Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Jan 8, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Novak: Powell ‘caustic’ over escalation plans. Robert Novak writes, “Former Secretary of State Colin Powell…is caustic in private about the proposed ’surge’ of 30,000 additional U.S. troops. Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops. ‘The colonels will always say they need more troops,’ the retired general says. ‘That’s why we have generals.’” Novak adds, “Senior Republican senators are trying to get word to the president that any troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress.”
     
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,440
    Likes Received:
    321
    Ratings:
    +901 / 7 / -3

    Technically speaking, it's irrelevent what Congress thinks. They have no say in the matter. If Bush wants to send 100,000 more troops, he has the power to do so. Congress has didly. The only thing congress can do is scrutinize funding. Think they want to do that? Doubt it. Of course you probably knew that, which is why you chose to headline your thread "Troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress".


    Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/08/D8MH66Q00.html
     
  3. 3 to be 4

    3 to be 4 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    If this happens, if we send in that many more troops, with the way a majority of americans feel about the war, it will gaurantee a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.
     
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    That's exactly what I was thinking today. It seems crazy to risk completely losing the government to the Democrats, and a final slap in the face to the American People.

    And what's the strategy that goes along with increased troops? How could it possibly improve things there? Does anyone believe that we are close to asserting control in Iraq? We must be close and this surge of troops will put us over tha edge, right? Who believes that?

    No answers to this mess other than get the hell out. The questions far outnumber the answers.
     
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's assuming the US has troops to send. Sending 20,000 troops is going to require increasing the size of the military as a whole... where's the money going to come from if not congress?

    That said, I'm in favor of boosting the troops if the administration wants it. For 2 more years, and my feelings for him notwithstanding, GW is still the commander-in-chief. If he wants to send in more troops, it'll be the sword he and his party die by. He's come this far, might as well let him finish out his "strategy" until the Dems can get someone in the White House.
     
  6. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +51 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Not only that, but the Republicans may not even have a filibuster option as there will be 21 Republican seats up for re-election vs 11 Democrat. Bush is still voicing his 'victory' line, the question is what Republicans will support him knowing that it might cost them their job. BTW, I really don't want to see one party have that much power.
     
  7. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I've been reading today that there are only approx. 9,000 troops available.

    can this be right?

    CBS: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ‘Surge’

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05...-it-has-only-9000-troops-available-for-surge/
     
  8. 3 to be 4

    3 to be 4 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    the frightening part is that on all the reports i saw on it, even the commanders asking for the troop increases say it will take 2 to 3 YEARS and door to door combat in the cities to even stabilize the situation.

    With Rumsfeld/McNamara leaving and this insanity continuing this is not just becoming another Vietnam, it IS another Vietnam.

    And once again, numbers are thrown out against a wall. These are 20,000 more of our finest young people.

    And the real threat isnt even in Iraq, its in Iran and North Korea.

    Bush will be remembered as one of the worst, if not worst, Presidents in U.S. history and his claim to fame will be that Saddam Hussein got hanged.

    Yippie, what a legacy.
     
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    "Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders."

    - GW Bush, June 28th 2005
     
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Two lies: 1) we never intend on leaving, certainly not while he's still in charge as he has since said.
    2) he hasn't been listening to commanders unless Rove is now considered one
     
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    i worded it that way because it was a direct quote, mmm-kay? thanks Milton...

    Might wanna read up on that a bit closer... Congress can absolutely do something a bit more than "scrutinize the funding." lol...

    The latest version of the "hide behind the troops" mode of argument is to claim that Congress lacks the ability to end the war. ... the story goes that President Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, and that if he does not want to end the war, then Congress cannot force his hand. According to this argument, if Congress were to use its control of the budget to restrict funding, it would jeopardize our troops stationed in Iraq by denying them the supplies and ammunition needed to defend themselves.

    ...this argument is garbage. Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military.

    Curious George would then have the funding required to safely withdraw our troops from Iraq. He would not have the money to continue his war. If he chose to defy Congress by misusing the funds (and thereby jeopardizing the lives of our troops), then the law provides a simple and obvious remedy: Impeachment. While it is possible that Bush would choose to violate the law, jeopardizing both the lives of our troops and his presidency, it is reasonable to assume that he would comply with the law and not exceed his authority as president.

    Reasonable arguments could be made that this sort of decisive measure from Congress is not desirable. It could be argued that allowing President Bush more discretion in the conduct of the war would be the better route. But it is important to understand that Congress does have the authority to shut down the war without abandoning our troops. If Congress does not pursue this option, then it is because it has chosen not to. President Bush cannot continue to wage a war in Iraq if Congress is really determined to stop him.
     
  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    ah yes... here we are... a tad bit more correction to this short-sighted assertion above:

    Congress can check Bush on escalation. So says legal experts Marty Lederman (Georgetown University professor) and Neil Kinkopf (President Clinton’s former constitutional advisor), as well as House Defense Appropriations Chairman Jack Murtha (D-PA).

    "scrutinize"... lol...
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2007
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Does Real World think troop escalation is a good idea? If so, how will it work. I have a feeling he's not but is debating the issue for sport, which is OK, but just wondering.
     
  14. 3 to be 4

    3 to be 4 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    i heard it mentioned yesterday on the news we are going to spend 1 Billion dollars on a kind of "New Deal" Program for the Iraqis. Isnt that nice?
     
  15. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Oh the irony. Kill the New Deal in the US while establishing one for Iraqis.

    The best is yet to come. Let the subpeonas fly.

    Wistah...yes, RW wants an escalation.

    The options for Congress are either cutting off funding altogether, explicitly defining what the funding is to be used for (as PC covers very well), or going a more subtle route.

    They could begin investigations into the corporate corruption in Iraq in such a way as to expose the excessive waste...start with the missing 9 billion under Bremers watch. This would have the effect of illustrating to the people what a monopolized crony boondoggle adventure these contractors have been given and how blatantly they misused funds in the past. Then, make all future funding contingent on opening up the support service contracting to bids, the american way.

    If Halliburton and the like can't provide credible accounting documentation of where all our money has gone over the past 4 years, then they are immediately at a disadvantage to those contractors that can.

    Clean up the corruption in Iraq or Curious George gets no more bananas.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,440
    Likes Received:
    321
    Ratings:
    +901 / 7 / -3

    Congress can't do didly, except for refuse funding. How do you think that would play publically? Not well I don't think.
     
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,440
    Likes Received:
    321
    Ratings:
    +901 / 7 / -3

    I think it's a good idea if it's used for the right reasons. One of which is to bring the trained ISF forces to operational speed, which would be done by embedding US troops into Iraqi units. This is currently being done, but in doing so existing US units are stripped of forces. Furthermore, with more IA units taking the lead, or at least joining in security operations, the more embeds we'll need to monitor these units, and also call in for any needed reinforcements or air support.

    The Second reason, to me anyhow, would be to smash the Mehdi Army. The personal militia of Al-Sadr. Doing so strengthens the government, and shows the Sunni's that the radicals inside the shia aren't going to run the show.
     
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,440
    Likes Received:
    321
    Ratings:
    +901 / 7 / -3

    I'm all for oversight. So long as it's not some political tool used by one party to gain political fandom over the other. Governments should be held in check, period. If it comes out that the Admin, or people in the Admin were acting unlawfully, charge them, and toss them in jail. I have ZERO problems with that, and encourage it.
     
  19. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    as i explained in a previous post, they can WITHHOLD funding for sustaining the "war", and yet can still communicate directly to the military commanders for what the cost of safe withdrawal would be... at that point, it would be up to Curious George to use the funds for just that, or face impeachment...

    anyhow, we'll all remember vividly that you said Congress can't do didly about Curious George's war... Here are some examples of how Congress has done "diddly"...

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/military_deployments.html

    December 1974. P.L. 93-559 – Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.

    June 1983. P.L. 98-43 – The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.

    June 1984. P.L. 98-525 – The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.

    July 2000. P.L. 106-246 – Military Construction Appropriations and For Other Purposes – Personnel Ceiling in Colombia: “no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act (including funds described in subsection (c)) may be available for— (A) the assignment of any United States military personnel for temporary or permanent duty in Colombia in connection with support of Plan Colombia if that assignment would cause the number of United States military personnel so assigned in Colombia to exceed 500; or (B) the employment of any United States individual civilian retained as a contractor in Colombia if that employment would cause the total number of United States individual civilian contractors employed in Colombia in support of Plan Colombia who are funded by Federal funds to exceed 300.”
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2007
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    277
    Ratings:
    +1,129 / 3 / -10

    Ann Coulter is the author of five New York Times bestsellers —Godless: The Church of Liberalism (June 2006),How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).

    Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

    Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

    After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

    A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

    REPORTERS WHO ARE ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW ANN AGAIN:
    John Cloud, Time Magazine Ms Right
    Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian An Appalling Magic
    Jamie Glasov of Frontpage Magazine Frontpage Interview: Ann Coulter
    Taylor Hill of Jambands.com "Deadheads Are What Liberals Claim to Be But Aren't": An Interview with Ann Coulter
    Jonathan Pitts of The Baltimore Sun She's the Hammer; Liberals Her Nail

    http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/content.cgi?name=bio
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>