Summarized Article by Jeff Zelany, The New York Times
President Bush begged and pleaded last night, and today, he still got coal in his stocking. Last night, Bush asked during the State of the Union that Congress give his new Iraq strategy of sending 21,500 troops Baghdad's way a chance to work out. But the Senate was unfazed and today approved a resolution that denounces Bush's plan. A nonbinding resolution is now in the works by the full Senate to show a sign of disapproval for Bush's plan.
Also unfazed, Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN that the Senate's move "won't stop us."
The move passed the Foreign Relations Committee 12-9 with one Republican siding with the Democrats. Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican, voted against the resolution, but felt that a troop surge is not the right way to go and that a new direction for Iraq was needed.
--
Dick Cheney symbolized again the entire problem with the Republican party as a majority during his CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer. Simply put, they don't compromise, and can't even agree to disagree. And obviously, Mr. Cheney has no tact. Moving forward, this resolution has no direct impact on what Bush can actually do at this point, however it does set up a showdown between the Capitol and the White House, as Congress tries to determine at what level they can control the troop surge. It's apparent that Bush is trying to solve the problem, but when your fellow Republicans are questioning your strategy, it seems obvious to at least listen to their opinions -- much less that of the Democratic majority. Look for this issue to heat up in the coming weeks as Congress and the President go at an all-out politcal, white-haired, expense-trip cage match.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Bush enters final two years with subdued tone
Summarized Article by Steve Holland, Washington Post [Reuters]
Last night, President Bush gave his annual State of the Union in a much different tone. There was no "Axis of Evil", no enriched Uranium in Africa, and no more "addicted to oil" lines. Instead, Bush seemingly played it safe. The low-key address featured the usual -- foreign policy, healthcare, education, and economics. He started off by trying the bridge the gap between the aisles, and later informed the nation that a plan was in the works to dilvuge the nation's debt without raising taxes. Holland [the writer] commented on the fact that Bush, now 60, is showing the wear and tear of the role with graying hair and more wrinkles on his face. Bush praised his No Child Left Behind program -- despite some states now banning it -- and, as a few lawmakers said, left the door open for a good start to negotiations on domestic issues.
--
It's funny what a Democratic Congress, slumping popularity numbers, and a crisis in Iraq can do to one while standing in front of the nation. Bush left out any points that would cause a stir and especially avoided making bold statements. [See: uranium being enriched for Iraqi use in Africa -- a complete falsehood] He led a low-key speech that will be forgotten by this time next week because it essentially did nothing. It stated everything that Congress already knew, and praised a couple of measures that have passed under his watch. You can't fault Bush for this because after all, he does have 2 years left and needs to salvage his numbers somehow, in addition to working the Iraq issue. He needs to make friends -- or at least people who will listen -- on the other side of the aisle in Congress. But come on George, where are these hydrogen cars you talked about a few years back?
Last night, President Bush gave his annual State of the Union in a much different tone. There was no "Axis of Evil", no enriched Uranium in Africa, and no more "addicted to oil" lines. Instead, Bush seemingly played it safe. The low-key address featured the usual -- foreign policy, healthcare, education, and economics. He started off by trying the bridge the gap between the aisles, and later informed the nation that a plan was in the works to dilvuge the nation's debt without raising taxes. Holland [the writer] commented on the fact that Bush, now 60, is showing the wear and tear of the role with graying hair and more wrinkles on his face. Bush praised his No Child Left Behind program -- despite some states now banning it -- and, as a few lawmakers said, left the door open for a good start to negotiations on domestic issues.
--
It's funny what a Democratic Congress, slumping popularity numbers, and a crisis in Iraq can do to one while standing in front of the nation. Bush left out any points that would cause a stir and especially avoided making bold statements. [See: uranium being enriched for Iraqi use in Africa -- a complete falsehood] He led a low-key speech that will be forgotten by this time next week because it essentially did nothing. It stated everything that Congress already knew, and praised a couple of measures that have passed under his watch. You can't fault Bush for this because after all, he does have 2 years left and needs to salvage his numbers somehow, in addition to working the Iraq issue. He needs to make friends -- or at least people who will listen -- on the other side of the aisle in Congress. But come on George, where are these hydrogen cars you talked about a few years back?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
New General in charge of Bush's plan is confident; calls Iraq situation "dire"
Linked article By Ann Scott Tyson and Daniela Deane, Washington Post
In a meeting with Senate Armed Services committee today, the new leader picked by President Bush to head up the new surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq referred to this step as the "last chance" for Iraq, despite being cautiously optimistic for democracy to take hold in the war-torn country. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, likely to be approved later this week by Congress, called the situation in Iraq "dire", but anticipated seeing positive reaction to the increased number of troops by late summer. The last of the five brigades are scheduled to arrive on the ground in late May. Before this most recent build-up, over 132,000 American troops are currently serving the country in an attempt to quell sectarian violence and promote democracy.
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) -- a proponent of Bush's strategy -- asked Petraeus how long the troop increase could be sustained.
"I am keenly aware of the strain," said Petraeus, only mentioning how he felt the military is currently at a state where it could not equally respond to another situation immediately. He also welcomed Bush's idea to increase the size of U.S. forces over the next five years.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York, who announced her intention to run for Presidency last weekend, also questioned Petraeus. The two had a somewhat tense exchange when Petraeus said he felt that the disagreement between American's over the troop surge could be hurting the situation in Iraq. Clinton responded by saying she felt that the idea is to put more pressure on the Iraqi government.
--
While it was rare for an active-duty officer to speak out against current Congressional matters, Petraeus certainly did so when questioned by Clinton. But who is right, are the Iraqi's feeling pressure or are they laughing at the controversey in the U.S.? Petraeus also commented about how this is the "last chance" for America to succeed in Iraq -- a phrase that if taken literally could furrow Bush's brows. In fact, time is running out for this campaign, despite the limited successes we've seen in the ravaged country. An interesting note from today's news was the fact that top generals don't feel they could successfully enter into another operation as forces are currently spread too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, which shows that any possibility of dealing with Iran or North Korea, as has been subtlely hinted at, isn't very realistic. Personally, I find that news as a relief because instead of spreading democracy, we have plenty of international relations to mend. In the mean time, it apparently is now or never for the Iraq situation, and it makes you wonder what is going to happen after late summer or if more weekends like this past one will instigate a resolve in the American people to bring the troops back on a much quicker pace.
Side note: It is funny what headlines can do to you, as the Washington Post reads "Petraeus Confident in New Iraq Strategy" and Yahoo! News reads "U.S. General Calls Iraq Situation Dire" . The same article, ultimately, but just skimming the headlines can fool you. Never judge a book by its cover.
State of the Union is tonight ... plenty on that tomorrow.
In a meeting with Senate Armed Services committee today, the new leader picked by President Bush to head up the new surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq referred to this step as the "last chance" for Iraq, despite being cautiously optimistic for democracy to take hold in the war-torn country. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, likely to be approved later this week by Congress, called the situation in Iraq "dire", but anticipated seeing positive reaction to the increased number of troops by late summer. The last of the five brigades are scheduled to arrive on the ground in late May. Before this most recent build-up, over 132,000 American troops are currently serving the country in an attempt to quell sectarian violence and promote democracy.
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) -- a proponent of Bush's strategy -- asked Petraeus how long the troop increase could be sustained.
"I am keenly aware of the strain," said Petraeus, only mentioning how he felt the military is currently at a state where it could not equally respond to another situation immediately. He also welcomed Bush's idea to increase the size of U.S. forces over the next five years.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York, who announced her intention to run for Presidency last weekend, also questioned Petraeus. The two had a somewhat tense exchange when Petraeus said he felt that the disagreement between American's over the troop surge could be hurting the situation in Iraq. Clinton responded by saying she felt that the idea is to put more pressure on the Iraqi government.
--
While it was rare for an active-duty officer to speak out against current Congressional matters, Petraeus certainly did so when questioned by Clinton. But who is right, are the Iraqi's feeling pressure or are they laughing at the controversey in the U.S.? Petraeus also commented about how this is the "last chance" for America to succeed in Iraq -- a phrase that if taken literally could furrow Bush's brows. In fact, time is running out for this campaign, despite the limited successes we've seen in the ravaged country. An interesting note from today's news was the fact that top generals don't feel they could successfully enter into another operation as forces are currently spread too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, which shows that any possibility of dealing with Iran or North Korea, as has been subtlely hinted at, isn't very realistic. Personally, I find that news as a relief because instead of spreading democracy, we have plenty of international relations to mend. In the mean time, it apparently is now or never for the Iraq situation, and it makes you wonder what is going to happen after late summer or if more weekends like this past one will instigate a resolve in the American people to bring the troops back on a much quicker pace.
Side note: It is funny what headlines can do to you, as the Washington Post reads "Petraeus Confident in New Iraq Strategy" and Yahoo! News reads "U.S. General Calls Iraq Situation Dire" . The same article, ultimately, but just skimming the headlines can fool you. Never judge a book by its cover.
State of the Union is tonight ... plenty on that tomorrow.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Republican Opposition to Iraq Plan Grows
Article by David Espo, Associated Press
Continuing the trend of pulling away from their same-party President, Republicans in the US Congress today spoke out against President Bush's new plan to increase the troop level in Iraq by 21,500 troops. Doubt is continuing to mount for this President as he prepares to deliver his 7th State of the Union Address Tuesday night from Washington. The U.S. has lost 3,000 troops in Iraq since 2003, despite overthrowing the Hussein regime early in the campaign. Last weekend was particulary bloody in and around Baghdad, as 27 troops were killed in a two-day period. Sen. Susan Collins said, "We've had four other surges since we first went to Iraq. None of the them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground." The Republicans, while still indicating faith in Bush, have suggested the Administration create "strategic benchmarks" for the sputtering Iraqi government in the fight against sectarian violence in the middle-eastern country.
This news rings very similar to what the Democrats had to say after the election, when they won back both the House and the Senate. However, I don't this effort by Republicans is going to make a direct impact on Bush's plans for Iraq, as none of the Republicans listed have a great impact on Congress. Sure, Bush is starting to feel the heat, but this "Mission Accomplished" Iraq situation is getting worse day by day. I feel that more troops could be helpful, but only for a short period, and only used in effective hot spots in the country. Otherwise, we need to work much harder with the Iraqi government to start building itself and letting go of it's American crutch, because this situation has reached a dire state on whether democracy in the Middle East can actually survive.
Continuing the trend of pulling away from their same-party President, Republicans in the US Congress today spoke out against President Bush's new plan to increase the troop level in Iraq by 21,500 troops. Doubt is continuing to mount for this President as he prepares to deliver his 7th State of the Union Address Tuesday night from Washington. The U.S. has lost 3,000 troops in Iraq since 2003, despite overthrowing the Hussein regime early in the campaign. Last weekend was particulary bloody in and around Baghdad, as 27 troops were killed in a two-day period. Sen. Susan Collins said, "We've had four other surges since we first went to Iraq. None of the them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground." The Republicans, while still indicating faith in Bush, have suggested the Administration create "strategic benchmarks" for the sputtering Iraqi government in the fight against sectarian violence in the middle-eastern country.
This news rings very similar to what the Democrats had to say after the election, when they won back both the House and the Senate. However, I don't this effort by Republicans is going to make a direct impact on Bush's plans for Iraq, as none of the Republicans listed have a great impact on Congress. Sure, Bush is starting to feel the heat, but this "Mission Accomplished" Iraq situation is getting worse day by day. I feel that more troops could be helpful, but only for a short period, and only used in effective hot spots in the country. Otherwise, we need to work much harder with the Iraqi government to start building itself and letting go of it's American crutch, because this situation has reached a dire state on whether democracy in the Middle East can actually survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)