The budget battle over funding the Iraq war continues. The president now accepts benchmarks, the Vice president went unannounced to Iraq to tell the Parliament not to take a vacation. He said things are getting better while you could see his flak jacket under his shirt. As one of the TV pundits said, "maybe one of the benchmarks should be when a US official can make an announced visit to Iraq".
The Republicans ( the Presidents Party) in the senate introduced a bill that would cut off funding if benchmarks weren't met. It was defeated as not strong enough. The Democrats introduced a bill to cut off funding on a time table. It was to strong and went down in defeat.
So the battling words are "timetables" and "benchmarks". No body has quite defined them but they are the key words. The guys against timetables say we can't leave right away and the guys against benchmarks say, what happens if benchmarks are not met. Nobody, as yet, wants to define the terms to closely.
I still think there will be a bill for partial funding with some benchmarks and requiring the President to report back to Congress. Both sides have said they will have a bill by the end of May. Lots of meetings going on.
Retired Maj. General Batiste, who served in Iraq appeared in a TV ad to support a deadline for pulling out of Iraq.
Ad starts with a clip of the president saying that "I will always listen to commanders on the ground." Then cuts to the general "Mr president, you did not listen. You continue to follow a failed strategy." There was also a letter signed by 11 generals, most served in Iraq, saying get out. The military is starting to speak out.
At the same time republicans are visiting Iraq and reporting back on how much better things are getting. The argument is, if we get out there will be chaos, and the other side says if we stay there will be chaos. It reminds me of what my father once told me" if you have a choice between rich and happy and poor and happy, take rich and happy. So if you get out and get chaos and if you stay you get chaos, I would choose get out, you get chaos either way.
Wolfowitz still in trouble. Looks like there will be a deal. He will resign but with a clear name. The deal being that the US still gets to name the next president of the World Bank.
Gozales gets deeper in trouble. more information coming out that there was a lots of backdoor political intrigue to hire and fire State Attorney generals. He is losing support among republicans but still has strong support from the President. Congress is still going after Gonzales.
So the battle continues. The Bush presidency is under siege and will not get much accomplished in the next year and a half.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Finding a way out
The battle goes on. The president vetoed the Iraq funding bill with the time lines. The house did not have enough votes to override the veto, so now the backroom meetings are going on. The Republicans want the check and the democrats won't sign it without some caveats. Both sides have promised that they will have a bill my the end of May. In the meantime the media manipulation is under full steam. Things are improving only 80 killed today. Second highest deaths of American soldiers. To be expected since they are now stationed in with the population.. hard to tell what is really going on since most reporters can't get out of the green Zone so really have no clue on what is going on. I get some of my best information from blogs written by Iraqis in Iraq.
But it looks like some compromise is in the winds. the president has again redefined success. Success now is a level of violence that the Iraqi people can live with. At a press briefing the presidential press officer Tony Snow was asked to define it and he said he couldn't. Several fairly powerful Republicans have some out with proposals. They all fall in the category of give the pres the money for three or four month, put benchmarks on the Iraqi government, require the president to report back to Congress every month. We will have to see what will happen, My guess 3 or 4 months funding with benchmarks. Democrats just will not sign a blank check.
The arguments boil down to :withdrawal is surrender and will lead to greater chaos in the Middle East we must have success: to: how much greater can the chaos be and you can't win militarily only solution is political and the Iraqis have to solve it, so lets get out.
Latest News and World Report has The President on the Cover with the text
Bush's last stand, plagued by a hostile Congress, sinking polls, an unending war Yet, he won't budge
IS HE RESOLUTE OR DELUSIONAL
I am reading a facinating book "The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein"
by Sandra Mackey. The author has lived in the middle east and has written several other books. it is a history of the region going back a thousand years. In fact, probably more than i wanted to know but it really points out the folly of what we are doing
This book was written in 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq
some quotes; "At some point Saddam Hussein will fall from the oppressive weight of his own regime. When that happens, the United States must be prepared for what will follow. Immediately after the boot is lifted from the neck of the Iraqis, a blood bath will likely ensue as each group pours out its anger. " "The Iraqis will not be able to restore order alone. Failing any effort at nation building, Iraq will likely fragment. Regardless of whether the Iraqis slaughter each other, go their seperate ways, or somehow hold themselves together, the United States whether it wants to or not, is going to be en snarled in post Hussein Iraq"
"The ghosts of Vietnam are there because the United States is again in danger of stumbling into the internal conflicts of another people, and become trapped in old feuds it never comprehended. In this new era of the American experience that began on September 11, 2001, the United States can no longer afford to be seduced by its own military power or by the naive faith that foreign worlds can always be simplified and mastered"
So the warnings were there.
In the meantime there is a lot of backpedaling. Condeleezza Rice now says the "Imminent threat" means will you be stronger or weaker in the future, if weaker strike now. So it is not that anything will happen within the next weeks or months. Ugggh.
In the meantime, Tenant says he was misunderstood with the "slam dunk " comment, Gonzalves is still under fire, Wolwowitz teetering and Blair is resigning.
Otherwise truth is always stranger than fiction
But it looks like some compromise is in the winds. the president has again redefined success. Success now is a level of violence that the Iraqi people can live with. At a press briefing the presidential press officer Tony Snow was asked to define it and he said he couldn't. Several fairly powerful Republicans have some out with proposals. They all fall in the category of give the pres the money for three or four month, put benchmarks on the Iraqi government, require the president to report back to Congress every month. We will have to see what will happen, My guess 3 or 4 months funding with benchmarks. Democrats just will not sign a blank check.
The arguments boil down to :withdrawal is surrender and will lead to greater chaos in the Middle East we must have success: to: how much greater can the chaos be and you can't win militarily only solution is political and the Iraqis have to solve it, so lets get out.
Latest News and World Report has The President on the Cover with the text
Bush's last stand, plagued by a hostile Congress, sinking polls, an unending war Yet, he won't budge
IS HE RESOLUTE OR DELUSIONAL
I am reading a facinating book "The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein"
by Sandra Mackey. The author has lived in the middle east and has written several other books. it is a history of the region going back a thousand years. In fact, probably more than i wanted to know but it really points out the folly of what we are doing
This book was written in 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq
some quotes; "At some point Saddam Hussein will fall from the oppressive weight of his own regime. When that happens, the United States must be prepared for what will follow. Immediately after the boot is lifted from the neck of the Iraqis, a blood bath will likely ensue as each group pours out its anger. " "The Iraqis will not be able to restore order alone. Failing any effort at nation building, Iraq will likely fragment. Regardless of whether the Iraqis slaughter each other, go their seperate ways, or somehow hold themselves together, the United States whether it wants to or not, is going to be en snarled in post Hussein Iraq"
"The ghosts of Vietnam are there because the United States is again in danger of stumbling into the internal conflicts of another people, and become trapped in old feuds it never comprehended. In this new era of the American experience that began on September 11, 2001, the United States can no longer afford to be seduced by its own military power or by the naive faith that foreign worlds can always be simplified and mastered"
So the warnings were there.
In the meantime there is a lot of backpedaling. Condeleezza Rice now says the "Imminent threat" means will you be stronger or weaker in the future, if weaker strike now. So it is not that anything will happen within the next weeks or months. Ugggh.
In the meantime, Tenant says he was misunderstood with the "slam dunk " comment, Gonzalves is still under fire, Wolwowitz teetering and Blair is resigning.
Otherwise truth is always stranger than fiction
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)