Post #72

Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.”

I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. Of course, McCain also said, “General Petraeus goes out there [into Baghdad] almost every day in an unarmed HumVee.” McCain later omitted any claims about unarmed HumVees, saying that he meant that there are neighborhoods that are safe and that General Petraeus does go out into Baghdad.

It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p

That George W. Bush would paint the surge as a success is really no surprise. Do ya really think in, say, June that Bush would say “My fellow Americans, the surge has not worked – Americans have died in vain,” really? But what is surprising is how soon and how rah-rah the cheerleading is.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said before Congress that he was disturbed to hear one of his military officers say it will be fall before they have a good idea how well the latest Baghdad campaign is going. He said he hopes that Gen. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, will be able to make that evaluation by summer.

But Bush needs somebody to blame for his own mess. The Senate passed a bill requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from “the civil war in Iraq.” In a 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008. Po’ Mr. Bush – to be stuck holding the bag! Ya can kiss being baseball commissioner ‘bye. :p

Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon -- yes, Mr. Smith, I haven’t forgotten my Post # 45 – in voting for the measure. So, that is two Republicans who put America’s interests above Bush’s interests.

America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind.

Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.

Supporting Bush’s interests over America’s interests were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman who argued against a withdrawal timetable on the floor of the Senate, saying, "It is clear that for the first time in a long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq." For the first time!?! Haven’t you've been so optimistic before, Joe, telling us all about the great progress? Remember the 2006 campaign!?!

Aaahhh – carrying water!

Also, “Surely this will embolden the enemy and it will not help our troops in any way,” said Senator Richard Shelby, Republican, Alabama. Well, it might take the target off their back! :p

Look, seriously, what are going to do if our military is needed elsewhere tomorrow? Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor ‘em.

But Bush can carry his own water. “The consequences of imposing such a specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous," Bush said in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington.

Somebody please tell Bush that the Iraq war – after we didn’t find WMD and after we overthrew Saddam, our military objectives – has been disastrous. And that continuing to flounder will be even more disastrous by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, our real enemy in Afghanistan as we continue to bleed in Iraq.

"Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, start providing vital funds for our troops and get a bill to my desk that I can sign into law," Bush said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible." Yes, Bush is at fault for a war that is, as Pat Buchanan said in my Post #67, “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.”

Post #71

Subject: Fwd: “Let's say I break into your house.”

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house) .

According to the protesters: You are Required to let me stay in your house. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan. You are Required to Educate my kids. You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family. My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, (except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.

I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for . . . Well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of showing cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?!

* * *

OK, I included the above from my e-box as it made me really think about immigration.

Let’s continue the “house” metaphor. I break into your house and find 20 other people who broke into your house and live there. “But Mr. John Smith,” you say, ‘arrived at Ellis Island from England in 1902, and he’s been a good citizen ever since.” And you want me to play by the rules, right?

Well, Mr. John Smith is really John Blacksmith – and really old, by the way :p – and Jack the Ripper. When immigrants used to arrive in this country, there were no rules – immigrants gave whatever name they wanted and didn’t worry about background checks And how many stories have you heard Italian grandmothers who refuse to learn English? It’s a Hollywood staple.

But, yes, times have changed. Because of the threat of terrorism, I’d like to see every immigrant documented but none who contributing members of society deported. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses….”

Still a problem? Don’t cry to me when some Native-Americans want to evict you! :p

Post #70

Subject: Patience is a virtue, Pt.. II

As I said in my Post #69, “I don’t know what to be patient about.” Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means. Since George W. Bush can not define “winning,” I’m thinking like Joe Biden – “winning” is “ending this war without leaving chaos behind.”

As I said in my Post #69, “Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you [Bush] have failed as a war leader.” The binding bill requires that the President:

1. Transition our forces now to a new, more limited mission of training Iraqis and denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq. Um, that’s Al-Qaeda, Mr. Bush – remember them? They fly planes into buildings. They are also already in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2. Begin the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq within four month.
3. Complete the withdrawal of our combat forces by March, 2008, except for a limited number necessary to carry out the limited mission.

You, Mr. President, George W. Bush, have no clue. Your indignation over the House bill passed today just shows that you have not even read the bill. Your catch phrases, your slogans, your inability to define what we are fighting for or even who we are fighting, you and your Iraq war are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. No, sir, I have no more patience.

Post #69

Subject: Patience is a virtue

I am sorry, Mr. President, George W. Bush, I have no more patience. Oh, I know you haven’t asked anything of me except patience. There have been no calls from the White House to grow Victory Gardens. There has been no overtime for factories that build HumVees. No rationing gas, no ban on overseas travel, no draft. But four years is enough.

Why, then, am I out of patience? It’s simple really: I don’t know what to be patient about. Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means.

When Berlin fell, I knew we had beaten Germany in WW II. Japan signed a surrender. Even the Cold War was based on the idea of the Soviet Union ending. Um, Iraq?

Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you have failed as a war leader.

Joe Biden said in an e-mail, “Just as important, as we transition the mission and draw down our forces, our bill requires the President to pursue a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq to secure a political settlement. That's exactly what the Biden-Gelb plan offers.” http://www.PlanForIraq.com “In short, what I'm proposing is a plan to end the war in Iraq without leaving a mess behind. What the President proposes is no end in sight.”

You want patience… for what, Mr. Bush, for what? I’d be willing to forgive the sneaky way you got us into this mess and the ways you’ve mishandle nearly every step along the way, if only….

Post #68

Subject: The classic errors

I ran across a blog post entitled “DON’T STOP THE WAR!” If I may -- my responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

Why would we want to stop this war?
(1) We're winning

[And how do you define “winning?” Killing more enemy troops – combatants? guerillas? – than losing our own? That was a mistake in Vietnam and is a mistake in Iraq today. Remember the body counts of Vietnam and how we were constantly being told we were turning the corner because we were killing more than were being killed? We killed over a million North Vietnamese – over 20 times what we lost – but did not win that war. Unfortunately, George W. Bush seems to not understand that, for every Iraqi he kills, there are two more who were originally supporters of democracy who are now jihadists and willing to fly planes into buildings.]

(2) It's the right thing to do

Most importantly: the only thing that "anti-war" protesting at home does is KILLS OUR TROOPS IN THE FIELD. I remember the news reports in 1991 and all the networks talking about how we were "fighting for oil." I remember how it made us feel knowing that there were people at home who did not appreciate the blood we were expecting to shed.

[I hate to sound like a smart-ass, but, really, how does that work? I hear it all the time. If you are on patrol in Baghdad and you come under attack, how does Dan Rather make your gun not shoot straight? If you are wounded, will the Army doctor not work hard on you because his daughter is home in college makin’ love not war!?! :p]

… I've shed blood to fight this evil. Don't lessen my sacrafice. You don't have to agree with everything Bush & Co. do, I certainly don't, but don't let them do to this generation what they did to mine in 1991 -- pull out before the job is finished, ensuring that our enemy will live to once again terrorize the innocent.

[Uh, your mission was accomplished in ’91. – take pride in that. But, after the higher-ups in the Pentagon concluded that Vietnam was lost, how did sending over 20,000 more troops to their deaths lesson the sacrifice of those who had already died? In my Post #65, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show, “And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.” The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests – just like in ‘91. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests – that is why I say Bush’s “New Way Forward” is nothing short of murderous.]

(3) Our enemy isn't about to stop until he's dead

… This war isn't going to end even when we're finished in Iraq. This is a battle for the survival of Western civilization.

[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. Killing Arabs on TV is not helping – indeed, we are breeding new terrorists.]

I am a US Marine veteran. I have been to Iraq (1991), I have met the enemy, and I am very much aware that he cannot be reasoned with, he cannot be negotiated with, he cannot be bribed or bought off, and he will never, ever stop killing innocent people until he is dead. The minute we surrender to terrorism in Iraq, they will return this war to OUR shores and start bombing OUR schools, OUR churches and shopping malls and killing OUR people.

[The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. From my Post #45, Senator Gordon Smith said, “And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.” Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” “the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”]

You can't "stop" the war BECAUSE THE ENEMY HASN'T QUIT. Jane Fonda thought she could do that in 1968 when America was about to achieve a military victory, and because of her THOUSANDS of American servicemen were killed or wounded by an enemy which gained renewed morale after her visit to North Vietnam.

[I wasn’t aware Jane Fonda was a General who followed political orders to send troops into combat. :p Why don’t you blame those really at fault for Vietnam – Johnson who turned Vietnam into a quagmire and Nixon who couldn’t admit the defeat that was handed to him. The Iraq War itself, Bush’s Vietnam, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor ‘em.]

Post #67

Subject: Hypocrisy….

Good Lord. We have a new winner in the “hypocrisy sweepstakes.” Just when I thought it was safe to read some right-wing nuts, I run across “Martyr of the War Party “ by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , March 7, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

The conviction of Scooter Libby on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice is first of all a human tragedy.

A man who served his country at the highest level, who sat in every morning at the senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, has been dishonored and disgraced, and will be disbarred. Unless his conviction is overturned, or he is pardoned, Libby will go to prison. His life will end with an obituary that declares in its headline and lead paragraph that he was a convicted Dick Cheney aide.

Yet, this was a narrow case. Libby's convictions call to mind Martha Stewart's, who went to prison for lying to investigators about a crime she did not commit. Libby has been convicted of lying about the outing of a CIA classified officer, a crime for which no one has been indicted.

Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was outed as a CIA "operative," was no longer covert and had not been so for half a decade when her name was pushed out of the White House to the press. Joe Wilson, her husband, target of the White House vendetta, yet contends that not only was her career destroyed, a crime was committed -- and that is why the CIA demanded an investigation.

Yet it was an arrogant and stupid thing Libby did. He lied to the FBI, to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, to the grand jury. He fabricated a story about where he learned about Wilson's wife, when, as sworn testimony proved, he learned it from Vice President Cheney and was himself moving it to the press.

[The rule of law, Pat, the rule of law – that’s how they got Clinton. Getting a “Monica” from Monica was not a crime, but he lied about it. And he was impeached. No sob stories from the right about the “human tragedy.” What goes around, comes around. I knew one day the right would get caught by their own stringent attitude – well, judgment day is here, Pat, and you have plainly showed that the law you respect only applies to the other side. I’m disappointed.]

However, this was about a larger issue than the narrow question of whether Libby lied about leaking the role of Valerie Plame in having her husband sent to Niger to investigate a report that Iraq had been seeking "yellowcake," a critical component in a uranium enrichment program.

That larger issue is this: Were we misled, were we deceived by our government, as the White House made the case for invading and occupying Iraq? Did neoconservatives at the Pentagon cherry-pick the intelligence, stovepipe it to the vice president's office and Libby, and then feed it to sympathizers and collaborators in the media, to stampede our country into a war against a nation that, no matter how odious its regime, did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not want war with us?

In short, were we lied into a war in Mesopotamia that is breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam?

And why has the Democratic Congress, on taking power in January, not begun a broad investigation into how we got into this war?

This is the dog that didn't bark. And the reason the dog is silent suggests itself. The Congress, in voting President Bush the authority to take us to war against Iraq at a time and place of his own choosing, failed to do its duty by the Constitution. In October 2002, to get the issue off the table for the election and give themselves political cover against the Rovian charge they were tying the hands of the commander in chief in the War on Terror, a Democratic Senate -- Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Biden, Reid all assenting -- voted Bush the blank check for war that he cashed in five months later.

The dilemma a Democratic Congress faces in any investigation into whether we were lied into war is that Congress would be investigating why a Democratic Senate failed its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war.

And, lest we forget, the media, too, played a supporting role in pushing this nation into an unnecessary war. Columnists and commentators assured us there was a nexus between Saddam, al-Qaida and 9-11, a "Prague connection" between Muhammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence. We were told Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was working on nuclear weapons, that enrichment of uranium was being done secretly around the country, that if we did not act now, we faced a nuclear-armed Iraq that would surely transfer atomic weapons to al-Qaida terrorists. Said Condi Rice, our proof of WMD might well come in the form of a mushroom cloud above an American city.

[George W. Bush was speeding, and the cops let him go. Bush had a wreck. Yes, the cops get fired. But the responsibility for the wreck belongs to Bush. I find it sad that any Senator who voted for this mess is still in office, and I raise my eyebrows over who is running for President. But, at the end of day, Bush is at fault for a war that is “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.]

Scooter Libby will not lack for legal defense funds as he pursues his appeal, and there will be demands for his pardon before Bush goes home. For Scooter is a martyr of the War Party. Scooter did what he had to do to get us into this war. Then he did what he felt he had to do to discredit Joe Wilson, because Wilson was out to discredit the White House case for war. And in the end, we are unlikely to know the truth of why it was we went to war. For that record is sealed in minds and souls.

[Yes, we are unlikely to know. Let’s get out – with a positive ending, if we can. But let’s get out.]

Post #66

Subject: Repeal Iraq War Resolution

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The text below is from The Boston Globe.

* * *

Congress Should Repeal its Authorization to Use Force in Iraq

February 27, 2007

Two weeks ago, Congress made clear its opposition to President Bush's plan to send more US troops to Iraq.

Opposing the surge is only a first step. There needs to be a radical change in course in Iraq. The pressure is building on Congress -- especially Republicans -- to act if the president will not.

The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted Bush in 2002 to use force in Iraq.

We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.

Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.

Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to deny terrorists a safe haven, train Iraqis, and help Iraq defend its borders. We should set as a goal removing from Iraq all US combat forces not necessary for this limited mission by early 2008, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommends.

Congress also should make clear that the troops should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a civil war.

Repealing and replacing the 2002 authorization is not micromanagement from Washington, it is matching our soldiers' mission to the changing realities in Iraq.

Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?"

Everyone wants to get the troops out of Iraq as soon and as safely as possible. There is great political reward in saying, "I can get us out the fastest."

But while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. There needs to be a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East.

Nine months ago, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and I proposed a plan, which offers a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and us a chance to leave with our interests intact.

The plan would decentralize Iraq and give Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives; bring the Sunnis in by guaranteeing them a fair share of the oil; enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and the world's major powers to promote the plan with the Iraqis; and withdraw US combat forces by 2008. You can read the details at PlanForIraq.com.

The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.

Since the onset of sectarian war, there is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. There is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon.

There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: A foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon.

That leaves federalism -- an idea a majority of Iraqis have already endorsed in their constitution.

Our plan offers a way to make federalism work for all Iraqis. And it offers the possibility -- not the guarantee -- of producing a soft landing in Iraq. That would be the best possible outcome for Iraq and for America.

Post #65

Subject: The immorality of the Iraq War….

In my Post #62, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show. I think his whole quote is telling – especially from the right – and worthy of a whole post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Well, I‘ll tell you what. I‘ll tell you where I am right now on this war. I supported the war from the very beginning. Anybody that has watched this show for four years knows I was one of the biggest supporters of the war. And I was a big supporter for the war because it came about a year after the 9/11 attacks. We had our CIA director, everybody else, said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They were all wrong. I wanted to go into Iraq because I believed at the time it was in America‘s best interests.

[Yep, George W. Bush pissed on your leg and said that it was raining! :p Actually, I respect that you were scared shitless – I was, too. Shame on Bush for his disregard of the truth, the whole truth, and his “New Way Forward,” an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President.]

That‘s all I cared about. I didn‘t care about world peace. I didn‘t care about spreading democracy across the globe. I wanted to protect America. At some point, you‘ve got to say what‘s in America‘s best interests, after we found out that Saddam Hussein didn‘t have nukes, and now that there‘s no Saddam Hussein—at some point, you have to start asking, When is your neighbor going to step up to the plate? When are they going to take care of the mess in their own yard, in their own back yard?

[We created that mess. But you are correct, Joe: At some point, you throw up your hands and just leave. Intellectually, I agree with Joe Biden in my Post #62 and #64 – we must do the hard work to get a positive outcome in Iraq. But, emotionally, I’m ready to face the bad consequences – the Iraq civil war that spreads across the Middle East, a cut off of oil, Iran armed with an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush.” The longer we stay, the worse things will be when we do leave.]

How many more young Americans from California, from Kansas, from Georgia, from Maine, have to die because Iraqis, as Pat Buchanan said, who were willing to have 500,000 of their own people slaughtered in a war against Iran, or the Afghanistan people, who stood up to the Soviet Union for almost a decade—how much longer do Americans put everything they have, give up their young, give up billions of dollars, soon to be trillions of dollars, for countries that just don‘t seem to want democracy and freedom enough to actually fight for them themselves?

That‘s a question that most Americans are finding themselves asking. And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.

[The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests.]

Post #64

Subject: Iraq's Future and America's Interests, Pt. II

Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech before the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, advocating revisiting the original 2002 Iraq War resolution. Senator Biden also said that although leaving Iraq is necessary, we should also focus on what we leave behind. The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history.

Remarks prepared for delivery. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

"Iraq's Future and America's Interests"

The Brookings Institution

February 15, 2007

This military surge in Iraq is not a solution - it is a tragic mistake.

If we should be surging forces anywhere, it is in Afghanistan.

I'm glad the President has recognized what many of us have been saying for years: unless we surge troops, hardware, money, and high-level attention into Afghanistan, it will fall back into the hands of the Taliban, terrorists and drug traffickers. I support the steps he announced today but I hope they are the first steps - not the last - in a recommitment to Afghanistan.

[Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.]

We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein.

The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.

I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq.

Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies. We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.

[Yes, for God’s sake, somebody tell us what we are doing in Iraq! From my Post #45, Senator Gordon Smith said, “And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.”]

For our sake and for the sake of the Iraqi people, we should be focused on how we get out of Iraq with our interests intact.

Everyone wants to bring our troops home as soon and as safely as possible. But tempting as it is, we can't just throw up our hands, blame the President for misusing the authority we gave him, and walk away without a plan for what we leave behind.

So I'll end where I began.

Leaving Iraq is a necessity, but it is not a plan. We need a plan for what we leave behind. That is what I have offered.