Step back, think carefully

By DALE McFEATTERS

Joseph Lieberman — independent senator and Iraq war supporter — is probably not someone the Democrats feel like taking advice from. But in an op-ed piece this week, he urged his colleagues in Congress “to step back and think carefully about what to do next.”

The Democrats were elected on promises both implicit and explicit to get the United States out of Iraq, and a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows growing public support for that position. A majority, 53 percent, says the United States should set a deadline for withdrawal, and a slightly greater number, 56 percent, is opposed to President Bush’s surge of 21,500 more troops.

The new majority Democrats have been in a rush to demonstrate their opposition to the war in concrete ways. The House passed a nonbinding resolution opposing the surge, but Republicans blocked it in the Senate.

Now they are torn between two other ideas, both with significant drawbacks.

Senate Democrats are preparing to rewrite the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war. This one would limit our objectives in Iraq, thus narrowing the scope of the war, and call for withdrawal in any case by the end of March 2008.

Bush surely realizes that the surge and a highly respected new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, are his last shot at salvaging the situation there. If this works — and we should know a lot sooner than 2008 if it does — then a deadline becomes an obstacle. If it doesn’t work, the deadline doesn’t matter because we’ll be leaving anyway.

Another proposal in the House — fortunately rapidly losing support — would attach all sorts of training and deployment requirements to the funding for the war, effectively tying up in red tape the administration’s ability to fight the war.

This is a backhanded, almost underhanded, way of trying to stop the war without leaving Democrats open to the charge of failing to fully support the troops already deployed. If Congress truly wanted to stop the war, it could do so tomorrow simply by using its constitutional power to cut off all funding for it.

As Lieberman said: Step back. Think carefully.

12 Responses to "Step back, think carefully"

  1. soldat  March 1, 2007 at 4:14 am

    HA!

    Looking to the Democrats for salvation is about as effective as seeking it from the GOP – both are under the influence of the same foreign entity.

    *But we can’t speak about “that” on this website.*

    Wake up America, read George Washington’s farewell address, read Ike’s – then read the PNAC manifesto.

    Our problem is obvious…Joe Lieberman is just a manifestation of it.

  2. gene  March 1, 2007 at 10:59 am

    A bunch of second graders could run this country better. Tens of thousands of innocent lives and both the white house (house of idiots) and congress are to blame. Bushidiot is out of control and so is Mr. don’t give shit cheney. Lies to start this mess and probably nukes to end it. Or mabe someone improving on their bombing technique, as in (PLEASE!!!!) get the asshole next time.

  3. Scrngr  March 1, 2007 at 11:09 am

    Good point, Achille Biagi.

    .

    Now they place their trust in new command.

    .

    What happened to the previous command that has apparently failed? Were they canned, shot, and/or hung (like many were during their command)? Not that I’ve noticed. Who bore the responsibility? Not the Commander in Chief, noooo…

    Scrngr

  4. Kent Shaw  February 28, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    .

    “This is a backhanded, almost underhanded, way of trying to stop the war … ”

    .

    Kind of like the backhanded, almost underhanded way the war began with the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” resolution congress used to abdicate its constitutionally mandated duty to declare war if war was to be had, as if Bush really would make a bona fide attempt at diplomacy before attacking a country that never was a threat to the United States and had in fact not attacked the United States.

    .

    “If Congress truly wanted to stop the war, it could do so tomorrow simply by using its constitutional power to cut off all funding for it.”

    .

    Which of course is what the majority of the taxpayers/voters want, but unfortunately those are not the constituency of congress; the true constituency are their corporate ownership. Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Military Industrial Petroleum Pharmaceutical Complex.

    .

    Just my humble opinion

    .

  5. Kaine  February 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    In the article you said:

    “The new majority Democrats have been in a rush to demonstrate their opposition to the war in concrete ways.”

    -

    I have yet to see what the democrats have done “in concrete ways”! IMO, they have done nothing to stop this war and by the looks of it, they will continue to do nothing. A non-binding resolution?!? Pulease! There is absolutly nothing concrete about that!

    -

    So now they will “rewrite the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war”?!?? That also will go nowhere. They will not get enough support to accomplish this feat!

    -

    I think Mr. Lieberman should “Step back, think carefully” before he continues to support the GOP and all of their ideals. I bet the independant voters didn’t expect this actions from Joe.

    Oh, then again, the independants didn’t vote for Joe into office, but the republicans jumped party and voted for Joe so that they could keep the dems from taking that senatorial seat! BAH!

  6. Andres Fimbres  February 28, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    “Another proposal in the House — fortunately rapidly losing support — would attach all sorts of training and deployment requirements to the funding for the war, effectively tying up in red tape the administration’s ability to fight the war.”

    WOW! I was so dumbfounded that I came across that statement here at CHB that I had to reread it to make sure I wasn’t becoming dyslexic. Assuming my tiny little brain is understanding correctly, the author of this rubbish is actually saying that it is better for the president to have the power to send into harms way soldiers who are either not properly trained, or who are not properly equipped to fight this war.

    Because implicit in Murtha’s plan is the fact that our soldiers are not only fighting a war that will not be won militarily, but they are being sent there without the basic necessities the average citizen assumed was being accomplished in our armed services.

    The stench of hypocrisy and down right “backhanded” and “dirty” logic in this article stinks to high heaven. Mr. McFeaters, though I normally do not succumb to such ad hominems, I have to say this: if this is truly what you believe, I cannot possibly have any respect for you as a person. I can only assume that you are sitting somewhere safe and sound as you typed your opinion. And yet your moral compass is so weak that you did not see any problem in arguing that our troops should not have adequate protections to at the very least give them a fair chance to accomplish their mission.

    Well to that I say, sir, enjoy your couch and your comfort. And remember, salute the flag to keep making yourself believe you are a patriot and want to defend the troops.

  7. JimZ  February 28, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    There’s a darn good reason to end the war as quickly as possible: $3 BILLION per week. I don’t see it coming anytime soon no matter what Congress does. We will have to take the streets to end it. Just like Vietnam.

    Iraq will be screwed up anyway; don’t expect them to lay down while U.S. and British companies controlling their oil and occupy their country.

  8. Old Curmudgeon  February 28, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Andres, it’s been obvious for a while that the author of this piece is a closet neocon. Take EVERYTHING he states with a large dose of bitters. And then search elsewhere for the truth. But, that’s just this old curmudgeon’s opinion.

  9. William Cormier  February 28, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    As Lieberman said: Step back. Think carefully.

    It’s interesting you mentioned Lieberman, as he is the main obstacle preventing the Democrats from really being able to do their jobs and fulfill the mandates of the 2006 election.

    The Democrats hold the Senate only as long as they don’t attempt to infringe on Bush’s Iraq policy – at which time Lieberman would again “vote his conscience” and switch to the Republican Party, effectively causing the Democrats to lose control of the Senate. Joe’s former state Democratic constituents found that Joe, when it really came down to serious matters, would vote his own beliefs rather than those of his constituency, which is why the state sought to replace him – and as an Independent, Joe also reaped a huge amount of Republican votes – so he is a not a man of conviction, but rather one of opportunity, and when it comes to his beliefs, he will sell-out anyone, any party, to represent his beliefs. It’s sad, we all know it, and Joe will be just enough of a pain in the side of the Democrats to effectively render them impotent on the main issues that brought them into office.

  10. Achille Biagi  February 28, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    “…a highly respected new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus..”

    What’s going on here? Has every person who speaks on TV and every person who writes a column adopted that phrase? It’s almost used as much as “..a devote Catholic..”

    Were all the other Generals in our Army DISREPECTED??? I am so tired of hearing that phrase! It makes no sense and is at best a crutch to help the neocons “con” the public one more time.

  11. The South Point  February 28, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    Yes. Step back and think carefully as we certainly wouldn’t want Big Oil and Israel to not get what they want. No matter how insane their desires are.

    Nope. Nope. Nope.

  12. Minuteman  February 28, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    Some definitive measure from Congress is needed, not only to rein in this run-amok president in Iraq – but to make sure THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LEGAL HAT THAT HE CAN USE TO LAUNCH A MILITARY ATTACK ON IRAN. the administration is trying in the worst way to manufacture an “incident” (remember the Gulf of Tonkin “incident”?) which would give them an excuse. Fortunately for us, the Iran leadership seems to be much more intelligent than ours, and are not falling for it. The recently announced talks might be a reason for hope of some good outcome.

Comments are closed.