrorist network is rebuilding. He warned that the absence of attacks in the U.S. doesn’t mean we should let our guard down. “We can never rest on our laurels – the enemy is continuing to change and adapt,” he said.

Posted from Capitol Hill by Pamela Gentry