Iraq resolutions: Three views

Still catching up on notes and video from the Monday and Tuesday meetings with Sens. DeMint and Graham. Here’s what Sen. DeMint had to say about the anti-Surge nonbinding referendum:

And here’s what Sen. Graham had to say:

For an interesting, other-than-the-usual contrast, here’s what fellow Republican Bob Inglis had to say over on the House floor explaining why he voted FOR the resolution. Either follow the link to the whole thing, or be satisfied with this excerpt:

The President has ordered an increase in troop strength in Iraq.
He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing room for the development of a path to progress.
I’m concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect—that it will give breathing room to the death squads, that our service men and women will be caught in the crossfire and that the surge will end right where it began.
In fact, that’s what happened in Baghdad in August and September of 2006.
I’m concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one hand we’re telling them, “You don’t have forever; you’ve got to make progress in solving these political questions; you’ve got to stop legging up on your enemies; it’s your country.”
By surging, we may be saying, “Not to worry, we’re increasing the size of that American security umbrella; there’s no urgency; we’re here to stay; in fact, more of us are coming.”
I want all Iraqi factions and leaders of factions to worry.
I want them to see us reaching for the button that would bring that umbrella down.
I want them to imagine the click of that button and the feel of the wind from the descending umbrella.
The resolution before us isn’t written the way I would have written it, but it’s the resolution before us.
Resolutions are the way that Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate with the President.
This resolution says, “We disapprove of the surge.”

You decide which one you think is right. I’ve got a column to write for Sunday, on another subject.

12 thoughts on “Iraq resolutions: Three views

  1. Brad Warthen

    I’m sorry you had trouble. I just checked, and they both worked for me.
    Please try them again a little later, and let me know if you’re still having trouble.

  2. Brad Warthen

    And if anyone else has trouble, let me know.
    Actually, if you DON’T have trouble, let me know. Maybe I’m the only one it’s working for. I hope not. Putting those things up is time-consuming. But if they work for people, I think it’s worthwhile.

  3. bill

    I finally got both to work,but they were initially setting up separate tabs to You Tube and failing to load.Seems OK,now.

  4. bud

    Brad, I got it to work. It was probably the computer I was on.
    The senators place the burden of proof on the wrong people. They couch it like this: “Those who want to pull out need to tell us what will happen if we do”. This is wrong. The pro-war people need to make a case that pulling out will be bad for the region and, more importantly, American security. Frankly, they haven’t even come close to making that case. It’s just a bunch of scare tactics.
    One huge lesson that we should learn from Iraq is that it is far easier to get into a war that to get out of one. Since there is no coherent reason left to stay and we still can’t get out this lesson needs to be learned by all future presidents who want to play games with our military.

  5. Brad Warthen

    Ironically, after all that worry about the videos, the thing that didn’t work for me was my link to Inglis’ entire speech.
    It’s working now. Sorry for any inconvenience.

  6. bud

    Let’s play who said it. What famous American said this?
    “The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”
    Was it:
    A. Jane Fonda
    B. Dennis Kucinich
    C. Al Franken
    D. Dick Cheney
    If you answered Dick Cheney you win the prize! An all expense paid trip to beeeeautiful Red Bank, South Carolina. Yes it was Vice himself in 1991 when reporters were questioning then Secretary of Defense Cheney to explain why the coalition stopped short of Baghdad after the first Gulf war. His words sound downright prescient in terms of the current situation.

  7. bud

    Not all Democrats were on board with the Decider. Here are a few words from ex VP Al Gore in 2002:
    I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability
    to lead the world in this new century,” Gore said. “To put first things first, I believe that we ought to be
    focusing our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on Sept. 11. …
    “Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.”
    It’s nothing but a conservative spin point to claim that everyone believed there were WMD and therefore supported the Iraq war effort in 2002.

  8. bud

    The more I watch Lindsey Graham the less I like him. He was on Meet the Press this morning and he continues to misinterpret both the election and the latest polls. Although a solid majority of Americans oppose the surge he interpreted the poll results to suggest they show the American people want to win in Iraq. Now how absurd is that?
    He has become a genuine ideologue for the war-mongering lost cause. He simply fails to see the truth in his blind support for stay the course. I counted 4 times mentioning General Petraeus. He’s just using the general as a security blanket. Come on Lindsey, be a man. This surge nonsense is your plan. Admit it as such and maybe I can at least have a bit of respect for you. Otherwise you come across as a political coward.

Comments are closed.