Supporters of 'No Confidence' Resolutions

[au9596 0]

I could not agree more. Also a waste of time.

McCain Calls Supporters of 'No Confidence' Resolutions Intellectually Dishonest

Sunday , February 04, 2007

WASHINGTON —

Senate Republicans will oppose Democratic efforts to open debate Monday on a non-binding resolution against President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

A day before the possible debate, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain, slammed the legislation and its supporters as wrong.

The resolution sponsored by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., declares that the Senate disagrees with the president's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq and lays out alternatives such as moving troops away from the sectarian violence and closer to the Iraq border to provide territorial integrity.

The measure also urges more regional diplomacy, which Democrats and some Republicans say is key to ending the sectarian violence, and in an effort to attract more GOP support, it includes a provision specifically pledging to protect money for troops in combat.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said Sunday the resolution would make it clear that the Senate is opposed to the president's policy while still supporting the troops.

"It doesn't say we cut-and-run, does not say we withdraw, does not say we withdraw any funding for troops there," said Hagel, who appeared on ABC's "This Week."

But that's the problem with it, said 2008 presidential hopeful McCain. McCain, who appeared on the same show as Hagel, argued that the resolution sends the wrong message and those who support it are intellectually dishonest.

"I hope they keep in mind that this is fundamentally a vote of no confidence in the people that we are sending on this mission in harm's way. We are telling them we support you but we believe your mission will fail. We don't believe what you're doing," McCain said.

"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it," he added.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has accused Republicans of trying to dodge the debate on Iraq, saying if the Republican leadership filibusters a bipartisan resolution rejecting the president's escalation plan, it would be an abdication of their responsibility to the American people.

McConnell said he will continue to negotiate with Reid but that he expects all 49 Republicans will vote no on the procedural motions to commence debate on the non-binding resolution. The effect will be a filibuster, preventing the Senate from reaching the 61 votes needed to start the debate.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called GOP efforts to block a vote on the resolution "obstructionism." Neither a Senate majority nor voters, she said, will tolerate such a delaying tactic.

"If we can't get this done, you can be sure a month or so down the pike, there's going to be much stronger legislation," she said.

Several Democrats want binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.

To rally Republicans, McCain has offered a separate resolution expressing support for a troop increase and setting benchmark goals for the Iraqi government.

That language, Hagel said, is feckless because it does not state consequences for the Iraqi government if it fails to meet benchmarks for political and military successes.

"What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."

"We can't change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war," he added.

The resolution debate comes as the White House and congressional Democrats prepared to square off over war spending.

Bush's new budget on Monday will ask for $100 billion more for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year — on top of $70 billion already approved by Congress for the current year. The budget will call for $145 billion in war spending for 2008.

The spending request covers Bush's new war strategy, including the increase in troops, White House budget director Rob Portman said Sunday.

"It's extremely important that we support our troops," Portman said. He described the requested money as the amount needed "to be sure our troops have the equipment they need, that they are taken care of well."

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Let's see what the troops have to say and not the politicians.

Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause

By Tom Lasseter

McClatchy Newspapers

"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."

"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight."

"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."

"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."

"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.

Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for Dunham's brigade, said he thinks there's a good chance that by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of Baghdad to Iraqi troops.

"I'm actually really positive," said Wendland, 35, of Chicago. "We have an Iraqi army that's actually capable of maintaining once we leave."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16616389.htm

Take it for what it's worth. To me a troop increase will only raise the number of targets for the insurgents. The whole thing is miserable failure. Just like everything else Bush has touched, it turns to $#@!.