Bush Veto

[AustinHoya03]

I am of the perhaps unpopular opinion that this bill should have been vetoed. But was it really necessary for the President to tack "al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, 9/11, al-Qaeda" onto the end of this speech?

www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/05/01/bush.iraq.spending.bill.veto.cnn&wm=9

[EasyEd]

Since Ben Laden says Iraq is now the centerpoint of the al-Queda operation, the President was perfectly correct in stating it.

[The Stig]

The idea that it's the US vs. Al Qaeda in Iraq is just laughable. Just a couple days ago the Iraqi government said the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq was killed, but not by US or Iraqi government forces. Instead, he 'died' in a fight with other militants.

Iraq is a hopeless mix of ethnic, religious, and political groups that can't work together and see violence as the only way to achieve their goals. Aside from the obvious Sunni-Shia division, you also have Iraqi nationalists, Arab nationalists, Islamists, pan-Arabists, Baathists, democrats, the military, socialists, and a few leftover Communists. Oh, and don't forget about those pesky Kurds. Then there's the various tribal and clan affiliations that are more important than most Americans give them credit for. Saddam's strongest base of support wasn't the military or the Baath party - it was the Tikriti clan.

The one thing these groups have in common is that they can't work together. In US politics there's a sense of a common goal of making the country better. Our various political parties differ on how to achieve that goal, but they share the same basic cause. That isn't true in Iraq. The purpose of politics in Iraq is to make yourself and your small group better off. If that comes at the expense of everybody else, so be it. With that in mind, I'm pretty skeptical of whether we can throw the whole country together under a democratic political system and have it work out. I really hope I'm wrong on that point.

That said, I do think that putting a deadline on withdrawing US troops is a bad idea. The withdrawl shouldn't happen on a politician's timetable. The people on the ground should be the ones judging whether the US presence is having any sort of positive effect on the situation in Iraq. When it becomes clear that the US presence isn't having a positive effect (either because the violence has died down or because the situation has become so hopeless that we can't save it), the troops should be put on the next plane home. The important thing though is that the decision comes from people who actually know what is going on there. That means that the decision makers in the Green Zone who claim to be the 'people on the ground' have to get out and actually see what's going on in the country.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Eh we all knew it was coming - I didn't watch the speech because I was at a final ironically answering a question on what would happen if Congress had passed it with a veto proof margin. The real question now is what is up for negotiation.

[Bando]

ed said:

Since Ben Laden says Iraq is now the centerpoint of the al-Queda operation, the President was perfectly correct in stating it.

That doesn't sound like the Benjamin Laden I know.

[HoyaInsomniac]

thestig said:

The idea that it's the US vs. Al Qaeda in Iraq is just laughable. Just a couple days ago the Iraqi government said the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq was killed, but not by US or Iraqi government forces. Instead, he 'died' in a fight with other militants.

Iraq is a hopeless mix of ethnic, religious, and political groups that can't work together and see violence as the only way to achieve their goals. Aside from the obvious Sunni-Shia division, you also have Iraqi nationalists, Arab nationalists, Islamists, pan-Arabists, Baathists, democrats, the military, socialists, and a few leftover Communists. Oh, and don't forget about those pesky Kurds. Then there's the various tribal and clan affiliations that are more important than most Americans give them credit for. Saddam's strongest base of support wasn't the military or the Baath party - it was the Tikriti clan.

The one thing these groups have in common is that they can't work together. In US politics there's a sense of a common goal of making the country better. Our various political parties differ on how to achieve that goal, but they share the same basic cause. That isn't true in Iraq. The purpose of politics in Iraq is to make yourself and your small group better off. If that comes at the expense of everybody else, so be it. With that in mind, I'm pretty skeptical of whether we can throw the whole country together under a democratic political system and have it work out. I really hope I'm wrong on that point.

That said, I do think that putting a deadline on withdrawing US troops is a bad idea. The withdrawl shouldn't happen on a politician's timetable. The people on the ground should be the ones judging whether the US presence is having any sort of positive effect on the situation in Iraq. When it becomes clear that the US presence isn't having a positive effect (either because the violence has died down or because the situation has become so hopeless that we can't save it), the troops should be put on the next plane home. The important thing though is that the decision comes from people who actually know what is going on there. That means that the decision makers in the Green Zone who claim to be the 'people on the ground' have to get out and actually see what's going on in the country.

Well said. If every politician were required to spend time in the same situations as the troops, maybe they would start making some smarter decisions. Enough rhetoric, it's time to actually DO something.

[SFHoya99]

For quite a while, I've been anti-timeline for the obvious reasons -- namely, when we pull out, it's going to create a giant mess.

That said, I'm growing increasingly of the opinion that no one in this government is going to do anything to improve the situation/there is nothing that is going to improve the situation so that continuing to occupy for another year or so isn't going to make any difference.

If we were actually building infrastructure and doing some good instead of pumping money into contractors who do little and watching as we lose ground in terms of security, I might feel differently.

[The Stig]

I don't think that anti-timeline has to mean anti-pullout.

I fully support a pullout if the US presence in Iraq is causing more trouble than it's worth. I just don't think that you can put a concrete timeline on that sort of issue. Things change quickly, especially when you've got a civil war going on. The situation on the ground when your deadline comes around can be very different than the situation was when you first set that deadline.

A more productive way to go about this would be to require a regular large-scale bipartisan review of the effect of the US presence in Iraq. Get the generals, experts, administrators, politicains, the lot together every 12 months or so to determine whether Iraq is better off with or without the US military presence, and make any additional funding conditional on that commission confirming that additional funding will help the situaiton on the ground.

[SFHoya99]

"A more productive way to go about this would be to require a regular large-scale bipartisan review of the effect of the US presence in Iraq. Get the generals, experts, administrators, politicains, the lot together every 12 months or so to determine whether Iraq is better off with or without the US military presence, and make any additional funding conditional on that commission confirming that additional funding will help the situaiton on the ground."

Maybe when they are getting together they can also focus on what we can do for the people of Iraq aside from just stay/go. The focus hasn't been on it, but the lack of real assistance to the Iraqis has been embarassing.

[EasyEd]

"A more productive way to go about this would be to require a regular large-scale bipartisan review of the effect of the US presence in Iraq. Get the generals, experts, administrators, politicains, the lot together...."

What dreamworld are you living in? Democrats and Republicans talk bipartisanship all the time but when has anything constructive on Iraq come out of "bipartisanship"? Take a look at the voting on the funds/withdrawal bill just vetoed, it's almost 100% along party lines. Scoring political points is much more important than what's best for the United States, Iraq and the world.

[The Stig]

That's why you need to get the real talking done behind closed doors, where nobody can score any political points.

I'm thinking of something along the lines of the Iraq Study Group. It would obviously need broader representation (including some military people and some Iraqis), but the basic concept of experts behind closed doors taking a detailed look at the Iraq situation is a sound one. I dare say that if something like that had been done in 2003 a lot of the mistakes that got us where we are today could have been avoided.

[AustinHoya03]

ed said:

Scoring political points is much more important than what's best for the United States, Iraq and the world.

Ed, how do you square this assertion with your previous assertion that Bush's Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy?

[SirSaxa]

thestig said:

A more productive way to go about this would be to require a regular large-scale bipartisan review of the effect of the US presence in Iraq. Get the generals, experts, administrators, politicains, the lot together every 12 months or so to determine whether Iraq is better off with or without the US military presence, and make any additional funding conditional on that commission confirming that additional funding will help the situaiton on the ground.

But that was done already. Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.
And the President ignored it just like he does everything else.

Bush-Cheney are in serious denial. They have never acknowledged why they really went to war, or the current situation, or their enormous and tragic mistakes.

Meanwhile over 3000 American soldiers have been killed and another 25,000 wounded... many very seriously. And no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed because the administration doesn't want us to.

Why should American kids continue to be killed when it is quite obvious there is nothing we can do to solve the Iraqis' problems. There is no "victory". There is no side to support. all sides are fighting against one another. All we did was make it possible for Al Qaeda to join the fray.

It probably will get even worse when we leave...whether that is now, in one year, in 5 years. Iraq needs to solve their own civil war themselves. We are just in the way, and giving the entire Arab and Muslim worlds more reasons to distrust and hate us... while our guys continue to get killed.

We need to leave. Bush is simply trying to "extend the game" until his term is over so he can hand over this disaster to someone else, then blame them for the inevitable bad outcome.

If we support the troops we should be getting them out of harm's way and bringing them home.

[The Stig]

sirsaxa said:

thestig said:

A more productive way to go about this would be to require a regular large-scale bipartisan review of the effect of the US presence in Iraq. Get the generals, experts, administrators, politicains, the lot together every 12 months or so to determine whether Iraq is better off with or without the US military presence, and make any additional funding conditional on that commission confirming that additional funding will help the situaiton on the ground.

But that was done already. Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.
And the President ignored it just like he does everything else.

That's why the group would have to be given veto power over the war's financing. No more money could be spent on keeping US troops in Iraq without that group's consent.

As I mentioned in my other post, what I imagine is similar to the Iraq Study Group, but would have at least one military person and at least on Iraqi in the group.

One important thing to remember here is that the Iraqi government is begging us to stay. The US military is the only sort of police/military force that they can count on, since their own forces have been hopelessly compromised by infiltrators. So we do have somebody to support, although wheter the Iraqi government is worth supporting is another debate altogether (and would certainly be an issue for any Iraq Study Group II to take up).

[SirSaxa]

Stig,

I realize we "do have somebody to support" - -Maliki. Whether he and his "government" actually represent a significant percentage of Iraqis is another question.

Frankly, I don't see any way this gets resolved as long as W is Prez, unless the Dems are able to play hardball so effectively they force his hand. Smart Republicans should hope so because otherwise, the '08 elections will be really ugly for them.

[TBird41]

thestig said:

sirsaxa said:

But that was done already. Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.
And the President ignored it just like he does everything else.

That's why the group would have to be given veto power over the war's financing. No more money could be spent on keeping US troops in Iraq without that group's consent.

The only group that can be given that veto power would be the entire Congress--I doubt they'd be able to write a law creating a group that could legally hold that power without amending the Constitution

[EasyEd]

austinhoya03 said:

ed said:

Scoring political points is much more important than what's best for the United States, Iraq and the world.

Ed, how do you square this assertion with your previous assertion that Bush's Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy?

Read my assertion! Doesn't say the Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy. What is does say is that what he said was correct. "Since Ben Laden says Iraq is now the centerpoint of the al-Queda operation, the President was perfectly correct in stating it. " General Petraeus has specifically stated that Iraq is the "central front" for Al-Qaeda. This is not to say Al-Qaeda is the only faction causing trouble in Iraq, only that it is one of them.

[Deleted]

ed said:

austinhoya03 said:

Ed, how do you square this assertion with your previous assertion that Bush's Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy?

Read my assertion! Doesn't say the Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy. What is does say is that what he said was correct. "Since Ben Laden says Iraq is now the centerpoint of the al-Queda operation, the President was perfectly correct in stating it. " General Petraeus has specifically stated that Iraq is the "central front" for Al-Qaeda. This is not to say Al-Qaeda is the only faction causing trouble in Iraq, only that it is one of them.

Was Al Qaeda causing trouble in Iraq 4 years ago? You know...when we got there?

[Bando]

ed said:

austinhoya03 said:

Ed, how do you square this assertion with your previous assertion that Bush's Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy?

Read my assertion! Doesn't say the Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy. What is does say is that what he said was correct. "Since Ben Laden says Iraq is now the centerpoint of the al-Queda operation, the President was perfectly correct in stating it. " General Petraeus has specifically stated that Iraq is the "central front" for Al-Qaeda. This is not to say Al-Qaeda is the only faction causing trouble in Iraq, only that it is one of them.

Will you please stop disparaging the good name of my friend Ben?

[EasyEd]

cam said:

ed said:

Read my assertion! Doesn't say the Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy. What is does say is that what he said was correct. "Since Ben Laden says Iraq is now the centerpoint of the al-Queda operation, the President was perfectly correct in stating it. " General Petraeus has specifically stated that Iraq is the "central front" for Al-Qaeda. This is not to say Al-Qaeda is the only faction causing trouble in Iraq, only that it is one of them.

Was Al Qaeda causing trouble in Iraq 4 years ago? You know...when we got there?

Not anything of significance. But your question is unrelated to Bush's assertion that Al Qaeda is causing trouble today.