“I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
But I know I'll be a law someday…
… At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.â€
- Schoolhouse Rock

A threat to morale of our troops? A source of aid and comfort to our enemies? An attack on our own soldiers and their families? What could the United States House of Representatives possibly be debating that would warrant those dire predictions from House Republicans? Is Congress debating an instant whole scale pullout from Iraq? No. Is the House urging that the United States negotiate with Osama Bin Laden? Nope. Then it must be a debate over impeaching the President of the United States right? No, not even close.

The House of Representatives is debating HR 157. A non binding bit of political theater that does nothing more than say that a simple majority of the members of the House feel that the current plan to send 20,000 plus additional troops to Iraq is a bad idea.

As my nephew would say …. Well Duh!

I watched the debate on CSPAN as did many Americans and what struck me was how both sides of the aisle in congress basically want the same thing. They want to blame the other side for Iraq. Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections on this issue. The American people issued a loud and clear vote of no confidence in President Bush’s approach to and leadership of the war in Iraq. The message was clear, the message was unambiguous and it was unmistakable. Get our troops out of Iraq.

Over 70% of the American people say they are opposed to proposed troop surge and the current strategy in Iraq. Yet Speaker Pelosi can’t bring a bill to the floor that simply says the President will have no money to send additional troops and he must start to redeploy the troops currently in Iraq.

Over the course of the debate on HR 157 I heard a parade of Republicans say
that to have a debate in our legislative branch of government on the issue of this war emboldens our enemies. Yet for 5 years those same Republicans kept saying that the terrorists attacked us because they “hate our freedomsâ€. So now our freedoms are emboldening the terrorists so we better not exercise them? Which is it?
Over the course of the debate on HR 157 I heard the same parade of Republicans say you can’t support the troops if you don’t support their mission.

If the mission is wrong, if the mission is fatally flawed , if the mission is ill-conceived, poorly planned and failing then the only true way to support the troops is to oppose the mission. The only true way to support the troops is to change the mission.. To continue to support a failed strategy is to deliberately place our troops in harms way. It is to deliberately and knowingly sacrifice the lives of America’s bravest and best to avoid admitting a mistake.

To support the proposed troop surge in Iraq is to attack our troops and their families not support them.

But rather than stand up and say that, the congressional Democrats promptly danced around the issue. They want to stop the surge, but they don’t want to stop the money, because stopping the money can be spun by Republicans as cutting off support to our troops. And make no mistake, for the Republicans that is their holy grail. This debate is not about winning the “War on Terrorâ€, it isn’t even about Iraq. For the GOP it is about campaign ads in 2008 where they can claim the Democrats didn’t support our troops. It is not about winning the war, it is about winning back a congressional majority. And sadly, the Democrats fell for it. For the Democrats in Congress it isn’t about Iraq either. It is about a paralyzing fear of those potential GOP campaign ads in 2008. It is not about ending this absurd misbegotten war, it is about a fear of losing their congressional majority.

Never before in American history as there been such a pronounced absence of rational leadership in our federal government. Congress is fiddling while Iraq burns, fueled by a sectarian civil war and American lives. The President of The United States, who twice swore a oath on the bible to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, has made his legacy one of ignoring it.

The time has come to stand up. The time has come to pull our government, our nation and our democracy back from the cliff that this Administration would lead us all off of, and which Congress would follow like lemmings to the sea. The time has come for leadership.

Then maybe we will get actual solutions, instead of just another bill.

Whatever you have to do, set up an up and down vote on some resolution. If the Republicans want to filibuster it, you get your debate. If they don't, then we get them on record for the 2008 election.

It's a win/win. Just do it.

Better yet. Put up their resolution and we filibuster it.

Posted by dpfabie on February 15, 2007 at 07:11 PM

Oh, I think things were pretty screwed up before the Civil War, during Vietnam. and any number of other times in our history.

Without a parlimentary form of government, you run into these log jams that turn into frustration and anger among the electorate.

It's a shame the nation's capitol is so far away from most of it's citizens. Those serving as our federal government can hide from the rath of the voters far too easy between elections.

But with that said, I really don't think the Republicans are going to be able to hold it together till November, 2007. Many of them have lost hope of a miracle getting them off the hook for Bush's incompetence. They are ready for change as much as we are.

What's with the Resolution Grandstanding BS? Have some backbone and terminate the funding for Bush's War! Period!!!!! Impeach Bush! Remove Bush from office! Put Bush in jail for not fulfilling his Constitutional obligations as President! Period!!!!!

Hey DFD. You might want to read the constitution. We don't impeach for incompetence, just crimes. No crime in being wrong, or even foolish. Don't let that founding document get in the way of your left wing rant though.

Bill Clinton.

Touche.

I agree that Bill Clinton was incompetent, but you're conveniently forgetting that his impeachment problem was perjury, not simply incompetence.

As far as Irag goes, I am always wary of simple soutions to complex problems. It's always easier, for some, to just quit and leave, isn't it?

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT IN IRAQ!

Cut off the damn funds, bring the National Guard home, and get Bin Laden- NOW!

Non binding resolution whoa! sounds like a job for Pepto-Bismol, means nothing does nothing sounds like the democrat party. Our troops have been fighting and dying with a retarded jackass on their backs known as the democrat party!

Your scumbag leader bubba neglected and de-funded our military and intel services for 8 years and did nothing about numerous terrorist attacks and then 9/11, what a surprise! You are not worthy of your citizenship!

A DIPLOMATIC SURGE

The Republican Party's surge in Iraq, now dubbed "Operation Law and Order", defy's logic. Earlier this week we learn of Al Sadr's move to Iran. No kidding. Did anybody think the "bad guys" were going to sit around and wait until our troops came knocking? Of course they were going to disperse - for as long as the surge was mounted.

According to Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, the reduction in violence this week he attributes not only to the increased security presence but also to an apparent decision by the militias and insurgents to lay low for a while.

The very notion of a "surge" suggests a specified period of time that we would have an increased presence. Our language telegraphs our intention: increased U.S. troop presence for the short-term. And if you were in their shoes what would you do? Wait it out? Head for higher ground for a period? Go to Iran as apparently Al Sadr has? Their options are numerous. Yet, once we begin to pull back these militias will return. Such is the nature of civil war and the tactics of guerilla warfare.

According to the Associated Press, in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, "U.S. forces are under sharply escalating attacks from Sunni Muslim insurgents — suggesting that some groups have shifted from Baghdad to other areas to sidestep the crackdown in the capital."

So what made this predictable outcome surprising? Only that the architects of this latest surge were unable to predict this as a logical consequence of our increased presence. We push them in Baghdad and they pop up in Diyala province. For all the so-called intelligence involved in this latest surge of troops, it would seem a basic understanding of guerilla warfare has been missed - once again.

The Democrats, however, have also missed a crucial opportunity to re-focus our mission in Iraq. For weeks our nation sat on the edge of our collective seats waiting for the wisdom of the Baker-Hamilton Report. Yet Bush has effectively moth-balled their recommendations and the Democrats have allowed him to get away with it.

Bush and key Republican leaders echo in unison: "The Democrats don't have a solution." Well, Baker-Hamiliton is the best blueprint yet and they called for a diplomatic surge, not a military one. Democratic Party leaders need to dust off the Iraqi Study Group's recommendations and emphasize the necessity of a bi-partisan approach to solving the Iraq problem. Once again, Bush and Republican leaders seem unable to understand the importance of having a bi-partisan approach when taking our nation to war.

Isn't it high time that we ask all politicians to put our nation's interests ahead of their political parties? It's time to end political sloganeering and instead identify a mission that the American people are able to strongly endorse. Congressional leaders should offer a resolution with bi-partisan support to embrace the Iraqi Study Group's recommendations with an emphasis on diplomatic efforts to bring all parties together.

That would be a mission to truly get behind.

Response to A DIPLOMATIC SURGE

It never ceases to amaze me how people, in an effort to make their case, are either ignorant of the facts, or are simply disregarding the facts in order to convince others who are equally ignorant. If you're going to use the Iraq Study Report to make your case, at least have the decency to read it first, and then be accurate in providing information.

The Iraq Study DOES actually recommend a temporary increase in troop strength WHILE increasing diplomatic efforts in the region. Here is a QUOTE from the Executive Summary, Page 16:

"The Iraqi Government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi brigades. While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq."

It then goes on to suggest that the redeployment begin, AS APPROPRIATE, around the first quarter of 2008.

It is no wonder the American people become misinformed when people, and media, like Dunkling misinform those people.

If you're going to use the Iraq Study, or any other document for that matter, for your source, at the very least you should read it first.

I just don't get. Maybe I'm dense. What the hell is the point. This is much ado about nothing.

I just don't get. Maybe I'm dense. What the hell is the point? This is much ado about nothing.

To quote above: "Democrats are determined to give our troops and the American people the debate they deserve." It appears the debate is simply what can we do that is anti-Bush. While I can appreciate this, it is not the debate our country needs. We need to debate and clearly re-establish our National Priorities. Is a stable Iraq a national priority? If it is, how do the Democrats presume to achieve it? Simply calling for an end to one policy without providing any ideas for a new priority or policy and failing to address the consequences of the chosen policy is not leadership. It is politics - blaming the other side and generating fear. Hopefully the Senate can find a way to rise above that.