|
She just finished working on it and wanted me to review it and I was impressed. She may have to shorten it as they have space limits, hope not. We live in a repub area so this could be interesting.
"As the world embarks on a new year, many people make new year's resolutions. Some promise to get organized while others decide to lose weight, our President however, has made it his goal to salvage some sort of victory in Iraq. His "last ditch effort," as it is commonly referred to, consists of having a surge of 21,500 additional U.S. troops in Iraq.
The majority of Democrats (92 percent), a surprising number of Republicans and Bush loyalists (31 percent), as well as most Americans (68 percent) oppose his plan. In fact, the only ones who appear even slightly enthusiastic about the "surge" are neo-conservatives - those who led the drive into Iraq, and two of their increasingly small number of Congressional supporters: Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman.
Many reporters and television hosts are also in opposition to an escalation of troops, including Keith Olbermann of MSNBC who stated to Mr. Bush on his show that, "You have lost the military. You have lost the Congress to the Democrats. You have lost most of the Iraqis. You have lost many of the Republicans. You have lost our allies.You are losing the credibility, not just of your presidency, but more importantly of the office itself. And most imperatively, you are guaranteeing that more American troops will be losing their lives, and more families their loved ones. You are guaranteeing it!"
President Bush, who has recently received his lowest ratings so far for his handling of the war (24 percent) and terrorism (41 percent) - told a group of U.S. television stations that "I believe it will work." Also, despite the fact that almost half of all respondents in the latest NEWSWEEK poll (46 percent) want to see American troops pulled out "as soon as possible," Bush states "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."
Even more shocking, last November Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his National Security Adviser proposed that U.S. troops withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad and let Iraqis take over security in the strife-torn capital. Maliki stated that he did not want any more U.S. troops at all, just more authority. According to accounts from several administration officials, Bush seemed to have listened intently to the unexpected proposal and even impressed that Maliki had taken the initiative, but it did not take him long to reject the idea. The President flatly told his advisers that the Maliki plan was not going to work because the Iraqis were not up to the task.
Now, even his own military commanders are telling him no more troops are needed. Army Gens. John P. Abizaid, the Middle East commander, and George W. Casey Jr., the commander in Iraq, opposed the influx of U.S. forces because they were unconvinced it would change the dynamics on the ground. However, Bush still believes it is best to try once again to put an end to sectarian violence in Baghdad, even if it's at the risk of putting more U.S. soldiers into a crossfire between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
Commander George Casey attempted to compromise by asking for two more brigades for Baghdad, plus a third that would be stationed in Kuwait as a reserve and two others that would be put on call back in the United States, but Bush decided that was not enough. Instead, Bush decided to replace Casey with Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus who was supportive of more troops than Casey requested.
Democrats are now faced with the responsibility of countering President Bush's horrible plan by finding a way to keep him from implementing a surge as well as proposing another plan in its place. One possible option includes placing restrictions on spending, however some are unsure that this will be beneficial.
"How do you cut off funding without putting existing troops at risk?" asked Rep. Adam Smith. Yet at the same time Smith feels that Bush's plan is not sufficient to lift the country from civil war and stabilize the government.
Many are now seeing stark similarities between Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. Representative Jay Inslee commented saying, "There are 15,000 to 20,000 names on the (Vietnam Memorial) Wall because Congress did not stop a misguided policy. Congress needs to stand up to the president."
On January 17, 2007, three Congresswomen did just that. At Capitol Hill they spoke out against an escalation of troops in Iraq, and laid out an alternative plan to the “Bush Way Forward”. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Barbara Lee, and Rep. Maxine Waters introduced the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act.
“Last Wednesday night, President Bush demonstrated to the world that he continues to deny the realities on the ground in Iraq. Instead of putting forth a plan that would withdraw our troops, the President is increasing our military presence, by escalating the number of troops by over twenty thousand. What the President fails to grasp is that our military presence is only fueling the insurgency, plunging Iraq further into chaos and civil war,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey.
The bill, which was proposed in response to President Bush’s challenge for anyone who opposes his plan to come up with one of their own, lays out a comprehensive plan as to the cost and framework for a withdrawal from Iraq. It establishes a 6-month timeframe to withdraw all military forces currently stationed in Iraq, creates a basic framework which would provide stability in Iraq during and after the troop withdrawal, and guarantees full health care funding for our veterans. It also accelerates the training of Iraqi security forces and authorizes an international stabilization force if requested by the Iraqi government. However, such a force would only be funded for two years and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance. In addition it repeals the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq, prevents construction of permanent military bases in the country, and states that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. All of this done so for just pennies on the dollar in comparison to how much we are currently spending to fund the war in Iraq."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
