# House passes anti-"surge" resolution -- now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2007, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632 "2007-02-17T17:45:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/21 "2007-02-18T03:44:12Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] I do think McCain made a major error by skipping this vote. Remember how Republicans got on Kerry (and Edwards) in 2004 for missing a lot of votes while they were campaigning? [/QUOTE] What? For missing a vote on a non-binding resolution? It was meaningless posturing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/22 "2007-02-18T04:08:02Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I guess ‘credibility on defense’ means throwing more lives and money into a lost cause. Isn’t this BS getting a bit old? [/QUOTE] Yes, the BS you just wrote is getting old. No, it’s already old. [QUOTE=RTFirefly] We’ll let the Koolaid Party have its rhetoric. The Dems are serious about actual _policy_. [/QUOTE] That’s funny. Especially after they wasted a week on a non-binding resolution. Exactly how many weeks do you think they should devote to other non-binding resolutions? Which would be the same amount of time they will NOT be dealing with policy. [QUOTE=RTFirefly] Why should all the burden be on the Dems? How come the GOP doesn’t have to explain why doing the same thing, over and over again, should finally yield a different result? [/QUOTE] But they’re not. They are clearing areas and occupying them. That’s a different strategy. [QUOTE=RTFirefly] 1. Things are getting worse in Iraq even with us there. Have been for years, will continue as long as we stay. No reason to believe otherwise. [/QUOTE] [How about this?](http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20070217-123319-5645r) [QUOTE=RTFirefly] This is too full of bullshit to fully refute here without hijacking the thread. Feeling up to another end-of-Vietnam thread? I’m sure we just had one of these not too long ago. [/QUOTE] A couple million Vietnemese and Cambodians would likely disagree with you if they were around to do so. [QUOTE=RTFirefly] After all, I’ve been upset enough that the GOP has followed that path. [/QUOTE] I think there are more considerations. Of course, YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/23 "2007-02-18T04:30:55Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] [How about this?](http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20070217-123319-5645r) [/QUOTE] A request to deliver up my email address to the Washington Times doesn’t really do it for me. Could you summarize what tangible benefits we Americans will see for the half trillion or so we will have spent by the time this ‘surge’ gamble is complete? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/24 "2007-02-18T04:54:46Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] As to what anti-surge people can do next - either try to get this to a Senate vote one more time to get the pro-surge voters on record, or start making the case to the public, HARD, that some people won’t even bring it to a vote. They’d need some time before they can build up the public support to de-fund the war, and even in the face of public anger and these resolutions, I’m sure the administration would otherwise be glad to stall until January '09. [/QUOTE] Bingo. The first problem is that the Democratic party is showing its lack of spine. The second, bigger problem is that even if they followed through with what they believed they’d be slapped down hard – the U.S. population, the GOP, and Bush want war, so war we will have. Don’t even bother showing me a poll that says some large percent of Americans are against the war. It doesn’t matter. When push comes to shove the Iraqi war will not end. What do you think will happen if an anti-war Democrat is elected President? That we’ll leave? Ha! Imagine the public outcry. The Dems would be tarnished for years (note: starting a pointless war doesn’t have a similar effect). The idea that we’ll leave Iraq within two or three years is close to fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/25 "2007-02-18T05:05:15Z")
Given the record so far (2 GOP losses, then 7), one more try might well do it, especially with vulnerable GOP Senators up in 2008. Smith (OR), Collins, Snowe(ME), and Coleman (MN) all bailed on this vote. Lieberman, of course, voted against debate. So all Democrats voted for it in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/26 "2007-02-18T05:07:37Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] What? For missing a vote on a non-binding resolution? It was meaningless posturing. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that was McCain’s defense. And yet 34 Senators who agreed with him voted anyway. He wanted to be Presidential by ignoring it, and I think it’ll cost him - as if supporting the war wasn’t going to cost him anyway. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/27 "2007-02-18T05:18:53Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] What? For missing a vote on a non-binding resolution? It was meaningless posturing. [/QUOTE] Posturing indeed, but nowhere near meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/28 "2007-02-18T05:28:06Z")
[QUOTE=mstay] The first problem is that the Democratic party is showing its lack of spine. [/quote] Actually, the first problem is that the Democratic Party is just now **beginning** to show spine; but it will probably be too little, too late. [QUOTE=mstay] The second, bigger problem is that even if they followed through with what they believed they’d be slapped down hard – the U.S. population, the GOP, and Bush want war, so war we will have. Don’t even bother showing me a poll that says some large percent of Americans are against the war. It doesn’t matter. When push comes to shove the Iraqi war will not end. [/quote] 😕 Of course it won’t end, not until Iraq is partioned into three countries; but otherwise, would you please care to rephrase the above in some marginally human language?! [QUOTE=mstay] What do you think will happen if an anti-war Democrat is elected President? [/quote] That said president will pursue an anti-war agenda with even more zeal and arrogance than W has pursued his pro-war agenda. I don’t really **think** so, but I do **hope** so, because any conceivable alternative is too horrible to contemplate. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/29 "2007-02-18T05:44:39Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Actually, the first problem is that the Democratic Party is just now **beginning** to show spine; but it will probably be too little, too late. [/quote] So a nonbinding resolution is showing spine now? Well, maybe compared to their past behaviors… > [@](#): > > 😕 Of course it won’t end, not until Iraq is partioned into three countries; but otherwise, would you please care to rephrase the above in some marginally human language?! I don’t see Iraq splitting into three countries in the near future, at least officially. Maybe defacto, which could be argued it already happening…but why would that make us leave? I don’t see what could make us leave unless we get out asses seriously kicked. As for a rephrase, what’s so hard to understand? The Dems want us to leave Iraq. The U.S. population doesn’t. The Dems understand this – hence, we get chickenshit like nonbinding resolutions. If they were smart they’d say something like “We fully support Bush’s role as Commander in Chief and his ability to guide the war in Iraq.” Then they’d become a rubber stamp, go with the surge, and then later, when the U.S. wises up, the blame will mostly be on the Republicans, or at least Bush. At this rate the Dems will magically end up absorbing the blame. “See! See! If only Bush could make actions without the Dems looking over his shoulder!” Imagine the public outrage if the Dems took actions in an attempt to defund the war. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/30 "2007-02-18T05:59:10Z")
[QUOTE=mstay] So a nonbinding resolution is showing spine now? [/quote] What could the Dems have done until now? It’s something the GOP members who have become tired of being browbeaten into rubber-stamping whatever Cheney wants can be induced to support. A fairly significant number of \*them \* have begun to show spine now. Which is, after all, the goal. The rest now have to explain why they’re refusing even to talk about what the majority of the country demands. > [@](#): > > I don’t see what could make us leave unless we get out asses seriously kicked. And you don’t see that happening yet? > [@](#): > > As for a rephrase, what’s so hard to understand? The Dems want us to leave Iraq. The U.S. population doesn’t. What the hell? There’s a wide range of views among “the Dems”, to the first part. To the second, what the hell again? [Most Americans Say U.S. Should Withdraw From Iraq, Poll Finds](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWOrWyYU2Tj0&refer=home) > [@](#): > > If they were smart they’d say something like “We fully support Bush’s role as Commander in Chief and his ability to guide the war in Iraq.” I hope you’re using some of that Gen X irony stuff we geezers don’t get. > [@](#): > > later, when the U.S. wises up, the blame will mostly be on the Republicans, or at least Bush. Or maybe you aren’t. That’s the situation NOW, chief. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/31 "2007-02-18T06:05:00Z")
[QUOTE=mstay] The Dems want us to leave Iraq. The U.S. population doesn’t. [/quote] What country are you in? [Here’s a poll saying almost two thirds of the population wants the U.S. out of Iraq within a year.](http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) They support everything to stop the war other than defunding it, including putting a cap on new troops. > [@](#): > > If they were smart they’d say something like “We fully support Bush’s role as Commander in Chief and his ability to guide the war in Iraq.” Then they’d become a rubber stamp, go with the surge, and then later, when the U.S. wises up, the blame will mostly be on the Republicans, or at least Bush. And except for the part where Republicans ask “why did you vote for it and change your mind,” it’d be perfect. I seem to remember that question caused John Kerry some problems. What you’re proposing is pretty clearly the exact opposite of what the country at large wants. The Democrats took over both houses because the public was unhappy with ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/32 "2007-02-18T12:07:11Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Yes, the BS you just wrote is getting old. No, it’s already old. [/quote] That would carry more rhetorical weight if you were specific about _what_ BS I just wrote was old. > [@](#): > > That’s funny. Especially after they wasted a week on a non-binding resolution. Exactly how many weeks do you think they should devote to other non-binding resolutions? Which would be the same amount of time they will NOT be dealing with policy. One step at a time, baby, one step at a time. > [@](#): > > But they’re not. They are clearing areas and occupying them. That’s a different strategy. Yeah, that’s so new, Condi was holding forth about how that was our new strategy [back in 2005](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301971.html). How did that work out in 2006? > [@](#): > > [How about this?](http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20070217-123319-5645r) How about _what??_ That’s a link to a registration screen at the Washington Times, a paper with zero credibility owned by Rev. Moon. Damned if I’m going to register with them to find out what’s behind the screen. If you want it to be part of the discussion between you and me, you’ll have to quote. > [@](#): > > A couple million Vietnemese and Cambodians would likely disagree with you if they were around to do so. Why would they feel it was necessary to hijack this thread to rehash Vietnam, rather than discuss that war in a separate one? That’s an awfully strange stance to attribute to the dead. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/33 "2007-02-18T12:15:08Z")
[QUOTE=mstay] Imagine the public outrage if the Dems took actions in an attempt to defund the war. [/QUOTE] We’re going to find out in fairly short order. As I said @15, Rep. Murtha, with Speaker Pelosi’s support, is readying a pile of conditions with respect to troop readiness and training to attach to any new Iraq funding bill. These conditions would have the practical effect of reducing the number of troops in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/34 "2007-02-18T12:34:13Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] But they’re not. They are clearing areas and occupying them. That’s a different strategy. [/QUOTE] No, it’s a different tactic; you, like our president, don’t know the difference. Our strategy in Iraq is to stay the course, and kill or capture all the insurgents. Clearing and holding areas is a military tactic to achieve that strategy. Until we formulate a different strategy, such as pursuing political and diplomatic solutions with the same resolve as our commitment to the military solution, the outcome will be the same; quagmire. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/35 "2007-02-18T16:34:23Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] That’s a link to a registration screen at the Washington Times, a paper with zero credibility owned by Rev. Moon. Damned if I’m going to register with them to find out what’s behind the screen. [/QUOTE] Don’t know why the link doesn’t work, it works for me. Maybe there’s a cookie involved. Regardless, here are some excerpts to the linked article. Evidently, it’s a UPI article they picked up. Sorry to disappoint you. > [@](#): > > **Al Qaeda’s outrages swing Sunnis to U.S.** > By Pamela Hess > UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL > February 17, 2007 > > RAMADI, Iraq – Sunni tribes in troubled Anbar province have begun working closely with U.S. and government forces, contributing nearly 2,400 men to the police department and 1,600 to a newly organized tribal security force, authorities say. > > ``` > U.S. troops are training and equipping the new tribal forces, which are called Emergency Response Units (ERUs), and are charged with defending the areas where they live, according to the local U.S. commander. > > By a U.S. count, 12 of the Ramadi area's 21 tribes are cooperating in the security effort, six are considered neutral, and three are actively hostile. That is almost the reverse of the tribal posture last June, when three were cooperative and 12 were hostile. > > ``` > > \ > > “Al Qaeda overplayed its hand,” Col. MacFarland said at his headquarters, a dusty base on the west side of Ramadi. > > ``` > At a meeting that month, several sheiks drew up an 11-point declaration vowing to fight al Qaeda, within the rule of law, and declaring solidarity with coalition and government security forces. It is a movement referred to by the tribes as "the Awakening." > > ``` > > \ > > The tribes sent hundreds of young men to join the police – more than 1,000 in December and more than that last month, a record recruiting effort for the province. > > ``` > The men were assigned to police stations in their own tribes' neighborhoods, giving the tribes a vested interest in their success and contributing to unusually high rates of policemen turning up for work. Others were organized into the ERUs, which operate in the countryside while the police remain in the cities. > > Improved security, in turn, made it possible for the brigade to pour in reconstruction money, enabling some $3 million in projects to be undertaken. > > As the benefits of cooperation became evident, "the tribes began flipping, like a domino effect," Col. MacFarland said. "Almost every week, we get another sheik knocking on our door." > > ``` > > \ > > From July 2006 to January 2007, the daily average number of attacks fell by 38 percent and roadside bomb attacks dropped by 57 percent to an 18-month low. > > ``` > The roadside bombs also are getting smaller and less complex, enabling the brigade and the Iraqi police to find more than 80 percent of improvised explosive devices before they detonate. > > It is "a very significant indicator that this potent weapon system has become less effective in Ramadi," Col. MacFarland said. > > More important to the colonel, attacks are occurring farther from the town center and from the main road -- suggesting that residents are not tolerating insurgents the way they once did, and are tipping off police to suspicious activities. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/36 "2007-02-18T17:21:25Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Evidently, it’s a UPI article they picked up. Sorry to disappoint you. [/QUOTE] [Rev. Moon Adds United Press International To His Media Empire](http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/upi-moon.shtml) Here’s a couple other sources. Stars And Stripes: [Troops leaving Ramadi see fruits of their work](http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=43623) Marines.mil: [Ramadi’s new mayor takes the lead on city’s reconstruction](http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/49CF62C56DFEEB2B8525727F005607FF?opendocument) Also today: [In Ramadi, a Sunni insurgent hotbed 110 kilometers west of the capital, US jets strafed gunmen with 40mm machine gun fire after they ambushed a US patrol with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades](http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359882895&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/37 "2007-02-18T18:18:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But they’re not. They are clearing areas and occupying them. That’s a different strategy. You forgot the last part of the catchphrase – “Clear, hold, and build.” Like **RTFirefly** pointed out, that’s been a nice little saying since 2005. I’m pretty sure it even goes back to 2004. Besides, think about what the phrase itself actually means. If we only _just_ started doing that then words fail me. **Fear Itself** also had a good post about this. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@mstay](#): > > > > I don’t see what could make us leave unless we get out asses seriously kicked. > > And you don’t see that happening yet? No, unless I missed something huge recently. Checking CNN, I see situation normal: boatloads of dead Iraqis, a couple dead and maimed U.S. soldiers here and there. That’s the point of a guerilla war, though. You can’t beat the conventional army. If you could, you’d just have an army and be done with it. The point is to nag and harass the occupiers and flee or go into hiding or assimilate into the local population when they come to fight you. They also kill anyone who buddies up with us. In no way is this ‘getting our ass kicked.’ I mean, maybe you could say that about our goal of transforming Iraq into a democratic and free society, but that won’t make us leave. We’ll happily stay there as we bleed them. What they’d need to do to force us out in the short term would be something drastic, like cutting off the Kuwaiti supply lines, shooting down the ensuing support helicopters with RPGs, and breaching and overrunning the Green Zone. But it would take something like a military force to do that and if such a thing went into motion it would get destroyed. That, or it would work for a little while and then the calvarly would come and save the day. Or maybe it would work and we’d leave. But it hasn’t happened yet, which is my point. We have to leave on our own accord if we wish to get out of there on the short term. Bush isn’t budging. Hence, all hope is on Congress and the Dems…sigh. As for the polling data, I hope you guys are right. I really do. I hope I’m 100% wrong. But I’m not convinced. Like I said before, show me a poll that shows this and that, it doesn’t even matter. When push comes to shove we won’t leave. The American population isn’t demanding it…not yet anyway. Give it a couple more years. Besides, you can get a poll to support practically anything if you word it right. Just look at some of [these](http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) figures “Would you favor or oppose Congress cutting funding for the additional troops President Bush wants to send to Iraq?” 38% favor, 60% oppose “Regardless of whether you think taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, would you say that the U.S. is very likely to succeed in Iraq, somewhat likely to succeed, not very likely to succeed, or not at all likely to succeed in Iraq?” 13% likely, 37% somewhat, 26% not very, 21% not at all “Do you think Congress should or should not pass a symbolic or nonbinding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq?” 44% should, 45% should not, 11% unsure This doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. But hey, if you guys are right then we’ll put forward a timetable for withdrawal and be out of Iraq in oh, say, six months? I mean, 63% of the polled would support that (technically one year). Right? Wouldn’t that be great? Yet I can’t shake the feeling that it’s more likely for the Dems to just loft in the wind – neither supporting Bush or having the courage to say we need to get out ASAP. I stand by my previous prediction of still being in Iraq in 2010. > [@](#): > > As I said @15, Rep. Murtha, with Speaker Pelosi’s support, is readying a pile of conditions with respect to troop readiness and training to attach to any new Iraq funding bill. These conditions would have the practical effect of reducing the number of troops in Iraq. Yes, I saw that. With regards to Iraq it’s quite the underhanded and sneaky way to go about things, which is necessary because otherwise it’d be out there and naked for all to see. But I really like the other parts – shutting down Guantanamo and the requirement for Bush needing Congressional approval for attacking Iran. It’s grand fantasy which we can all experience vicariously. But I love Bush’s response. It gets so much mileage…will it ever _not_ work? > [@](#): > > Mr. Bush this week warned Congress not to meddle with war funding. “Our troops are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C., to provide them with the support they need to do their mission,” he said Wednesday. “We have a responsibility, all of us here in Washington, to make sure that our men and women have the resources and the flexibility they need to prevail.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/38 "2007-02-18T19:37:14Z")
[QUOTE=mstay] Yes, I saw that. With regards to Iraq it’s quite the underhanded and sneaky way to go about things, which is necessary because otherwise it’d be out there and naked for all to see. But I really like the other parts – shutting down Guantanamo and the requirement for Bush needing Congressional approval for attacking Iran. It’s grand fantasy which we can all experience vicariously. But I love Bush’s response. It gets so much mileage…will it ever _not_ work? [/QUOTE] Here’s what the not-affiliated-with-reverend-Moon [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601792.html) has to say about it: > [@](#): > > Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site [MoveCongress.org](http://MoveCongress.org), Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.” So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill – an action Congress is clearly empowered to take – rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. “What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with,” he said. > > Mr. Murtha’s cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq “would be more stable with us out of there,” in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce “massive civilian casualties.” He says he wants to force the administration to “bulldoze” the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to “get our troops out of the Green Zone” because “they are living in Saddam Hussein’s palace”; could he be unaware that the zone’s primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy? > > It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha’s remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not “the real vote”? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm. I find the Democrats to be completely incoherent on Iraq. People on this board keep holding up civilian casualties as the moral benchmark of the war effort, but they’re eager to sign on to a measure which could push casualties into the millions. They claim to ‘support the troops’, but people like Murtha would rather underhandedly micro-manage the military and prevent the generals from doing their jobs properly rather than take a stand and simply cut off funding, so they can protect their miserable asses in case the surge actually works. They accuse the President of going into Iraq without a plan, but now they are agitating to pull out of Iraq without a plan. They told Bush his main fault was not listening to his generals, but now they are engaged in undermining the plan of the general they just voted to confirm. They blamed Bush for doctoring intelligence, but now when the intelligence community says things they don’t want to hear, they just put their fingers in their ears and go, “lalalalala”. The Democrats have stupidly put themselves in a no-win situation. If the surge succeeds, the Republicans can now say that it succeeded despite the universal opposition of the Democrats. Politically, Democrats now NEED the U.S. to fail. And if it does fail, the Republicans can say that it would have worked had the Democrats not pulled the rug out from under the effort. And if, as I believe, failure in Iraq means a much more dangerous world, eventually the American people will make security their #1 issue again, and then Republicans can beat Democrats over the head with their current rhetoric. For example, Murtha claim ing that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, al-Qaida will have no need to be there and will just go home. Does ANYONE believe that? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/39 "2007-02-18T20:11:43Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Here’s what the not-affiliated-with-reverend-Moon [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601792.html) has to say about it: [/QUOTE] The Post’s **Editorial** page has been largely indistinguishable from the Times for years now. I’m only surprised that they stopped before shouting to the world at large that Mr. Murtha has a tiny weiner. The right is being hurt by this debate, so they’re getting nasty. What else is new? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2007, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632/40 "2007-02-19T01:02:37Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Here’s what the not-affiliated-with-reverend-Moon [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601792.html) has to say about it: [/quote] The WaPo, unlike the Moonie Paper, acknowledges they don’t have a right to their own facts. But I find their _opinions_ as incoherent as you find the Dems. I’ve started a thread about the "constitutional crisis’ claims pertaining to Murtha’s bill, and as I’ve said there, I can’t see anything unconstititional in Congress’ conditioning funding in any manner they want. Nor has anyone else. There’s no clash of powers; Congress has the power of the purse, period. > [@](#): > > I find the Democrats to be completely incoherent on Iraq. People on this board keep holding up civilian casualties as the moral benchmark of the war effort, but they’re eager to sign on to a measure which could push casualties into the millions. And if we stay, are we going to prevent that, or merely delay it a year or so? Iraq’s gotten to its current state _with us there_, and on occasion _with 160,000 troops in Iraq_, more than we will have with the surge, and _working from a baseline situation that hadn’t deteriorated nearly this far yet_. _What we are doing isn’t working, and neither will the surge_. If there was something we could do that would stop Iraqis from killing each other, I’d be all for it. But I can’t see such a thing, and I can’t see how staying will do more than slow down Iraq’s descent through the circles of hell - a conclusion that the NIE agrees with. All we’re arguing about is _when_ Iraqis will die, in exchange for _whether_ Americans will die. > [@](#): > > They claim to ‘support the troops’, but people like Murtha would rather underhandedly micro-manage the military and prevent the generals from doing their jobs properly rather than take a stand and simply cut off funding, so they can protect their miserable asses in case the surge actually works. Wow. Apparently you think the Dems should cut funding off altogether, overnight, rather than attach conditions that will force a more gradual troop drawdown. It’s the job of Congress to decide whether we’re upping the ante in this war, staying the course, or heading for the exit. Murtha’s conditions would put us on the road to the exit. The generals will figure out the best way to do that, just as they came up with a plan for the ‘surge’ that they were opposed to. Besides, it’s ‘support the troops,’ not ‘support the generals.’ The generals’ lives aren’t at stake in Iraq - just their next star. > [@](#): > > They accuse the President of going into Iraq without a plan, but now they are agitating to pull out of Iraq without a plan. Let’s see: President throws egg against rock. Egg breaks. Dems don’t have plan for reassembling egg, but know there’s no longer a prayer that we can do it. > [@](#): > > They told Bush his main fault was not listening to his generals, but now they are engaged in undermining the plan of the general they just voted to confirm. And that general was against Bush’s plan just seven and a half weeks ago. Gawd, what a crock of spin. > [@](#): > > They blamed Bush for doctoring intelligence, but now when the intelligence community says things they don’t want to hear, they just put their fingers in their ears and go, “lalalalala”. Seems you’re ignoring the parts of the NIE you don’t want to hear, either. > [@](#): > > The Democrats have stupidly put themselves in a no-win situation. If the surge succeeds, the Republicans can now say that it succeeded despite the universal opposition of the Democrats. Yeah, and if I win the Powerball lottery… > [@](#): > > Politically, Democrats now NEED the U.S. to fail. You know, if there was any sort of reasonable chance that the U.S. might succeed, that would be one thing. But insanity consists of doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result this time. The Dems are Not Insane. The GOP is. > [@](#): > > And if it does fail, the Republicans can say that it would have worked had the Democrats not pulled the rug out from under the effort. And if, as I believe, failure in Iraq means a much more dangerous world, eventually the American people will make security their #1 issue again, and then Republicans can beat Democrats over the head with their current rhetoric. **Fuck the politics, Sam - let’s do what’s right.** I _don’t give a flip_ who gets to beat whom over the head for the next twenty years over this. And if you do, well, nuts to you. > [@](#): > > For example, Murtha claim ing that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, al-Qaida will have no need to be there and will just go home. Does ANYONE believe that? Yes. AQ in Iraq is an inconsequential player. (Notice how big an effect the old boogeyman Zarqawi’s death had on everything? Me either.) They are a pipeline for young Arabs from other countries who want to do jihad against the Great Satan. Why would they keep on doing that just to do jihad against the Shi’ites? It just ain’t the same. Murtha has this exactly right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-anti-surge-resolution-now-what/392632.md?page=3)