The Iraq Resolution, Hot Off the Press

By

The language of the Iraq war resolution to be considered in the House this week has just been crafted and will be circulated shortly to lawmakers across Capitol Hill. The debate, of course, will not be brief, but the text of the resolution is.

Take a read for yourself:

“Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

The brevity is by design. Democrats hope if they keep the language simple — and, they believe, unloaded — the resolution will draw more bipartisan support.

We’ll see Friday, when the vote is expected.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

R.M. – Cleveland.O February 13, 2007 · 2:01 am

Just a short note on post #49. :

Wilfried, You make some valid points. I think the media was not actually silent, however, they were certainly subdued and muted in asking the hard questions directly to the White House. Things are improving, but there are still some unanswered questions.

I think that it is important to note that America is a multifaceted country, composed of people with a fair variety of opinions. (I suspect there are a range of opinions in Austria as well, right?) So, while some here are calling for quick withdrawal, that is not at all universal. It seems to me that the consensus is that most think it is going poorly, and there is certainly a fair amount of objective evidence to support that view, however, I alos think that most Americans do not support an immediate withdrawal, but do want to see the government develop a strategy to get the U.S out of there.

Unfortunately, for reason that you allude to in your post, things were not well planned from the beginning and now we are in a very difficult position. In some ways, this is a little bit like the Soviet Union collapse, where once the repressive regime was removed, then all the sectarian (tribal, if you wish) animosities between groups have now bubbled to the surface to manifest themselves once again, which is, in part, a function of deposing Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, the Bush administration leadership did a poor job of anticipating this and of reacting to it once it blossomed [sic].

I don’t think that there will be any pretty or clean way out of this. Much is at stake, and the U.S helped cause the situation, so I agree that it needs to try and find a solution, but please understand that options are limited.

It is interesting to hear opinions from outside the country. BTW: In case you’d like to know, I think that your English is not so bad. I’m pretty sure folks can understand your points just fine. (Also, I used to sublet to students from around the world for 9 years who came here for grad school, so I think that I have a pretty good point of reference.)

— Cheers

Bernard J. Young February 13, 2007 · 2:45 am

I got one question,How many of you have served in the Armed Forces and/or have been to Iraq?From my stand point some of you seems to be arm chair Generals,with a degree from JC Penney
If you know so much about war fighting,Where are you?Uncle Sam needs you,Go figure!

yot February 13, 2007 · 6:47 am

The resolution in itself is not important. It’s the debate that matters. This is a chance for Republicans with any ability of independent thought to voice their concern about the war instead of repeating party line talking points from Karl Rove. Someone needs to keep track how much time they spend talking about the war as opposed to Nancy Pelosi’s plane.

GOP Come Home February 13, 2007 · 8:53 am

If the Democrats don’t think our boys should be over there, why don’t they cut funding?

If they think that our soldiers are fighting and dying for nothing why don’t they do anything about it?

The answer is simple: The Democrats are putting political security above national security.

How about a resolution demanding victory and peace even if it means taking the hard tough road through 08.

Steve Bolger February 13, 2007 · 1:24 pm

Once again we see Boehner frame the discussion in terms of “resolve” as the debate goes to the House floor.

They went into this as some kind of display of “resolve”, taunted by Saddam and Osama quite independently of each other, with allusions to Vietnam and Somalia.

Be careful what you undertake as displays of “resolve”, it is quite possible to out-resolve one’s actual staying-power.

Bush himself has said that the US will not leave Iraq for the duration of his term, so he’s an obstacle to getting out sooner.

Kronix March 19, 2007 · 11:21 pm

Oh you saved tons of my time. Thanks a lot.

Older
Newer