aceventura3

Again, Bush is pretty clear about what he wants to do and acts accordingly. Bush selects a general who supports his plan, but we have the Senate who apporves Patraeus but then plan on sending a resolution to the enemy (oops to the Presidnet) stating that they don't support the plan. I know I am kinda slow, so can some one explain this to me? Can someone tell me why this is not political grandstanding while our military is at risk? If they don't support the plan why vote to confirm a general who does?

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentc...20Hearing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011601458.html

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ubertuber

Perhaps they assume that Patraeus is capable of executing more than one plan?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ratbastid

Or they understand that a high ranking military officer has sufficient discipline to follow whatever orders he receives?

There's nothing to see here. Move along.

aceventura3

What was the point of having confirmation hearings and taking a vote?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Perhaps the point is something as mundane and trivial as the Senate's advise and consent responsibilities under the Constitution.

Where is the hypocrisy in performing the confirmation function on Petreaus and also expressing personal opposition and the sentiment of the majority of one's constituents on a policy of the confirmed persons superior?

We have a DoD posting online last month its recently developed counterinsurgency manual (background with link to manual) of which Petreaus was the principal contributor.

In the manual's foreword, Lt. Generals David Petreaus and James Amos write in part, "With our Soldiers and Marines fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we give them a manual that provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations."

How would a U.S. soldier or Marine now in Iraq or Afghanistan feel knowing the hot-off-the-presses counterinsurgency manual is available to the "bad guys" at the same time it is available to the "good guys"?

(I could be as cynical as you and suggest that posting it online was "political grandstanding" to show how much "progress" we are making in fighting the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq?. Why else would it be posted? So field commanders and ground forces can download it in the desert? Cant we keep it off the net and have military transport planes deliver pocket-size edtions or fedex it?)

Which of the two potentially places our military more at risk - a statement of political opposition to a policy or sharing general counterinsurgency doctrine with terrorists and insurgents.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

How about taking the issue seriously. If Bush's plan is wrong force him to change it, don't support it. Rubber stamping what Bush wants got us into Iraq, right?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

I take it far more seriously than relying on analogies, anecdotes, generalizations, mischaracterizations and repeated rhetorical questions (yep..those are the ones I ignore) to make my point

....and I thought you said you "saw the light"

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I said we should not leave our military exposed while we debate a plan for Iraq. We should bring our troops home. Bush is a lame duck, his plan will fail without the support of the country. Congress has a greater responsibility to act proactivly given the circumstances. I am disappointed.

P.S. I have heard a few talk shows and read a few articles about the hypocrisy described in the OP. I guess some see it even if you don't.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Bush's plan does not have public support or, according to many in the military,the highest likelihood of success. He, as Commander in Chief, is the one who has the greater responsibility to initiate serious discussions with both parties in Congress to develop a plan that the public can support and may actually work to stablize Iraq and get us out of the mess his failed plans (or the more inexcusable and indefensable lack of initial planning for post-Saddam) to-date have created.....rather than digging his heels and saying "I'm the decision-maker" and this plan (the third or fourth "new way forward") will work "'because I told them it had to."
You are absolutely right..I dont see it the same way as Fox News (William Kristol), the Wash Times editorial page (Tony Blankly), or other talking heads, editorial pundits and right wing blogs that have supported Bush's Iraq policy from the beginning without ever raising a question.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I think we already established the fact that the Bush plan does not have the support it needs.


I am in the present as Congress should be.

Bush has been the same man for his 6 years in office. He is not going to change. He presented his plan and is going to act accordingly. I know this, you know it and so does Congress. That is why Congress needs to be proactive.

You give the impression that this is an issue I created in my imagination. Even if you don't see the hypocrisy, are you saying its not an issue. At least say Congress has a strategy in play to move Bush in another direction other than sending him a letter. It is easy to take shots at someone's plan, it is another thing to put your own convictions on the line. congress is not showing leadership, I know you can see that.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

It (the so-called hypocrisy of confirming Petreaus and supporting a resolution in opposition to the latest Bush policy) is absolutely not an issue, because it has no impact on policy either way. I doubt that it is of any interest to most Americans, other than those on right wing blogs. It is simply a matter of opinion, not fact, and IMO, raised for discussion solely for the purpose of attempting to score political points.

Leadership is not "being the same man for six years". An effective and respected leader, and one who instills confidence, understands the necessity for flexibility and an open mind, as conditions and circumstances change.

I suspect Congress will ultimately coalesce around John Warner's resolution rather than the Biden-Hagel resolution and the burden will still remain on Bush to demonstrate a sincere willingness to discuss other options. That is an appropriate next step for me.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Rubber stamping what Bush wants, supports what Bush wants.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

Confirming a nominee doesn't constitute a rubber stamp. Congress needs to pick their battles here. Stonewalling everything that comes out of the White House isn't the road to a productive solution.

I actually applaud them for this concession. It sets the stage for a bipartisan approach to solving the Iraq problem.

aceventura3

They say he is smart, experienced, loyal, patriotic, well educated in military tatics and strategy, and he knows the situation in Iraq. He says the Bush plan will work, and that we need more troops in Iraq. They say Bush's plan will not work and we don't need more troops. They give him overwhelming support and confirm him without challenging his stance. Something is wrong with this.

Perhaps this is why I will never be a Washington insider. I would vote based on what I thought was right, not politics. I would not say things I don't believe to get elected or for nominations or to make people happy at the moment and then change later.

I don't understand why some of you are not PO'd. Wind the clock back - Many in Congress gave Bush a "blank check" to invade Iraq. Now they say they were tricked into that vote. Congress authorizes billions of dollars for the war. While they voted for these funds many were saying we had no plan to win. I see a disturbing pattern, a pattern that even non-Mensians can see.

I am sorry Rat and DC but you guys are giving me Washington double speak. And I am sure Congress wants this issue to be a non-issue, so they can go back to fun and political games with Iraq while our military is in a war zone.

One other thing - Isn't one of the prime reasons they want the non-binding resolution to get Republican members of Congress to show or not show their support of Bush in the face of public opinion to hurt their chances of re-election? So the resolution may have almost nothing to do with trying to actually get Bush to change his plan. A plan, already in the works. So if you really wanted to alter the plan time is of the essence.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Ace...What you describe as Washington double speak, I would characterize as our system of checks and balances at work. It may not be perfect, but it has served us well for over 200 years. I'm sorry you are unable or unwilling to understand that.

And to say that Congress simply wants to play political games while our forces are in a deadly war zone may make you feel better about your position, but I would suggest that you are the one engaging in disingenuous political double-speak.

But thats what makes this country great....we can agree to disagree and all is fair in love and politics.

....until one side questions the patriotism or motives of those with whom they disagree.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Has it served us well during the last 6?

What is your evidence that I am disingenuous. I laidout my case on why I think Congress is being hypocritical, yet you throw around insults with no justification.

I have not questioned patriotism, I question conviction. this is clearly going no where. And it is now safely a none news issue.

You didn't get it, no TFP'er got it. I did get it, nothing written here made a difference. Congress lacks conviction on the Iraq issue, and many in Congress are hypocrits on the Iraq issue. I get no satisfaction in that. (but you being Beta Zoid, probably know what I feel better than I do, don't you?)

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

OK...you got it

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ratbastid

No, it's been glaringly absent the last 6. By and large, the administration HAS had a rubber stamp from congress. And, while that's changing, there are still political realities to deal with.

Look: Bush is blundering ahead with his surge plan whether Congress or the American people want him to or not. Better there's a man on the ground who's competent and committed, given how things are almost inevitably bound to turn out.

dc_dux

Rat...the system worked as well as it could with the party in power at the time of the invasion failing to perform its Congressional oversight reponsiblities (as you say, a rubber stamp).

For three years after the invasion, the American people showed patience with the Pres, even when it became clear that there was no post-Saddam stabilization policy and repeated failures in each subsequent tweaking of the "stay the course" policy.

At the time, the Dems (and a few Repubs) attenpted to performed their "check and balance" responsibilites, under what Ace incorrectly described as a "blank check" resolution, by repeatedly requesting Bush to comply with the resolution's reporting requirements (among other attempted oversight actions):
With the Bush/Rumsfeld continued intransigence and blatant dismissal of the will of the minority party in Congress for 2+ years to account for their policies and actions, the American people utilized the system, sided with that minority and voted for a change.

The unfortunate shortcoming of the system is that it slogs along in two year intervals before it can act in a manner that may seek a change of direction or demand a greater justification to continue on the same course.... even if those actions brand the re-emerged purveyors of the "checks and balances" as hypocrits who lack conviction in the eyes of those who "get it" and "know what they know" but cant support it with facts.

Political grandstanding? Playing fun and games while our troops are in harms way?

Or a serious commitment to fully assume the intended roll of Congress?

The American people will decide, not one lone wolf howling in the wind.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

The reason I used quotes around "blank check" was because they were words by someone else. No need to apologize.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...lution_of_2002

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

Surveys show around 70% of Americans are against a troop increase in Iraq. Congress can't even agree on sending Bush a letter saying they don't support the increase, why? Political games.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Rekna

Because the Republicans are doing everything they can to obstruct the resolution from moving forward.

aceventura3

I thought there were Republicans who support sending Bush a resolution of non-support of his plan.

Anyway - I guess I am not a "lone wolf howling in the wind" and what I characterize as Washington double speak is alive and well. At this point even if they pass a resolution it will have no impact on Bush's plan. The reality appears to be that Congress would rather take shots at the President than act on what they say they truely believe.

The next test for Congress will be Bush's budget request for more money for the war. Again, I bet we will see politics at play rather than Congress voting their claimed core beliefs on the Iraq issue.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Rekna

Unfortunately the republicans who claimed to support it did not vote to end the debate so it could be voted on. All of the republicans voted against ending the debate. Without this vote a vote on the measure cannot be done.

Chimera

If everything were as cut and dry as your mind seems to see it....life would be far more pleasant, unfortunately it is not. Removing the funding stream from the war effort will be seen as non-support for the folks dying in Iraq, and the republican machine would rip anyone to shreads in the American Public Eye who tries to do so. The congress knows this, the white house knows this....and very likely you know it as well.

This is no test.....its a given.

aceventura3

You seem to ignore the fact that the American public no longer supports our military being in Iraq and even more don't support a troop increase. The majority in Congress does not support us being in Iraq and even more don't support a troop increase. Are you saying that is not as it seems? I have simply concluded that those who voted for the war, voted to fund the war, voted to approve a general who supports Bush's plan, but continually take shots at Bush's plan are full of BS and are playing games while our military is at risk. imho, that is shameful and I think we should call them on it.

Also, who cares if the "republican machine" puts up a fight and trys to rip opponents to shreds? Are you suggesting the people who oppose our being in Iraq are cowards? That they are not willing to fight for what they believe in because of the risk? If they are cowards or fearful of the consequences, again shame on them.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

kangaeru

These are issues of incentive and perception.

Congressmen have an incentive to keep their jobs...they like their status, they like their money, and they've worked all their lives to get to where they are. Unfortunately, as the congressional elections proved, the American voters have stepped up and proven they are willing to use public elections as a referendum on Bush's Iraq policy. Elected officials must heed this if they wish to keep their jobs. Incentive.

On the other hand, those in Congress also grasp with greater clarity the true international political forces at work here. Although the issue has been whittled to the level of Bush wanting to finish Daddy's war, the true issue is far more serious, and of greater importance to every single one of us than people seem to realize.

Let me paint a picture. We pull out of Iraq, leaving it in a state of undeclared civil war. The two warring factions, the Shiites and Sunnis, each have powerful arab neighbors who will support them. A Sunni majority exists in Saudi Arabia, and a Shiite majority in Iran. On the ground in Iraq, the Sunnis are a minority, so it is more than likely that Iran would step in and take control of Iraq. At the most extreme end, they could potentially absorb Iraq and officially extend their borders and oil holdings to become one of, if not the largest heavy hitter in the middle east. There is a stronger possibility of Iran stepping in and setting up an Iran puppet regime which will bring the country back to order by martial law. Either way, Iran grows immensely both in size and percentage of world oil production....

Now, it's already very well known that Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are very buddy buddy. Venezuela is already taking an isolationist stance against the US and its allies, and is working closely with Bolivia to re-nationalize many of the industries important to their countries economic engine. An alliance between Venezuela, Bolivia, and a new Iran-Iraq allied state could present grave challenges to the United States through the price manipulation of oil. These countries are already extremely isolated (or exiled) from US trade influence, yet are domesticly strengthening their markets.

But the picture can still get much darker. This next potential step could be argued as stretching the good taste of likely probability, but I see it as very possible nonetheless. I believe China and Russia, who are currently close allies, will likely be divided on the issue. It is impossible at this point for the Chinese to walk away from US trade--they have been so ensnared by our consumption of their goods that there is no possible way for them to just join the Iran-Iraq-Bolivia-Venezuela alliance without freezing their economic progress in its tracks. Unlike the aforementioned countries, China's great natural resource is land and cheap labor, not oil. Russia on the other hand has been flexing its muscle on the international oil markets, and if given the chance to enter this new alliance, would be a perfect candidate. The state of their economies and the construction of the corrupt democracies / regimes in these countries would make their alliance in the event that Iran acquires control of Iraq, whether officially or unofficially, a logical conclusion from my perspective.

At the highest levels of government, everyone is an elitest. The Kerry's and the Bush's all have houses on Martha's Vineyard. Everyone is trying to cover their ass, but at the same time they all recognize the potential consequences of Iraq going under at this point. While the reasons for starting the war can be debated on multiple fronts, I believe our continued struggle in Iraq is of the greatest importance to all of us. It is a battle for the US to maintain it's title as the heavyweight nation of the world, and the consequences of losing that title would send shockwaves throughout our culture and economy that I doubt most people could imagine living through.

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

aceventura3

In other words does this mean you agree that Congress is being hypocritical when they grandstand sending Bush a letter, and take pot-shots at his plan?

Does this mean I am not alone in seeing the hypocrisy?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

kangaeru

Yes Ace...sorry for making my point so round-a-bout. Congress is being hypocritical. They've done a lot of chest thumping, but nothing has actually happened.

The two major issues at stake for them here, their jobs and their futures, are antagonistic to one another.

It's a shame people have become so blinded by the conservative/liberal debate that we become pigeon holed into these situations by our own designs.

P.S.

I just remembered the point I meant to get to in my previous post. That scenario of what happens if we pull out of Iraq...everyone in congress knows it's there. Maybe not the exact picture I described, but some form of it. We're pretty good and fucked at this point on the entire Iraq issue, but just throwing a tantrum and taking shots at Bush's policy helps absolutely nobody.

It's like, what do they expect to do, come next election point to the fact that they endorsed a long list of impotent bills aimed at reigning in Bush and making him accountable to congress?

I'm not saying Bush is right to send in more troops...but what else is he going to do at this point? There's not many options. Work with Iran and Syira? Are you kidding me? The shiite militias are getting all their guns, money, and training from where again? Do you really think a rag tag force with zero training would be able to successfully evolve geurilla warfare against the US for this long? Not dealing with Iran isn't a matter of pride, it's a matter of common sense--anything accomplished diplomatically is going to be nothing more than vapor, which in reality will be undermined by both governments.

Anyways...I'm doing it again. Getting back to the point, I don't have any suggestions for how to change the course of the war. The only thing I can think of is martial law in Baghdad until the insurgents are rooted out. Honestly, I hope that is what Bush is planning. Boost the troop levels up, especially in Baghdad, and declare martial law and just clamp down on that city like a vice until order is restored.

What we're doing right now is trying to teach a dog with no leash. No matter how much we scream and yell, it's going to just run around doing whatever the hell it wants. We need to get that leash on there so we have some control, and once the dog has learned to behave, we can take the leash off and it will listen to commands.

By the way, there's going to be no "free democratic" government in Iraq at the immediate end of this. It's going to be somebody's puppet government, so if that dog on a leash analogy bugs you, think about addressing that point first.

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become