Got a hot tip?
Drop us a line!

Subscribe

Links:

Site search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Hanlon: "Understood! And you do make an excellent point. Blag’s within his authority to appoint the guy,..."
  • Dormilona: "P.S. My fury was aimed at the source article (the one on the link) NOT at your commentary, Hanlon!"
  • Dormilona: "My New Year’s Resolution: Shut up and get a life. Just something to “work towards.” *_*"
  • Dormilona: "What infuriates me is that the paragraph (”The dispute had taken on racial..."
  • Rechan: "I don’t have resolutions. I know they’re a bunch of bull. Not the desire to improve is useless,..."

 

January 2007
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives

Older Articles

Congress and Administration clash over Iraq

by Hanlon on January 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm

I see the stormclouds a-brewin’ overhead. Right out of the cannon, we’ve got the Senate Foreign Relations Committee soundly rejecting Bush’s little “surge” plan. It’s a nice gesture, and certainly a start in the right direction.

The Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution by a vote of 12 to 9, with a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, joining 11 Democrats in supporting it. But even Republicans who opposed the resolution, including Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, expressed deep doubt about whether the troop increase could succeed and suggested it was time for a new direction.

Some Republicans expressed reluctance to support the legislation because they feared it could be seen as a political attack on Mr. Bush, but left themselves open to backing a similar plan offered by Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican.

What baffles me is that, at this stage in the game, Republicans are afraid to say what they really thing about the Iraq situation for political reasons (think about all of those times Democrats have been blasted for going only by polls). These people disagree with the surge, and they actually do support the legislation, but they won’t vote for it for fear of… attacking the president?

I think this is a good time to throw out there the video of Chuck Hagel.

YouTube Preview Image

Now, I think it would be foolish not to take a look at the other side. Specifically, let’s ask the veep what he thinks about all of this.

In a television interview that turned increasingly contentious as it wore on, Cheney rejected the gloomy portrayal of Iraq that has become commonly accepted even among Bush supporters. “There’s problems” in Iraq, he said, but it is not a “terrible situation.” And congressional opposition “won’t stop us” from sending 21,500 more troops, he said, it will only “validate the terrorists’ strategy.”

…riiiiight. I love that defense. If you oppose ANYTHING concerning this mess, you’re validating the terrorists. Want the troops to come home? That’s just what the terrorists want. Disagree with a surge? You must love Al Qaeda. Think we should fight Al Qaeda instead of policing Iraq? I can’t believe how much you want to have sex with bin Laden.

Cheney said the administration would disregard the nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase and suggested it undermines soldiers in a war zone. “It won’t stop us,” he said. “And it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops.”

I really do think that Cheney could save a lot of time by walking around with one hand on his crotch and the other flipping the bird. That seems to be the gist of every interview he gives.

So let’s review: bipartisan opposition to the surge, Republicans are too cowardly to vote their conscience, and Cheney proves that he doesn’t give a good god damn what anyone thinks.

Write a comment