A good question for Harry Reid these days, as Republican defections from President Bush’s Iraq policy mount by the day. In a coumn a couple of weeks back Pat Buchanan predicted a deluge of Republican defections in the Senate.
What was anticipated in September, the retreat of the old bulls of the Republican Party from the Bush war policy, happened in June. The beginning of the end of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war is at hand.
Buchanan was right in his June column. Those defections in the Senate could number as many as ten, bringing the Democratic majority very close to the magic number of sixty needed to invoke cloture and stop a filibuster. But as that number grows will there be an ability to coalesce around one plan that has sixty votes? There appear to be four competing plans at this moment, with the proposal by Democratic freshman Senator Ken Salazar attracting six Republican co-sponsors. But Salazar’s proposal has attracted heat from Majority Leader Reid. In the Washington Post Reid was quoted:
Surprising even his colleagues, Reid harshly dismissed the measure with the broadest bipartisan backing — a compilation of Iraq Study Group recommendations offered by freshman Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). The Salazar proposal, which as of last night had attracted six Democratic and six Republican co-sponsors, “won’t change one thing that the president does,” Reid said, who is opposed to anything short of legislation ending U.S. combat operations.
The four proposals are summarized in the Washington Post article:
The Senate is focused on four proposals: One is Salazar’s, which would adopt the study group’s plan but gives the president latitude to make withdrawal timetables; another, advanced by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), would force an immediate end to the U.S. combat mission without mandating troop withdrawals; another, still in the works by Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), that would meld the two; and the main Democratic plan, sponsored by Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), would begin troop reductions no later than 120 days after enactment.
Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine has joined the Levin-Reed legislation, saying
“We have arrived at the crossroads of hope and reality, and we must now address the reality. We need to send a strong message from the United States Congress, on behalf of the American people, that the current strategy is unacceptable,” Snowe said.
And so the Senate marches inexorably to the 60 vote margin. The President has engaged by asking the Republican caucus to wait for the September report due from Gen. David Petraeus on the progress of the so-called surge. It does not appear that Republican senators feel they can wait that long, and the key question now is whether the Democrats can cobble sixty out of the Republican dissarray.(Republican House Leader John Boehner characterized Senate Republican “defectors’ as “wimps”) They will be aided by the Bush Administrations report, due today, on the progress made by the Al-Maliki government. From a political perspective I believe this report, despite the slant likely to be shown, will further erode Republican support. Can Harry Reid get to sixty, and will the President be forced to change course? That handwriting is on the wall.
The Post article is at this link.
The Buchanan column is at this link.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
It appears as if the wheels are coming off the wagon. The politics of defeat have become powerful and we will end up going into a defensive mode. The war on terror will move to our shores.
Some observations;
1. This will prove that the American people cannot support a protracted war. The war on terror IS a protracted war.
2. Putting aside the politics and policies on Iraq, our troops are confronting Al-Qeada and inflicting casualties (and they on us). These are the guys who attacked our soil in 2001. The caualties inflicted on Al_Qeada in Iraq may have forestalled a professionally led attack on our soil up to now. There have several amateur attempts.
3. Al_Qeada apparently has rebuilt itself elsewhere and has the our authorities worried.This ability to resurrect itself is one reason it will be a protracted war. The myriad of other terror organizations have the same capability. Keep in mind we are talking about reletively small group who are expert at creating terror among larger populations.
4. As far as I can see there are no viable alternatives except let’s get the hell out of there.
5. Our enemies must be beside themselves with joy as they wait for the congress to wrestle the war away from the president. First Vietnam, followed by Lebanon, then Somalia now Iraq.
6. Some of the Republican defectors, made their decision for purposes of re-election.
7. For purposes of definions, there are no Republican legislators from the Northeast. I have no idea why Collins and Snow run as Republicans. I have a hard time understanding Specter sometimes. It may be the overwhelming Democratic population forces them to the left.
Well, your Honor, it appears the American people are going to get what they want, and more.
I have a question for you; what are you going to say to the families of the Americans who are going to blown to pieces?
Another question; If we are attacked on our soil are you going to blame George bush
These are the consequence I see as a result of what is transpiring.
I hope I am wrong.
LikeLike
TERROR ALERT!! Yup, Right on schedule with defections of Republicans from the neocon war policy, it’s time to raise the terror specter yet again…
“Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned.”
LikeLike
Jules,
There was little evidence Al-Qeada was in Iraq when we attacked. Hussein wanted nothing to do with them since he knew if we was caught harboring or financing them he would be attacked.
We had tons of good will with the Muslim countries and their people after 9/11. Bush pissed it all away by attacking Iraq and marking Iran and Syria as part of it’s “Axis of Evil” instead of just letting the attack on Afghanistan and the rebuilding of it be the focus and concentrating on working with other countries to eliminate Al-Qeada.
Bush had all the ingredients to build a legacy for himself. Instead Al-Qeada has rebuilt itself, we are mired in a tough war where we can do no right, and our national debt has skyrocketed even further. He will be marked by future historians as one of the worst presidents to ever occupy the position.
You bet I’ll blame George W. Bush for the next attack on our soil.
LikeLike
Derek,
We have been at war with terror groups (including Al_Qeada) for more than 20 years, before 9/11. Don’t forget the 9/11 attack on the Towers is the second attack. So I am not sure where your “tons of good will” came from. As I recall, President Clinton dropped a few bombs on Muslims as well.
These “good will” countries have been teaching their children about the great Satan (you and me) creating a terrorist mentality as they grew to be adults. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Home of the 9/11 terror groups, led by Osama Ben laden, another Saudi, Living in the Pakiststan/Afghanistan area.
So the question for you is; if we had “good will” in the Muslim countries, why were we attacked?
Let’s talk about Iran and Syria. I presume from your position on matters, these two countries are part of the “good will” group. Let’s see; Iran attacked our consulate in the Carter era and we haven’t spoken since. We have frozen their assets. I suspect these guys hated us before 9/11. They have also financed, through Syria, the terror group Hezzbelah.
Iran’s peaceful development of atomic energy started long before the election of the hated Bush.
Jordan and Egypt have helped to a degree, with intelligence gathering. But, they both have a dark side for their own preservation.
Hamas, another terrorist group, is also supported by Iran.
Let me know who the “good will” guys are.
Derek, we are in a world war. Muslim terror groups, operating asynchronously, operate, in concert with and independent of each other depending on the situation.
War is being conducted in the Philippines, Indonesia (Largest Muslim country), China, Russia, Afghanistan, certainly Iraq, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Britain, France, Spain, Bosnia and others. As I said, a world war, before the hated Bush came to office.
Pardon me, Derek, but neither you or I have a crystal ball as to how history will treat George Bush. There were people, like yourself, who denigrated Wahington and Lincoln. Check your history. Anyway, we celebrate their birthdays as national holidays.
Derek, you are spewing the liberal line right out of the little talking points book. The phrase “tax cut for the rich” is in there too.
You hate Bush. Our discussion must put your prejudice aside and discuss that which is defensible.
We are in this for many years. As Golda Myer said,” peace will come when they love their children more than they hate us”. That could be decades.
Your turn.
LikeLike
Let’s see:
You mention the “hated Bush” came to office. I did not hate Bush when he came to office; like any official that comes to office, I am willing to give anyone a shot before forming an opinion; I may have not voted for Bush, but I chided anyone who blasted him without seeing what he would do first. I actually thought his first months in office were well done. My current opinion of him was formed much later.
I never said Iran or Syria weren’t terrorist supporters; all I said was that he picked them (along with North Korea) as part of his “Axis of Evil”, although there was little to no evidence at the time to tie any of them to Al-qeada. Why needlessly anger those countries when the fight is against a terror group in a neighboring country? According to Bush administration officials in the State Department, both Iran and Syria offered assistance and the State Department recommended engaging them as a means for fighting Al-qaeda. Both Iran and Syria knew that if they were found to be assisting Al-qaeda they would find some cruise missiles heading their way.
As for “So the question for you is; if we had “good will” in the Muslim countries, why were we attacked?”, we didn’t have good will before the attack, we gained it after the attack. Most Muslim people were outraged about the 9/11 attacks, especially the shadow it cast on Islam. Our embassies in those countries were inundated with flowers and cards, most news outlets blasted the attacks, and very few protested out attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Did those countries still have people that hate us and train people to hate us in schools? Of course they did, but a majority of the occupants of those countries supported ousting the Taliban. Most opinion polls taken in those countries viewed the United States in a favorable opinion after the attacks, which flipped after the Iraq attacks. I do agree with you on the Saudi Arabia point however; our blind eye to their despotic government and hate spewing madrassas has created a breeding ground for terrorists.
I again stand by the “liberal line” (yet Pat Buchanan agrees with it, and nobody calls him a liberal) that attacking Iraq to defeat terrorism was a mistake. Iraq was not a center of terrorism; definitely a despotic tyrant who deserved his fate, but all the attack did was inflame Muslim and worldwide opinion of the United States, increase terrorist ranks, and add a colossal amount of money to the national debt.
Here are some key points of Bush’s war on terrorism:
1) A fairly successful drain of terrorism finances world wide. Most countries and financial institutions have worked well with us.
2) Capture or death of several key Al-qaeda operatives around the world.
3) The homeland security agency is a mess, with top officials leaving constantly. The GAO consistently gives it bad reviews, especially in it’s IT department.
4) According to a recent government report, Al-qaeda is now as powerful as it was at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
5) Attacked Iraq based on terrorist and WMD, found neither. Since that time, Iraq has become mired in a battle by Al-qeada lead insurgents.
6) Afghanistan is constantly attacked by Taliban rebels because NATO does not have enough resources available. This blame also goes to the NATO countries, not just Bush.
7) His own party is beginning to turn on him.
8) Created several internal espionage programs, some of which have probably prevented attacks, others have been branded illegal.
9) Al-qaeda has flourished in Pakistan. Part of this has to do with Pakistan politics, which Bush can only push so much upon. Hopefully some of the latest developments over there will change this.
10) Spent a whole lot of money that could have been used to shore up this nation’s defense.
11) Has pretty much done nothing about the Palestine/Israel conflict, which is one of the main roots of Muslim terrorism.
Bush is not alone of course; Congress and the Senate had to green light most of these items. The Democrats keep giving in on everything, but complain the most. Past actions by previous administrations as well as history in general have set roadblocks in the war on terror.
I realize this is a protracted war, that has been going on for quite some time, but not all of it needs to be fought with bullets and bombs. Our assistance in the tsunami bought some good will with the Indonesian people. A carrots and sticks program with Libya has paid off. I also realize that world politics, as well as the almighty buck play a huge part in all of this. I believe that Bush had the ball in his hands and fumbled it; his administration has quite failed in the war on terror, but I would give them a D+ overall.
You are right about the crystal ball; however I am confident that we will never celebrate Bush’s birthday as a national holiday.
LikeLike
Derek,
Good reply. Let’s take it by the numbers.
1. I agree. Terrorist are very clever. I think they will work alternatives or workarounds. We will need to be vigilant.
2. True, but I believe they will replace them. In general they are squad leaders with a few regimental commanders. By the most part these groups are small. The deaths will put a crimp in their activities, but they seem to recover and continue their operations.
3. I agree about the homeland security department. Have you seen the organization chart? No one could effectively run an organization that big. Needs a new idea.
4. In view of previous comments above, the size of Al_Qeada is small. Filling ranks needs only a few replacements. Don’t forget, though, there are many terrorist groups in the world. It is made up of many cultures, Arab, Persian, Indonesian, Filipino, Chinese, and a host of others in the Siberian steps. The Arab version is the most dangerous now.
5. We can discuss the WMD thing later. Right now we are fighting these guys in their home territory. Normally they would be coming here. Isn’t it better we fight them there than here. Our guys are doing great. We inflict casualties on them and their replacements. I reference your line item 2. It appears from what I hear in their tapes they think Iraq is a strategic war that must be won. It would be sad if it were lost in Washington rather than Iraq.
6. Afghanistan is also a dangerous place for the Taliban. They are being fought tooth and nail. What I do not know is how the Afghanistanies are feeling about the Taliban. They were nasty to their own people when they were in charge.
7. My Republican party is made up of weak kneed fools who haven’t the nerve to stand on their belief. They are looking to the next election. I truly hate that. I bet the RNC is having fund raising problems, especially exasperated by the Immigration amnesty vote as well as the war. They are wavering but have not fallen apart so far. The illegal activities is argumentative. You and I could argue until we are blue in the face. It would require a Supreme Court case to resolve.
9. I agree. looks like Mushariff’s deal with the terrorists in the no man’s land has disassembled. It should be interesting to see what transpires. How does Taliban and Al_Qaeda in charge of Pakistan’s atomic bomb stock sound? It’s possible.
10. I disagree. Are you suggesting we build a huge wall around the US? What will work is intelligence and alertness over there. I don’t know if our intelligence agencies have had the time to train Arab speaking agents and spies. Earlier administrations had pretty much eviscerated the agency.
11.The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is entering an interesting conjunction with Fatah and Hamas in conflict. Let’s see how it works out.
Some points:
a. Axis of evil had to do with many factors
including nuclear proliferation. You do not think Al-Qeada has not trained in Iran or Syria before the 9/11 attack? I think history will show they had much contact.
b. Somehow I think Iran was already angered when they captured our embassy for 400 plus days. Syria has been funding Hamas and Hezbollah long before 9/11. Lebanon and Israel have been the recipients of this terror largess.
b. You mentioned “inflaming Muslims”. The result of the 9/11 attack in the Muslim world was dancing in the streets or silence giving quiet approval and support for the attack and the attackers. The Muslim world was loud by its silence.
c. I am glad we see the congress is unable to do much of anything. Actually congress, both parties included, has a lower polling rate than the president and the vice-president. I need a new party as do you.
d. Everyone throws Pat Buchanan at me. He wasn’t voted into the office of the president. same is true for any of the other pundits. There are so many variations of opinion that anyone can put together a combination to support their own view.
e. You think the war was a mistake. I disagree. We both think things have gone wrong. Please show me a war that has not had mistakes, with casualties resulting. We are learning to fight our enemies in an urban setting with the enemy using civilians, including children for cover. That could happen here.
f. Indonesia has been surprisingly quite except for the Bali bombing. They are the largest Muslim country. I wonder if they know that they could be the target of terror as have been the other Muslim countries. These terrorists don’t care who they kill.
g. George Bush certainly doesn’t get an A. I give him a C at this point.
h. I don’t think we will have a George BushBirthday day off, just like you. Only time will tell.
One last point. President Bush has been the object of Democratic party hate since taking office 6 years ago. No man can withstand that purposeful strategy 24/7 and not be affected. He has with stood a complicity of hate at inception. It eventually worked.
Your turn.
Jules
LikeLike
re: Item #5 of Jules posting:
I am SO SICK of hearing that BS line “we are fighting them there…”. Kind
of like a keg party, where the crowd heads off to where the action’s at, eh?
Turn off the FAUX News, will you?
Eight years elapsed between the 1993 WTC
bombing and 9/11. Where were we fighting them during that time?! Or was it simply
a matter of when they’re ready, they’ll do it again? Just as will happen — AGAIN!
Only the truly naive would believe that being in Iraq has kept us safer here (likely the same 40% that believe Iraq was behind 9/11). In fact, king george’s war has undoubtedly only served to create a whole new breed of terrorists. Count on it.
LikeLike
Jim,
Nice to hear from you.
We were not fighting them between 1993 and 9/11 as we should have been. Since Vietnam we have been unsuccessful fighting irregulars. We were victorious in the first Iraq war under president Bush the elder. That was a regular war.
It’s bescause we did nothing since the first WTC attack, except drop a couple of cruise missiles on a pill factory, we probably encouraged the second attack.
Now they face our military in Afghanistan and Iraq in full court war. We need to learn how to fight in an urban setting, but we are going after them. They send in more terrorists to replace their losses.
They are not a new breed, but they are adaptable.
So get you barf bag out Jim, cause we are fighting them there and we will have to fight them here too. They will probably never get a large number of individuals into the US without detection, so what they do has to be spectacular with a small unit.
If you want to raise the white flag and leave Iraq, just support our federal legislators who see things just the way you do.
I am on the other side.
Question for you, Jim.
Do you believe the war against terrorism will be long?
Have a good day.
LikeLike
Absolutely the war against terrorism will be long. And if we were dedicating our resources to fighting it where we should be fighting it (and that isn’t in Iraq my friend), it would probably be going a hell of a lot smoother, and a lot less expensive. And we likely would not be fighting it alone if we hadn’t pissed away the post 9/11 goodwill Derek alluded to …
One last thing Jules, in a previous post, you indicated no man can withstand a hateful strategy 24/7 and not be affected. My recollection is Bill Clinton did just that, and he thrived, our economy thrived, our international standing in world affairs thrived, and this country was respected – harMonica or not. That’s a real chop-buster isn’t it?! 😉
LikeLike
Aren’t we supposed to be talking about Methuen here?
Seriously:
Jules: I should not have used the term “nation’s defense”, that was a poor choice of words. What I meant was shoring up our intelligence agencies , committing some military resources to disaster recovery, and better securing our borders. I realize I giant wall won’t work.
I am in a different party; the Libertarian party. While I don’t agree with some of their views (no taxes just won’t work) I feel they are the closest to my political beliefs of a smaller government.
Jim, we did fight a small war against them from 1993 to 2001, but anytime Clinton did anything military-wise the Republicans pounced on him. The big problem was that it wasn’t a big priority for Americans since the body count was so low, the destruction low and captured a good portion of the bad guys. One of the biggest problems before 9/11 was that Americans always viewed Muslim terrorism as something that happened “over there.”
LikeLike
Jim,
I believe the medium was a little less abusive to Clinton than Bush. Otherwise they have had similar histories. Both lost their majorities, so I say that Clinton ticked off the electorate as much as Bush.
In the case of the war, you have to agree that Bush was reacting to a severe attack on our shore. At that time he was committed to fighting a war against a world wide terror assault. Can’t hunker down in the trenches.
I supported the president’s strategies. Unlike the bipartisan cut-and-run gang who changed there support over time, I will stand by the president. I am disappointed in the Iraqs blowing an opportunity for freedom.
You feel otherwise. We should probably leave at that.
You are correct about the American view that terror was a foreign matter only even though we had been at war for 20 years before 9/11. Now we know with the latest intelligence assessment they are probably here already. Not only Al_Qaeda but Hamas and hezbulla as well. They all have the same goal; our destruction as a society.
My fear is that we will be our worst enemy. If attacked from within, we will begin to blame each other rather than coming together.
I disagree with you about the goodwill we had. It was an illusion. Someday we will have to list those countries and discuss them one by one.
Right now our troops need our support. They are not getting it from a majority of the American people. So I do my part.
Stay alert. Be safe.
LikeLike
Derek,
Politically, we may be closer than I thought.
If you read my response to Jim you will see my view of things. Right now the congressmen and senators are battling it out. The war will go on. It would be nice if we could get behind our troops as they battle our real enemies (over there).
Stay safe.
LikeLike
Jules,
Please don’t presume for me — I strongly disagree that Bush was reacting to an attack on the US by invading Iraq (we know now that Iraq was on his agenda from day one of his first unelected term). Afghanistan I never had a problem with. Iraq, I never agreed with. I’m also surprised that you continue to stand by Bush with all that’s become public knowledge relative to Iraq. Isn’t it ironic that his staunchest supporter has now been all but eliminated as a presidential contender?
I’m also curious to see what else we’ll learn if only Bush would stop claiming executive privilege, and I firmly believe he has no intention of establishing a dialogue with Iran before he invades there. Too bad he doesn’t read polls, because if he did, he’d find that the majority of Iranian public want peace. But hey, he doesn’t listen to the American public, so why should he listen to them? If he leaves office without having first launched an assault on Iran, I’ll eat crow.
I also find the timing of the latest NIE an ironic double-edged sword. On the one hand, publicizing it (in combination with Chertoff’s ‘gut’ reaction) only serves to ‘remind’ America of the threat we face. On the other hand, if it proves viable, and if we are attacked on these shores (purportedly by a means that’s been developed and refined in Iraq), would that finally prove to you that Iraq was all for naught, has jeopardized this country even more, and that focusing
solely on Afghanistan might have been the wiser choice, and would likely still have the backing of the American public and the international community?!
LikeLike
Jim,
You don’t like Bush. I can tell by the liberal mantra “first unelected term” you use in the first sentence. I would therefore have to consider that you are against him from the start of his first term.
I will tell you that I supported president Bush’s invasion in the middle east for reasons that made sense to me. I am in this thing until the end. I don’t stick my finger in the air and run with polls. I back him all the way.
As far as Iran is concerned they are training and supporting terrorists to go into Iraq and kill our soldiers.
The Intelligence reports finds that the gangs creating the chaos are not Iraqis but foreigners, Jordanians, Saudis (of 9/11 fame), Egyptians, etc.. These are the guys who will eventually come here (on 9/11 9 did). We are fighting them there, that’s good.
If the Iranians develop the Atomic bomb they will use it. Then what, Jim?
We will have to face these things sometime.
Note: we have been at war some 20 years before the hated bush was elected. The assault on our
shores on 9/11 was by terrorists who happen to be from Saudi Arabia.Now others will come and they will be a multicultural.
Here is my point; In spite of your argument there is nothing we can do or could have done to appease this world wide terror culture.
They hate us (and others) and are determined to hurt us even if we had not sent a single soldier to the middle east.
If the democrats think Bush must be handled then let them summon up the courage and defund the war and impeach Bush, period.
This “who did what to whom”, or “who said what to whom and when” is debilitating and has divided our country while our troops are at war, all this so the democrats can win back power.
Hope all is well with you Jim.
Your turn.
LikeLike