Congress Serves Up Chickenhawk Fried Rice
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Yesterday, National Security Advisor and Bush loyalist Condeleza Rice was grilled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For hours, Ms. Rice had to endure an assault of tough questions not only from the other side of the aisle, but from her own party, whom, at least somewhat, has turned against this administration's reckless Iraq poicies.
Lead by conservative lawmaker, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a chorus of criticizm and affirmations that they were not interested in pursuing the administration's plans of escalating the Iraq war.
Hagel called the Iraq war “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” And vowed to resist the plan for any escalation in troop levels.
In one exchange, Hagel called the administration on the ways it had dealt with them and the American people...
Hagel told Rice, “Madame secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control.”
She disputed that Iraq was in the throes of a civil war. To that, Hagel said, “To sit there and say that, that’s just not true.”
But that trend is nothing new for the administration. Whose claims have been repeadedly refuted by the facts. Let's review...
Before Mr. Bush was elected he said he was no nation builder. Nation building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital for America. He said he would never have put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.
He told us about WMDs, mobile labs, secret sources, aluminum tubing, yellow cake. He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, because of terrorism in general, to liberate Iraq, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to keep the oil out of the hands of potentially terrorist controlled states, because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Moqtada al Sadr, Osama bin Laden. He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi army and deBaathified the government. He short changed Iraqi training. He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence. He sent in troops without life saving equipment, gave job to foreign contractors and not the Iraqis, staffed U.S. positions in Iraq based on partisanship, not professional experience.
We learned that America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throws. He has said that more troops were not necessary and more troops are necessary, and that it‘s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.
He told us of turning points, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam. We would be greeted as liberators with flowers, as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. We would never stay the course. The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, was terrorist, was Baathists.
The war would pay for itself. It was cost 1.7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Bottom line, this administration has no credibility.
Not to mention, with the revolt of republican Senators like Hagel, brownback, Warner, Voinavich and others, it appears that no filibuster will happen to block any moves the Senate can make to stop this reckless plan, that according to The New York Times (and has not been refuted by anyone) is even against the wishes of the Iraq government themself.
Of course, that should make for another fine lesson in democracy for them and the rest of the middle east.
61% of the Iraq population is ok with us being dead.
Most of the 2008 Presidential nominees are obviously not going to folow in this administration's footsteps.
This all adds up to stopping this escalation of troops and perhaps neding to forceably point this President in the direction the whole country, the majority of military (35% of active military want any increase in troops, 65% don't) and even the Iraqi goverment and people want us to do and LEAVE!
Enough is enough with this irresponsible, neoconservative pipe dream. the only people left defending this policy are the remaining "true believers" who just don't seem capable of seeing reason over rhetoric. The people didn't call for an increase in troops as a "change in direction" but a decrease in them. And it appears that the President is going to make the Congress spank him by using the power of the purse, or other methods to stop his ego driven foolishness. The administration thinks there will be some sort of backlash. That roping in these drunk cowboys are gonna make them look weak.
It won't, as that is soooo 2002.
It will look smart. And that is what winning wars is all about. Not being "tougher" than your enemy, but by being smarrter.
Lead by conservative lawmaker, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a chorus of criticizm and affirmations that they were not interested in pursuing the administration's plans of escalating the Iraq war.
Hagel called the Iraq war “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” And vowed to resist the plan for any escalation in troop levels.
In one exchange, Hagel called the administration on the ways it had dealt with them and the American people...
Hagel told Rice, “Madame secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control.”
She disputed that Iraq was in the throes of a civil war. To that, Hagel said, “To sit there and say that, that’s just not true.”
But that trend is nothing new for the administration. Whose claims have been repeadedly refuted by the facts. Let's review...
Before Mr. Bush was elected he said he was no nation builder. Nation building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital for America. He said he would never have put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.
He told us about WMDs, mobile labs, secret sources, aluminum tubing, yellow cake. He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, because of terrorism in general, to liberate Iraq, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to keep the oil out of the hands of potentially terrorist controlled states, because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Moqtada al Sadr, Osama bin Laden. He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi army and deBaathified the government. He short changed Iraqi training. He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence. He sent in troops without life saving equipment, gave job to foreign contractors and not the Iraqis, staffed U.S. positions in Iraq based on partisanship, not professional experience.
We learned that America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throws. He has said that more troops were not necessary and more troops are necessary, and that it‘s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.
He told us of turning points, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam. We would be greeted as liberators with flowers, as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. We would never stay the course. The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, was terrorist, was Baathists.
The war would pay for itself. It was cost 1.7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Bottom line, this administration has no credibility.
Not to mention, with the revolt of republican Senators like Hagel, brownback, Warner, Voinavich and others, it appears that no filibuster will happen to block any moves the Senate can make to stop this reckless plan, that according to The New York Times (and has not been refuted by anyone) is even against the wishes of the Iraq government themself.
Of course, that should make for another fine lesson in democracy for them and the rest of the middle east.
61% of the Iraq population is ok with us being dead.
Most of the 2008 Presidential nominees are obviously not going to folow in this administration's footsteps.
This all adds up to stopping this escalation of troops and perhaps neding to forceably point this President in the direction the whole country, the majority of military (35% of active military want any increase in troops, 65% don't) and even the Iraqi goverment and people want us to do and LEAVE!
Enough is enough with this irresponsible, neoconservative pipe dream. the only people left defending this policy are the remaining "true believers" who just don't seem capable of seeing reason over rhetoric. The people didn't call for an increase in troops as a "change in direction" but a decrease in them. And it appears that the President is going to make the Congress spank him by using the power of the purse, or other methods to stop his ego driven foolishness. The administration thinks there will be some sort of backlash. That roping in these drunk cowboys are gonna make them look weak.
It won't, as that is soooo 2002.
It will look smart. And that is what winning wars is all about. Not being "tougher" than your enemy, but by being smarrter.
