Sunday, January 07, 2007

A Big Fat Sitting Duck

January 5, 2007 President George W. Bush The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war

in Iraqis to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abiz aid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:

"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. We appreciate you taking these views into consideration. Sincerely, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Speaker Nancy Pelosi


Bare days after taking power, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are calling for America to lose the war.

This Sunday, she was on TV arguing the President must present all future bills to Congress in two nice columns, one for supporting a stalemate, and the other, costs involved in pushing on for victory. Even Sen. Biden balked at that, calling such "micromanage(ment)" "unconstitutional".

In which he is right. Congress cannot pay for a Navy IF it visits Japan and not Australia, or a Marine Corps IF it doesn't go to Iraq. That is no part of the House's decisions, and it is interesting that Pelosi is once again getting ahead of herself.

Sadly, Sen. Biden is probably more aggressively defending this Administration that some Republicans. I find it hard to visit powerlineblog anymore, they are so eager to embrace the Democrat version of a war with one last chance remaining for "victory". No matter what we achieve in Iraq in the next two or three months, the Democrats will demand a pullout. Speaker Pelosi has put herself on record, that the war has already cost too much and offended too many people, and can't go on anymore. France isn't going to like us any better regardless of what happens in Ramadi, and yahoos are going to keep making bombs somewhere in Iraq for some time to come--just as the Symbionese Liberation Army kept on chugging until the bulk of the members got shot down like dogs.

This letter is a huge misstep, and shows Nancy Pelosi is not quite ready for primetime. She will not be able to easily withdraw such an ultimatum, or expect the press to ignore a Speaker the way they could ignore a gaffe by the Minority Leader. It is doubtful she has the whole of the House Democrats behind an immediate reckoning, and as Sen. Biden makes clear, she didn't bother to line up the Senate Democrats behind a precipitate showdown. I expect when the President finally gets through with his little vacation and resumes his duties as a wartime President, that he will shut her down cold. For a time.

1 comment:

magno said...

The government of The United States of America, can solve its current problem, yea it is a fact in Iraq there was no w.m.d., but every one I tell this change his/her view about this long war, at least somehow so please I ask you again please read it, look it as it is your life be emperical about this, imagine someone comes to your house crushes it, and abuses sexually your loved one whoever it may be, sorry about the explicitness, but it is necessary.
Just imagine the person who did this is the person you hate the most, in your life, your own life. And in the case this is The Excellency the President; yes Mr. Bush did it he took Saddam out of power and found him in a humiliated situation. No sanitation, just a humiliated person, just think this way he was completely humiliated.
Also I know that they did find, there was no weapons of mass destruction.
But that is not the fact in matter at all, you destroy someone's house at another point of view someone you hated destroyed your house, abused your loved one, yours.
You will ask him every one of the destroyer's property or the destroyer has to incapacitate you completely of doing something back.
Got it?
Basically to add on to that there was a Democratic, and Republican committee (by the way forget politics, de facto facts are facts and that is what I am discoursing about, "nothing more to it", and I mean nothing) who analyzed and verified that the President of this great country, (by the way the greatest, and I am not even an American) did not manipulate the intelligence (C.I.A.), who gave the information that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so it is simple I know maybe not a good idea realistically, to have started the war.
Nevertheless it is simple, purely simple you start something like that you are to defend yourself to the full extent or give every single property to the receiver of such act.
Or you are going to be "bombed".
To solve ditto, which the following apart from what was said before it is only a partial study, not an in-depth study backed, proposal but surely extremely viable. Albeit one very good suggestion would be to find out who among the sectarian fighter would be the good guys, and have them back the U.S. army or the Iraqi government. And employing the Iraqi people anyone would go crazy without a job, not to say of such a situation, including that your leader was jailed and died whoever this leader was. Basically from the knowledge I gathered from magazines as Time and Newsweek is that the president of that country who is against someone as Saddam who they caught cursing the international community while at ruminating and devising to exterminate the Kurds with weapons of mass weapons destructions. The president Nouri al-Maliki who might as well be a legitimate intentioned guy, which does not seem rogue but I would like to discuss about who he surely almost appreciates, almost as if he has a paternal air coming from such which is Moqtada al-Sadr, the guy leads people without the help of Iran or the American death wishers, al Qaeda. And also he lives and mostly is based with the people that are indigent, people who need the basic things in life as food, heating and the sort, also the president of the country completely supports him every time they arrest one his joint group member the president himself orders such to be freed, besides that he is powerful, Moqtada al-Sadr was the only of the commandants who was able: that myself heard about, being able to stop the American army, which the army laid swath onto theirs surroundings.
One of Moqtada al Sadr speech was alleviating to this boggling sectarian fighting where he said that the Sunni and Shiite are to be united, please I as if implore go through this major finding in this magazine Newsweek I will have it here for everyone: As word spread that Moqtada would lead prayers, people crowded into the mosque, most of them clad in the black as a sign of mourning. Sadr asked worshipers to pray for his dead relatives, and also for those who had been killed in Sadr City. He again called for the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He urged a top Sunni sheik to issue three fatwas: one against the killing of Shiites, another against joining Al Qaeda and the third to rebuild the shrine in Samarra. He compared his father's followers to those of the Prophet Muhammad. "After the prophet died," he intoned, "some of his followers deviated from his teachings, and the same has happened with followers of my father." The "cursed trio"-Americans, British and Israelis-were trying to divide Iraq. "We Iraqis-Sunnis and Shia-will always be brothers." Some after reading might say look he said we are part of the cursed trio or we have to withdraw, but what I see is legitimate religious, not being my religion though, but someone who seeks for what is right.
Please get it someone who might want to make it right, and by the way even Mr. George W. Bush, the president of this wonderful nation would say that, most probably it would not be a good idea to attack them if they knew they did not have weapons of mass destruction, they found that Iraq and Saddam had no relation with the al-Qaeda.
Besides it all because this country has not had the senate issue a draft, and because the president promised so, the soldiers are not winning and the manpower of the Iraqi government does not seem to hold out against al-Qaeda the countries aiding al-Qaeda, and also heavy help of Iran financially, towards some of all this insurgents.
So maybe just maybe out of those sectarian battlers, some are the "good guys", I know a in-depth search has to be done to make sure of that.
In my opinion but it is also tacit, that this is not a war of The United States of America against Iraq, but a war of al-Qaeda and Iran against the U.S; I know Moqtada al Sadr would most probably never listen to the U.S; but he would most probably listen to the president who has been endorsing him all alone despite Bush's disapproval.
And by the way apart from everything else in my humblest view this nation is as if an eagle, it idealistically should not take such a place; but because of it actions it did. It is and always will be the most important country, the most righteous, the most powerful, the most good, the most pleasure givers, the most nice, the most complete, and above all, if out of the much the huge much I have researched in life surely Americans are were and always will be "heroes". And I do say that with my word and as if a swear or promise or vowing that I do believe so.
And by the way just to cut the mushiness, once I did talk to an Iraqi here in America, in a gas station and he said, that all of this insurgents are paid mercenaries for al-Qaeda (and he was a Sunni or Shiite who had a Kurd girlfriend, in Iraq), and maybe not sure of this country when he said; also Iran would be paying for this (maybe he was not right to the letter, but the big minds in this country could sure figure it out if they noticed, that being heroes and saving this country is not playing the left, but being purple or to say think together to aid the troops think this out or use diplomacy to solve this obvious quagmire.