Washblog

Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, we have made real progress toward a new direction...."

I find it a bit odd that Rep. Larsen would suggest that the Democrats have "taken control of Congress" immediately after reminding us that Bush controls the Whitehouse and that the Democrats lack the two-thirds majority needed to effectively do anything. I also am curious about this business of "holding Bush's feet to the fire." More on this to follow.......

I'm not sure if the next bit is intended to instill confidence or sympathy :

"Earlier this month, House Democrats tried to use the President's funding request to change our direction, end our involvement in Iraq's civil war and re-focus our efforts on fighting and killing terrorists. We passed the Iraq Accountability Act, which could just as easily been called the "President Bush Accountability Act". The President vetoed that bill. And because Democrats do not have a two-thirds majority in Congress, we failed to override the President's veto.

Next, House Democrats sent another proposal to the President to fully fund our troops for a limited amount of time, hold the President accountable for his policies and provide a new direction. But this second Iraq Accountability Act failed to pass the Senate.

The Democratic leadership in Congress has met with the Bush Administration repeatedly to try to find a compromise with accountability. But the President has threatened to veto any bill that holds him accountable for his own benchmarks for progress.

The Senate has approved a plan that includes weaker benchmarks for progress than the ones passed by the House. These benchmarks are not as strong as the ones I would have chosen. But they are a step in the right direction.

This week, I voted to pass an emergency supplemental bill that includes the benchmarks approved by the Senate. This bill is not perfect. But it does not give the President a blank check. It requires that the President report to Congress on his progress in Iraq so Congress can continue holding him accountable...."

So here we see the theme of "We tried but Bush either vetoed or threatened to veto" and yet the congressman concludes that, with the passage of a bill with "waivable benchmarks" that Bush alone is tasked with measuring, "Congress can continue holding him accountable. I guess my question to Rep. Larsen and the rest of the Democrats who insist that they are pursuing an end to the occupation of Iraq is this: Why didn't you just let Bush's veto ride? The effect would have been the immediate de-funding of the occupation and some real effort to exercise Congress's Constitutional duties to declare and fund wars. Concluding his explanation of the "emergency supplemental" Congressman Larsen continues his message about the efforts of the Democrats to hold Bush accountable. He says,

"This is the message we have been sending to the President by passing two separate funding bills that held the President accountable to his own policies and forcing a change of direction. The President's opposition to these bills prevented their passage, but even with vetoes, we are beginning to see a change in direction in Iraq. This change is being forced by the steady pressure of Congress and the outrage of the American people."

Ok,  "The President's opposition to these bills prevented their passage..."? How about the lack of steadfast Democratic votes prevented their passage? I too see a change in direction. Last month the Democrats were moving forward. This month, they have turned around and are marching backward.

So now we move on to Rep. Larsen's assessments:

"Last January I proposed a military strategy worthy of the individual actions and sacrifice of our Armed Services. This strategy necessitated ending our involvement in fighting an Iraqi civil war and refocusing our efforts on fighting terrorists. We are seeing some progress in some of the following areas, but there is much more work to be done and much more pressure to be applied on the President.

This is my best assessment of the progress we have made in these six key areas in the past five months:

1.    Immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq not necessary for the following missions for redeployment to other areas of need or send them home:

The president still refuses to acknowledge his failures, his inability to secure Iraq, and the failure of the Iraqi reconciliation process. But the Iraqis are beginning to realize that we will not be there forever. This is a critical step that will push the Iraqis to take responsibility for the security of their own nation. This is a direct result of pressure from Congress and the American people.

So back to Bush refuses to cooperate. Darn it! Where did the Iraqis get the impression that we will not be there forever? From the bill that no longer contains any mention of withdrawal?

2. Investing in a diplomatic surge in the Middle East engaging all countries, including Syria and Iran, and convene an international peace conference to end the civil war in Iraq:

Pressure from the Iraq Study Group and Members of Congress have changed our diplomatic approach to engaging Syria and Iran on the Iraq war. Secretary Rice's willingness to quietly engage the two countries was a step in the right direction, but more robust engagement must be on the agenda in the future.

So Rice has dinner with the Syrian Foreign Minister and that is a step in the right direction. Of course Dead-eye Dick waving his shotgun in the direction of Iran from the deck of one of our 4 aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf might be considered by some to be more of an indication of the type of robust engagement this administration has in mind.

3. Training and equipping Iraqi military forces to fight a counterinsurgency campaign against the Iraqi-based insurgency:

We know that almost 340,000 Iraqi Security Forces are trained and equipped, but we don't know how effective the training has been or how many insurgents have infiltrated the security services. Finally the military is beginning a concerted long overdue effort to weed out commanders in these forces with sectarian and criminal agendas.

A couple of things here. Perhaps Rep. Larsen doesn't subscribe to the McClatchy News Group or he might have seen this Then there is this whole issue of who actually makes up the Iraq army. I mean before we invaded the Iraq Army was supposed to be some kind of threat in the region. Today, after our help, they are untrained, ill-equipped, and untrustworthy.

4. Embedding available trainers and special operations personnel with Iraqi military forces to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI):

Embedded Military Transition Teams in Iraq are doing a heroic job fighting terrorists, but they are still engaging in the sectarian warfare that only serves to keep a lid on an Iraqi civil war. Their efforts still need to be focused on fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

5. Providing personnel to secure Iraq's borders to cut the flow of foreign fighters and weapons into Iraq:

Progress in this area is still uncertain and requires both a political and military solution. Secretary Rice's discussions with Syria on border security this month represented a dramatic change in approach.

Not much to add to these points

6. Loosening our visa policies for Iraqis seeking to come to the U.S.:

We still need to do more to provide a safe place for Iraqi refugees. Congress has increased the total number of refugees allowed into the United States per year from 50 to 500, but this is still woefully inadequate.

Almost two million Iraqis have fled their homes since the US invasion of their country. Over 100 Iraqis per day are dying as a result of the violence that can be directly attributed to our ongoing occupation of their country. By all means, we should welcome as many refugees into our country as is practical On the other hand; maybe we should be more forceful in our determination to give them back their country.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue