Mccain on Iraq... Good Stuff

[Lyion]

the text of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain's speech at the Virginia Military Institute

A power vacuum in Iraq would invite further interference from Iran at a time when Tehran already feels emboldened enough to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel and America, and kidnap British sailors. If the government collapses in Iraq, which it surely will if we leave prematurely, Iraq’s neighbors, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt, will feel pressure to intervene on the side of their favored factions. This uncertain swirl of events could cause the region to explode and foreclose the opportunity for millions of Muslims and their children to achieve freedom. We could face a terrible choice: watch the region burn, the price of oil escalate dramatically and our economy decline, watch the terrorists establish new base camps or send American troops back to Iraq, with the odds against our success much worse than they are today.

To enumerate the strategic interests at stake in Iraq does not address our moral obligation to a people we liberated from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. I suspect many in this audience, and most members of Congress, look back at America’s failure to act to prevent genocide in Rwanda with shame. I know I do. And yet I fear the potential for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq is even worse. The sectarian violence, the social divisions, the armaments, the weakened security apparatus of the state — all the ingredients are there. Unless we fight to prevent it, our withdrawal will be coupled with a genocide in which we are complicit. Given our security interests and our moral investment in Iraq, so long as we have a chance to prevail we must try to prevail. As General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, it will be several months or more before we know with any confidence whether we can turn this war around. Elements of the new civil-military strategy are still being drafted, almost half of the additional troops have yet to arrive, and many of the new civilians have yet to take up their posts. We are off to a good start, but significant results will take time.

What struck me upon my return from Baghdad is the enormous gulf between the harsh but hopeful realities in Iraq, where politics is for many a matter of life and death, and the fanciful and self-interested debates about Iraq that substitute for statesmanship in Washington. In Iraq, American and Iraqi soldiers risk everything to hold the country together, to prevent it from becoming a terrorist sanctuary and the region from descending into the dangerous chaos of a widening war. In Washington, where political calculation seems to trump all other considerations, Democrats in Congress and their leading candidates for President, heedless of the terrible consequences of our failure, unanimously confirmed our new commander, and then insisted he be prevented from taking the action he believes necessary to safeguard our country’s interests. In Iraq, hope is a fragile thing, but all the more admirable for the courage and sacrifice necessary to nurture it. In Washington, cynicism appears to be the quality most prized by those who accept defeat but not the responsibility for its consequences.

Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering. A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning not celebrating. And determining how the United States can avert such a disaster should encourage the most sober, public-spirited reasoning among our elected leaders not the giddy anticipation of the next election. Democrats who voted to authorize this war, and criticized the failed strategy that has led us to this perilous moment, have the same responsibility I do, to offer support when that failure is recognized and the right strategy is proposed and the right commanders take the field to implement it or, at the least, to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality.

Democrats argue we should redirect American resources to the ‘real’ war on terror, of which Iraq is just a sideshow. But whether or not al Qaeda terrorists were a present danger in Iraq before the war, there is no disputing they are there now, and their leaders recognize Iraq as the main battleground in the war on terror. Today, al Qaeda terrorists are the ones preparing the car bombs, firing the Katyusha rockets, planting the IEDs. They maneuver in the midst of Iraq’s sectarian conflict, sparking and fueling the horrendous violence, destroying efforts at political reconciliation, killing innocents on both sides in the hope of creating a conflagration that will cause Americans to lose heart and leave, so they can return to their primary mission — planning and executing attacks on the United States, and destabilizing America’s allies.

[Arlos]

Sorry, McCain blew all his credibility when he talked about how it was now safe for him to walk the streets of Baghdad cause of the surge. Without, of course, mentioning the fact that he could only do it with some what, over 100 heavily armed troops surrounding him, in body armor, with armored vehicle support and 2 apache helicopters overhead.

He had already started blowing his credibility by so shamelessly sucking up to the religious right in an attempt to boost his latest election chances. He would have maintained far greater credibility if he'd stuck to what was obviously his real belief when he talked about them back in 2000.

While I had a lot of respect for the 2000-era McCain, the 2006 McCain has become just another Bush sycophant and administration shill, and has obviously set aside what were once strongly held personal convictions because he felt them to be an impediment to his path to power and the Presidency.

Oh, one last thing: I take exception to "to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality." An alternate strategy WAS offered, by a BIPARTISAN panel, and it most certainly was based in reality. Bush chose to reject that panel's findings for no obvious reasons beyond personal ones, and chose a plan only he supported, which isn't going to work any better than any of his previous brilliant plans.

-Arlos

[Evermore]

its utterly amazing how the republican leadership still thinks Iraq is salvageable. this is worse the Nam and the Bay of Pigs...



2008 cannot come soon enough

[Spazz]

2008 cannot come soon enough

I dunno about that. Looks like its a fact were going to get another shitty president. I really hope our next prez isnt the Hildabeast.

[Evermore]

2008 cannot come soon enough

I dunno about that. Looks like its a fact were going to get another shitty president. I really hope our next prez isnt the Hildabeast.

unfort this is true there really arent any good candidates. I was referring to stopping the damage president assmonkey is doing.

[Arlos]

If I may quote from Time Magazine on Bush, the Surge and the Iraq Study Group:

But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government.

The rest of that article is excellent, and a very good read. It can be found here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 43,00.html

-Arlos

[Lyion]

His points are all valid, and the entire DNC strategy seems more attuned to the far left base than the realities of the situation, or to the strategies made by the current military commanders in the field.

Mccain was and continues to pummel the Bush administration for its incompetence and especially its adherence to the wrong Rumsfeld strategy. He is consistent and credible, and understands foreign policy, whereis he isn't heading to Damscus to screw up current state policy by delivering foolish mixed messages to terrorist supporters we are trying to isolate.

Mccain was in the middle of a huge market with thousands of Iraqi's and could've easily been killed by a sniper or suicide bomber. That may not be a big deal to a war critic sitting 3000 miles away, but it is a deal there. Of course there was security, it's an Al Qaeda threatened country in the middle of heavy sectarian violance. However, a senior Senator out in the open like that is something that we would not have seen a year ago.

Mccain 'gets it' unlike some other leaders with no military experience. He understands the stakes and isn't playing a game for political purposes. Calling him a shill is comical, and insulting his going to a marketplace as being hypocritical is a joke, especially given that the DNC lacks the fortitude to even stand up to their lords and masters at moveon when they tell them to boycott Fox news debates.Hopefully those too frightened to appear on mainstream news channels won't ever be in the position of Commander in Chief facing real enemies.

The DNC is proposing no alternatives outside of forced withdrawal and undermining the military commander they just confirmed for purely partisan reasons. If they are against the war they should vote to defund it. Period. They should not resort to real unconstitutional measures by trying to usurp executive branch authority because in addition to being scared of news channels that do not suck DNC cock, they also are afraid to actually have the moral courage to stand for something. Cowards.

[Evermore]

The DNC is proposing no alternatives outside of forced withdrawal and undermining the military commander they just confirmed for purely partisan reasons. If they are against the war they should vote to defund it. Period. They should not resort to real unconstitutional measures by trying to usurp executive branch authority because in addition to being scared of news channels that do not suck DNC cock, they also are afraid to actually have the moral courage to stand for something. Cowards.

Nothing the congress is doing is unconstitutional. period. this is fact and if you look Congress has excercised its right to restrain the president on more then 1 occasion. I posted a link on this somewhere ill find it and bump. face it this president has WAY overstepped his constitutionally granted role and needs to be restrained. There are no alternatives. Lyion you gotta faces facts. Iraq is lost and has been since the day we went it. We might as well colonize it cause at this point you either let it fall or take it over. there has been NO progress even with this troop surge the iraq puppet government cannot stand on its own and never will be able to. primarily because they will never be able to get all the factions to decide to live together.

jesus its way past time to cut the fucking cord

[Evermore]

Spazz,


The next president

[Arlos]

Oh please. You going to insult Obama for not appearing on KKK radio next? Fox is in no way an impartial news organization. Everyone knows this except those drinking the administration Kool-Aid. There is no way that Democratic candidates would get a fair deal or fair chance on any Fox debate, period. If I were a Democrat candidate, I wouldn't go on Fox either, and it'd have nothing to do with any commandments from MoveOn. (and I'd rather people got direction from a place like MoveOn than from Falwell or Robertson, or hell, Gengrich or DeLay. *cough* Abramoff *cough*)

Ideally, debates should be held on a neutral ground, say on PBS. But to expect people to voluntarily participate with an organization that they know is antithetical to them, and then slam them for not doing so is ludicrous.

Part of the problem with McCains "Stroll", was he tried to play it off like anyone could go do it, period. He NEVER mentioned the vast amounts of military protection he had with him whatsoever. OTHER people had to call attention to it, and frankly made him look ridiculous.

You also fail to understand the fact that the DNC would have supported following the Iraq Study Groups recommendations. It was a bipartisan panel, and it had broad support. Bush chose to toss it out of the window. For him to so utterly reject a comprehensive plan presented him, and then bitch about the other side not offering a plan is complete hypocrisy.

Lastly, as I said, I once had respect for the man, back in 2000. I wish he'd won then instead of Bush. Back then he actually said what he believed in, and was willing to buck his own party for positions he felt was right, especially theh divisive elements, like Rove & the religiosu right. Now, just look at how much he's been sucking up to Falwell, et al. By his shameless pandering for the sole purpose of trying to further his presidential campaign, AND by his adamant support of the war, he's abrogated that respect he once had.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

This manner of trying to direct Executive Branch activities to the military through legislation is indeed unconstitutional, as was Pelosi's trip to Syria and her faux state deparment-esque trial to be a diplomat. It's why you see her backpedalling so hard to say she wasn't doing diplomacy but just reinforcing the Bush message, which is complete bullshit, too.

Again, I respect those who feel the Iraq War is unwinnable, but I do not respect the craven way the DNC in congress is operating in trying to undermine the funding to the troops to try and have their cake and eat it to. Attempt to legislate an end to the war and demand withdrawal if that's what they want. Do not try and make the President order withdrawal. That is indeed not in their power or authority.

I agree with all of Mccain's points above, and I find it interesting Arlos immediately attacked Mccain, simply because he wasn't disagreeing with Bush, and he comically called one of the people who has been most critical of Ws administration a shill. If that isn't a great example of Rose Colored glasses, I don't know what is.

I agree that a military solution will not end the Iraq situation. However, the military can give the iraqi's enough time to stabilize their country enough that we can drawdown, which is what we are aiming for.

The simple truth is this, which was ignored:

Democrats argue we should redirect American resources to the ‘real’ war on terror, of which Iraq is just a sideshow. But whether or not al Qaeda terrorists were a present danger in Iraq before the war, there is no disputing they are there now, and their leaders recognize Iraq as the main battleground in the war on terror. Today, al Qaeda terrorists are the ones preparing the car bombs, firing the Katyusha rockets, planting the IEDs. They maneuver in the midst of Iraq’s sectarian conflict, sparking and fueling the horrendous violence, destroying efforts at political reconciliation, killing innocents on both sides in the hope of creating a conflagration that will cause Americans to lose heart and leave, so they can return to their primary mission — planning and executing attacks on the United States, and destabilizing America’s allies.

[Spazz]

Hes a clown too sadly. He says some good shit but he says some really off the wall things as well. Im pretty sure theres no way in hell RP would win in an election in the us anytime soon. Nigga talkin bout gettin rid of the cia and shit. I know you all think im like FUCK THE MAN but that seems a bad idea to me.


Healthcare/end of war on iraq/ Steps taken to slow down the patriot act and the war on drugs/ Pro gun/ Pro choice/ Pro gay marrige/ controll wasteful govt spending/ strong on the first ammendment/ Alternitive fuels clean air, water These are my issues and im feelin pretty alone


I havent seena candidate I could vote for and feel good about at the end of the day. Im really sick of the government bothering everyone, taxxing the fuck out of everyone and not doing anything to better our society.

[The Kizzy]

tldr

[Snero]

the american government has a responsibility to make sure there is some sort of stable government in place before they leave iraq. I would very much argue, like mccain, that if there is a pull out right now, it would leave to a massive civil war, probably a massive increase in murder (think bosnia). The need for an armed force there extends even beyond humanitarian reasons, if there is a pull out right now, you will be looking at another iran, another breeding ground for anti american sentiment.

I do not nor have I ever thought this war was justified in any way, but thats really not important at this point. The existing government was dismantled, and leaving it now will result in mass death and anarchy, and will probably end up with another anti american government in place.

[Spazz]

tldr

??

[The Kizzy]

it means too long didn't read. Basically, Lyion never comes up with anything original, he just cuts and pastes.

[Evermore]

This manner of trying to direct Executive Branch activities to the military through legislation is indeed unconstitutional, as was Pelosi's trip to Syria and her faux state deparment-esque trial to be a diplomat. It's why you see her backpedalling so hard to say she wasn't doing diplomacy but just reinforcing the Bush message, which is complete bullshit, too.

Again, I respect those who feel the Iraq War is unwinnable, but I do not respect the craven way the DNC in congress is operating in trying to undermine the funding to the troops to try and have their cake and eat it to. Attempt to legislate an end to the war and demand withdrawal if that's what they want. Do not try and make the President order withdrawal. That is indeed not in their power or authority.

I agree with all of Mccain's points above, and I find it interesting Arlos immediately attacked Mccain, simply because he wasn't disagreeing with Bush, and he comically called one of the people who has been most critical of Ws administration a shill. If that isn't a great example of Rose Colored glasses, I don't know what is.

I agree that a military solution will not end the Iraq situation. However, the military can give the iraqi's enough time to stabilize their country enough that we can drawdown, which is what we are aiming for.

The simple truth is this, which was ignored:

Democrats argue we should redirect American resources to the ‘real’ war on terror, of which Iraq is just a sideshow. But whether or not al Qaeda terrorists were a present danger in Iraq before the war, there is no disputing they are there now, and their leaders recognize Iraq as the main battleground in the war on terror. Today, al Qaeda terrorists are the ones preparing the car bombs, firing the Katyusha rockets, planting the IEDs. They maneuver in the midst of Iraq’s sectarian conflict, sparking and fueling the horrendous violence, destroying efforts at political reconciliation, killing innocents on both sides in the hope of creating a conflagration that will cause Americans to lose heart and leave, so they can return to their primary mission — planning and executing attacks on the United States, and destabilizing America’s allies.

Lyion you need to revisit this. Congress has right under the constitution to do reign this asshole in, and in just this manner. Here is one example from the NY Times.

Congress, the Constitution and War: The Limits on Presidential Power
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By ADAM COHEN
Published: January 29, 2007
President Bush doesn’t seem to care that Congress wants a bigger role in guiding the Iraq war. Talking about his plan to send in 20,000 additional troops, he said on “60 Minutes” that he knows Congress can vote against it, “but I’ve made my decision and we’re going forward.”

It is hardly the first time this president has insisted that he is “the decider,” or even the first time he’s used the Constitution to justify it, as Vice President Dick Cheney did when he told Fox News: “The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief.”

But Mr. Cheney told only half the story. Congress has war powers, too, and with 70 percent of Americans now opposed to President Bush’s handling of the war, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, it is becoming more assertive about them. Congress is poised to pass a resolution denouncing the troop increase. Down the line, Congress may well consider mandatory caps on the number of troops in Iraq, or setting a date for withdrawal.

If it does, we may be headed toward a constitutional clash, with the administration trying to read powers into the Constitution — as it has with its “enemy combatant” doctrine and presidential “signing statements” — that the Founders did not put there. The Constitution’s drafters were intent on balancing power so no one branch could drift toward despotism. The system of checks and balances that runs through the document divides the war power between the president and Congress.

The Constitution’s provision that the president is the commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.

But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” By “declare war,” the Constitution’s framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope — European powers might fight a naval battle in the Americas, for example, but not battle on their own continent. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration.

The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
In the early days of the republic, the Supreme Court made clear that Congress could limit the president’s war powers — notably in the Flying Fish case. In 1799, during the “Quasi War,” the undeclared sea war between the United States and France, Congress authorized President John Adams to clamp down on trade between the two nations by stopping ships headed to French ports. But Adams went further, ordering commanders to stop ships that were sailing to or from a French port.

When the Flying Fish was seized while sailing from a French port — something Congress had not authorized — the ship’s owner sued. The Supreme Court decided in his favor, ruling that the president had no right to issue the order he did. John Marshall, the nation’s greatest chief justice, declared that even in a time of hostilities, a president’s decision to act militarily beyond what Congress had authorized was “unlawful.”

The court has repeatedly reinforced this principle. In 1952, in the steel seizure case, it ruled that President Harry Truman could not seize steel mills to avert a strike — even though steel was needed for the Korean War — because Congress had set out a different way of handling the labor unrest. More recently, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it held that President Bush must follow Congressional guidelines when he sets up military tribunals for detainees.

Past Congresses have enacted just the sort of restrictions the Bush administration is trying to foreclose today. During the Vietnam War, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 capped the number of American military personnel in South Vietnam at 4,000 within six months. The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983 required the president to get Congress’s approval for any substantial increase in the number or role of armed forces in Lebanon.

There is little question that Congress could use its power of the purse to end a war. But cutting off financing is a drastic step, and one that members of Congress are understandably reluctant to take, because it can look like a refusal to support the troops. The Constitution’s text, Supreme Court cases and history show, however, that Congress can instead pass laws that set the terms of military engagement. Whether it would be wise for Congress to adopt such limits is debatable; whether it has the authority to do so should not be.

The Bush administration insists that if Congress tries to manage the Iraq war, it will leave the commander in chief with too little authority. But the greater danger is the one Madison recognized at the nation’s founding — that all the power will be left with the person “most interested in war, and most prone to it.”

[Lyion]

it means too long didn't read. Basically, Lyion never comes up with anything original, he just cuts and pastes.

Ok......

[Lyion]

The article moreso reinforces my point and ignores the simple fact of what the responsibilities of the individual branches are, Evermore. It tries to play that past incorrect legislation is the basis for future unconstitutional pieces.

This guys final paragraph reinforces my point that Congress is playing a political game with this legislation.

There is little question that Congress could use its power of the purse to end a war. But cutting off financing is a drastic step, and one that members of Congress are understandably reluctant to take, because it can look like a refusal to support the troops. .

This doesn't seem like a very fair article? Congress can ignore it's duty and roles, because it may make them look responsible. Maybe this guy should moderate a debate for the DNC!

I disagree that Congress has the ability based on the constitution to impose itself into the Commander in Chiefs duties or responsibilities, regardless of if it has in the past.

Read up on FDR and how much power he had, Ever, and his interworkings with Congress and what was considered constitutional. Compare it to today.

The simple fact is Congress is playing politics with legislation trying to usurp authority from the White House, instead of doing their role and either funding or defunding the war. It is indeed trying to have its cake and eat it, too.

[Evermore]

truth is not always fair sir. You may disagree but its the truth not an interpretation. Bush is way way out of line.

The Bush administration insists that if Congress tries to manage the Iraq war, it will leave the commander in chief with too little authority. But the greater danger is the one Madison recognized at the nation’s founding — that all the power will be left with the person “most interested in war, and most prone to it.”

and none of this changes the fact we need to cut our losses and get out.

[Lyion]

So, why not just legislate defunding the war which is easily in their purview, instead of trying to 'manage the Iraq War' which is certainly debatably unconstitutional?

Again, it's attempting to get their way without being responsible.

[Evermore]

So, why not just legislate defunding the war which is easily in their purview, instead of trying to 'manage the Iraq War' which is certainly debatably unconstitutional?

Again, it's attempting to get their way without being responsible.

actually they are trying to force the president's hand without making the troops suffer.

[Eziekial]

I've been commenting alot about this debate since before the first shot was fired. I was for going after Al Qaeda through covert ops in the hopes that we would dismantle the organization and post Osama's severed head on you-tube. However in a rush to kill two birds with one stone we have a big mess now in Iraqi. I've lost all hope for humanity and civilization in the middle east and all trust with our government (both sides of the isle mind you) so now I actually want the democrates to win, for them to pull our troops out immediately and the complete collapse of of Iraqi, which will take with it most of the middle east with it and likely large parts of Africa.
There is no reconcilliation with this part of the world. It just needs to strangle itself to death and be done with it.