Now the Democrats response to Bush's surge speech was pretty straight-forward. According to this Fox News transcript of the Democratic response by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to President Bush's surge speech:
At the end of October, President Bush told the American people: Absolutely, we're winning the war in Iraq. He spoke those words near the end of the bloodiest month of 2006 for U.S. troops.
Tonight, President Bush acknowledged what most Americans know: We are not winning in Iraq, despite the courage and immense sacrifice of our military.
Indeed, the situation is grave and deteriorating.
The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of the civil war that has engulfed that nation.
Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction.
In ordering more troops to Iraq, the president is ignoring the strong advice of most of his own top generals. General John Abizaid — until recently, the commanding general in Iraq and Afghanistan — said, and I quote, "More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future," end of quote.
Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost.
It's time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. And the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the lives of more than 3,000 of our soldiers. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we've paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.
And we have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We've given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government.
We Americans, and a few allies, have protected Iraq when no one else would.
Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions which will bring an end to this bloody civil war, disband the militias and death squads, create an environment of safety and opportunity for every Iraqi, and begin to restore the basics of electricity and water and health care that define the quality of life.
The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie ahead. And they must know that, every time they call 911, we are not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers.
As Congress considers our future course in Iraq, we remain committed, on a bipartisan basis, to providing our soldiers every resource they need to fight effectively and come home safely.
But it's time to begin the orderly redeployment of our troops so that they can begin coming home soon.
When the Iraqis understand that America is not giving an open- ended commitment of support, when they understand that our troops indeed are coming home, then they will understand the day has come to face their own responsibility to protect and defend their nation.
Thank you.
In other words, there are no more open-ended commitments in this war. The Iraqis had better start standing up to take responsibility for their own security. The Democratic response was a serious warning to the Iraqi government, rather than the Bush White House--we better see some success from the Iraqi security forces in quelling the sectarian violence, or we're going to pull out.
But there was also a warning to the Bush White House--you've been given four years in this war to help Iraqis stand up, so that we can stand down. And so far, everything this administration has done in this war has been a failure. The price has been too high. If the Bush administration cannot find a way to stabilize Iraq, then it is time to pull the troops out, and bring them home. If the Iraqis fail again to stand up, then it is time for us to pull out--no more 911 phone calls! As for the Bush troop surge, the Democrats believe that the plan will fail--President Bush is taking a more confrontational approach in this latest plan, rather than going with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, establishing negotiations, increased training of Iraqi security forces, creating benchmarks and withdrawal timetables. So it is not surprising that the Democrats would be opposed to the Bush surge plan. Here are some of the responses from Democratic senators on Bush's surge plan. This is through the New York Times:
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut accused the administration of letting American soldiers be used as “cannon fodder.” Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the chairman, called the president’s new strategy “a tragic mistake” and said the plan “is more likely to make things worse.” Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, and a former supporter of administration policy, said he could no longer back the president.
“I have not been told the truth,” Mr. Nelson said. “I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth.”
But what is even more amazing is the Republican responses to Bush's surge plan. I'm going through several news articles here, with ABC News, CNN News, MSNBC News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
Let's continue with the New York Times story reporting the Republican side:
Perhaps surprisingly, the language changed little when it was the Republicans’ turn. “You’ve clearly heard the skepticism that has been expressed this morning by so many of my colleagues, and for good reason,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, noting that he previously went along with the president and “bought into his dream,” demanded the administration “do a much better job” of explaining its strategy. A smattering of applause erupted when Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska warned that Mr. Bush’s new plan would be “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”
But it gets worst. The sharpest exchange on the Bush surge came from Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska as he ripped into Secretary of State Condi Rice on the surge speech. Here is the MSNBC News story on the confrontation:
In a heated exchange with Hagel, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, Rice disputed his characterization of Bush’s buildup as an “escalation.”
“Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?” Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush’s Iraq policy, asked. “Would you call it a decrease?”
“I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,” she said.
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.”
Even Ohio Republican Senator George V. Voinovich attacked Rice. In the MSNBC News story:
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said Bush could no longer count on his support.
“You’re going to have to do a much better job” explaining the rationale for the war, “and so is the president,” Voinovich told Rice. “I’ve gone along with the president on this and I’ve bought into his dream and at this stage of the game I just don’t think it’s going to happen.”
The Republicans are deserting Bush--and it is not just like rats jumping off a sinking ship here. It is even filtering into the Republican presidential candidates with Republican senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. This is off the Wichita Eagle:
Sen. Sam Brownback came out Wednesday against President Bush's call Wednesday for a surge of 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," Brownback, R-Kan., said while traveling in Iraq. "Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."
Brownback had previously supported a short-term surge of troops if it could help achieve long-term political stability, which the Bush administration has said it hopes a troop surge will help achieve.
But Brownback rejected that argument after meeting this week with several Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and U.S. military commanders.
"I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shia are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other," Brownback said.
So what does all this mean? President Bush's troop surge plan is being rejected outright by the American public, the Democrats in Congress, and now the Republicans in Congress. The WaPost story really sums it up here:
Lawmakers said they have little confidence that the Iraqi government has the capacity to deliver on promises to take the lead in cracking down on violent militias and providing security in Baghdad, as the president's plan contemplates. Democrats and Republicans alike said they are concerned that Bush's plan, announced Wednesday night in a nationally televised prime-time address, is too little and too late and does not appear very different from previous efforts to secure the capital.
[The] ferocity of the congressional condemnation dismayed the White House, which had hoped to rebuild an element of bipartisan consensus around Bush's plan. It was further indication that the new Democratic Congress is headed toward a series of potentially epic clashes and floor votes over the conduct and funding of the nearly four-year-old war.
Congressional skepticism is being fueled by the public: A majority of Americans oppose Bush's decision to send more troops, and only one in three said the plan will probably make victory in Iraq more likely, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.Graphic showing public opinion poll on President Bush's troop surge speech. From the Washington Post
The Republicans have learned their lesson here. We've seen the poll results showing the American public turning against both President Bush and the Iraq war. We've seen how last November's midterm election results became a referendum for the Bush war, where the Republican Party was trounced with loss of both houses of Congress. And even after this Bush surge speech, the Republicans can see that 61 percent of Americans oppose the Bush surge plan. To continue blindly following this president down this Iraqi disaster could jeopardize their own political careers when they face the American voters again in 2008--President Bush no longer has to face re-election in 2008. That is why the Republicans are staying away from this surge plan.
Of course, not everyone is opposed to the Bush troop surge plan. President Bush can count on two reliable war hawks--Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, and Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. In this Washington Post story:
A day after Bush's proposal was pelted with bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008, said he supports the plan. He tried to shift the burden to war critics.
McCain said those advocating the start of a troop withdrawal, which includes many Democrats, "have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq. If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."
McCain is playing a very high-stakes game in trying to shift himself further to the right of President Bush as a way to court the hard-lined conservatives in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In this MSNBC News story:
McCain seems to be launching his 2008 campaign by taking the role of foremost advocate of sending significantly more troops for long-term deployment to Iraq.
“There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops: to be of value, it must substantial and it must be sustained,” he declared in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank that is home to some of the most hawkish strategists on Iraq.
Just to make sure everyone in the overflow audience got the point, McCain repeated that phrase: “it must substantial and it must be sustained.”
And finally, there is Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of the Bush war from the start. He is a war hawk. According to this Raw Story article:
Tonight, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee, came out in support of President Bush's plan—already underway—to send over 20,000 more troops to Iraq.
"I applaud the President for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," Lieberman said in a statement acquired by RAW STORY. "There is no more difficult decision that a President can make."
However, Lieberman characterized the troop surge as a necessary strategic change in what he characterized as a "vital" fight to ensure our national security. "No objective is more worthy," he added, "than aiding a struggling democracy and supporting brave moderates who are in a life and death struggle against totalitarian extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran."
Lieberman, who has a history of taking hawkish stances on foreign policy issues, remains one of the most vocal of the few Democrats still supporting the war.
That is a round-up of the political fallout from Congress regarding President Bush's surge speech. I'm sure that over the next couple of weeks, we're going to see even more Bush officials spending time on Capitol Hill trying to convince anyone to support this surge plan. The problem for the Bush White House is that nobody is listening to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment