It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans, Democrats Unite In Opposing Bush Iraq Surge

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
U.S. senators agreed late Wednesday on compromise wording to a resolution opposing President George W. Bush's plan to increase US forces in Iraq. Senate clearly expressed its opposition to Bush's plan to send 21,500 troops to Iraq. The united senators decision is considered as a breakthrough measure. A symbolic one. It is expected to gather popular support. This happens while the threat of another war in Iran is looming.

 



newsinfo.inquirer.net
WASHINGTON -- Democratic and Republican senators agreed late Wednesday on compromise wording to a resolution opposing President George W. Bush's plan to increase US forces in Iraq, as the US war of words with Iran simmers.

The breakthrough measure, likely to gather public support, means that the White House could face an embarrassing -- but ultimately symbolic -- vote of no confidence in its latest military plan.

Some legislators fear the president is setting the groundwork for US military action against Iran, as the US aircraft carrier John Stennis heads to the Gulf to join the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, already in the region.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


In the face of another threat of war, US senators united to a common cause; To oppose sending more troops to Iraq. I believe that this surge will eventually give way for stronger foundation and further preparation to extend the war to Iraq's neighbor. And if it really does, the initial surge could just the beginning of another harrowing war which will justify the need for more additional troops. If the U.S. has been committed, it will be more difficult to stop. War may go on for a long time.

In an interview, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was quoted saying:

"But we're asking you please, solve your problems outside of Iraq. We do not want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria, and we will not accept Iran to use Iraq to attack the American forces."

This is just the proof that almost everyone involved knows where is this war will end up.





[edit on 1-2-2007 by searching_for_truth]




posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Unfortunately, this is just another resolution that has about as much force of law as a Reese's Pieces wrapper.

If they are sincerely against a troop surge, Congress needs to stand up and actually do something binding. This weak-kneed posturing doesn't help anything.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Looks to me like they are just covering their butts and trying to placate the masses. So they pretend to have nothing to do with it, while they plan to take over the world.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Just because they are trying to cover their asses, doesn't mean that good can come out of this.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Humm. . . Maliki's comment about having diplomatic talks with Iran prompted Cheney to go running to Saudi Arabia and many pro war Republicans to verbally attack malikis abilities as a leader


I wonder what reaction he will get now with wanting US out of his nation to fight its wars. . . .

Will he be "taken" out of "power" in another attempt to "liberate Iraq" because this leader is not friendly enough?


I wonder.

Beside what we need is legislation, impeachment to stop a president that obviously has gone mad.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Just because they are trying to cover their asses, doesn't mean that good can come out of this.


That may be true, but I have yet to see all this war rhetoric have much action behind it other than to escalate the war. I'll wait till I see it, before I believe it.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
This is nothing more than "wording" it means that still Bush can do as he please, either attacking Iran or getting the soldiers he wants.

Is up to the people in this nation to put the pressure in Washington because this new congress is going coward against Bush.


I am sorry but . . . I smell some kind of dictatorial Powers coming from the executive branch . . . but nah, that doesn't happen in America.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
This is not a matter of the president having "dictatorial powers," which he is very far from having.

In fact, this is a matter of a major assumption of the Founders going unfulfilled. The assumption of our government was that each of the co-equal branches of government would be perpetually angry at each other, and therefore would climb over each other and back-stab the other to make it to the top of the heap. The hope was that enough checks-and-balances were put into the Constitution to keep any one branch from coming out on top all of the time.

However, today the Congress is not asserting its great power against the president. If they do not, then there is virtually nothing to stop the president from doing what he wants. The members of Congress should be expected to keep a hard line of growing executive authority.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
However, today the Congress is not asserting its great power against the president. If they do not, then there is virtually nothing to stop the president from doing what he wants. The members of Congress should be expected to keep a hard line of growing executive authority.


And why do you think they are not doing anything? because our politicians in congress only care about satisfying lobbyist agendas and taking care of their political butts.


They all have something to gain from administrations mistakes and empowerment after one elite party leave the door open for the next.


Eroding more and more our nations foundations for personal gain.


Never trust politicians.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching_for_truth
Senate clearly expressed its opposition to Bush's plan to send 21,500 troops to Iraq.


I wonder what they think about sending 48,000?



President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.


Defense Tech

Turns out the 21,500 are combat troops. They need at least that many more to support the combat troops. Hey, Bush said "more than 20,000" He didn't lie!
50,000 IS more than 20,000!



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join