Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (25411)	2/7/2007 12:49:46 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A BATTLE OF WILLS SENATE'S SAD IRRESOLUTION By JOE LIEBERMAN NEW YORK POST Opinion February 7, 2007 EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is adapted from Sen. Joseph Lieberman's remarks to the Senate Monday on the Warner-Levin resolution to condemn the president's new Iraq strategy. OUR nation has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. A new course has been chosen; a new commander is in place - and a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground by our troops. It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war. But that is not the debate this resolution invites. The resolution before us won't stop the new strategy from going forward. Instead, its sponsors say, it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening. What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know if we support the plan they've begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing. This resolution is not about taking responsibility. It is the opposite - a resolution of irresolution. If you believe that Gen. David Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success, then resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. If you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless, then vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution. The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies: at once for the war but also against the war; pledging support to the troops in the field but also washing its hands of what they are doing. Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. They're wrong: If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week; I was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy. We heard from Gen. Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe they're winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we'll tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That's the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the '80s and '90s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution - by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake - confirms our enemies' belief in American weakness. What does this resolution tell our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops - but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it doesn't support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it doesn't support our troops. Everyone here knows that the American people are frustrated about the lack of progress in Iraq. Everyone here shares that frustration. And as elected representatives of the people, everyone here feels pressure to give expression to that frustration. But this challenge is one that every democracy in every long, difficult war has had to confront. Nearly a century and a half ago, an American president wrestled with just this problem. It was in the midst of a terrible war - a civil war - in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting and dying to secure the freedom of millions long and cruelly denied it. "We here highly resolve" - that was Lincoln's message at Gettysburg. It was a message of resolution, of conviction against adversity, of hope against despair, and of confidence in the cause of freedom, which is America's cause. Today, in the depths of a terrible war, on the brink of a decisive battle for Baghdad, let us have a serious debate about where we stand and where we must go in Iraq. That's the debate we should have - but not the debate that this resolution would bring. nypost.com _opedcolumnists_joe_lieberman.htm

To: Sully- who wrote (25411)	2/7/2007 12:56:56 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

A COWARDLY CONGRESS . . . NEW YORK POST Editorial February 7, 2007 President Bush Monday survived the first attempt by congressional Democrats to undermine the U.S. mission to Iraq - a bid to declare "no confidence" in his ongoing troop surge. So far, so good. But the Democrats, busy little beavers as always, are readying another effort to score political points at the expense of the president's strategy - and America's fighting forces, too. Senate Democrats could muster only 49 of the 60 votes they needed to invoke cloture, cutting off a GOP filibuster of a symbolic resolution that would have expressed disagreement with the troop-surge plan. Senate GOP leaders were prepared to let the resolution move forward - if Democrats agreed to permit votes on two measures more supportive of the president. No deal, said the Dems. Actually, that's just as well. Any resolution - short of an unambiguous endorsement of the troop surge - would be irresponsible. Besides, Democrats (and Republicans who side with them) just had their chance forcefully to oppose the war. If they have a beef with the Bush strategy, why did they overwhelmingly vote to confirm the nominations of Gen. David Petraeus as chief U.S. commander in Iraq, and of Adm. William Fallon to head the overall U.S. effort in the region? Those officers not only endorse the troop surge, they're the ones charged with carrying out the policy. As Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who remains a beacon of light on Iraq, told his colleagues: "We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in Gen. Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle." Worse still, those pushing for this resolution - which would have no actual practical effect on the war effort - fail to appreciate its potential impact on the troops now risking their lives in Iraq. Indeed, said Lieberman, the Library of Congress confirmed that "never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy." Professing support of U.S. troops is meaningless in the face of such a resolution, he added: "When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops." (Excerpts of his must-read speech appear on the opposite page.) Yes, Congress has a role to play in the debate over Iraq. But war cannot be waged by committee - or by playing either to election results or the latest public-opinion polls. If the Democrats truly oppose this strategy, they need to defund it - and then accept the consequences. Fat chance. By endorsing the Petraeus and Fallon appointments, Congress has by extension also endorsed the mission they've been dispatched to accomplish. Undercutting the effort with wrongheaded resolutions is at once dishonorable and cowardly. Bottom line: Congress sent Petraeus and Fallon off to war. Does it now mean to shoot them in the back? nypost.com _______editorials_.htm

To: Sully- who wrote (25411)	2/7/2007 2:41:30 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi: Iraq Failure Due to High Troop Morale Satire from ScrappleFace By Scott Ott on Global News (2007-02-07) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, said today that the war in Iraq has become an unwinnable quagmire largely due to high U.S. troop morale in the theater of operations, which is why, she said, that the House should approve a non-binding resolution opposing the president’s troop surge plan. “When I was in Iraq recently, I met the brave men and women of our fighting force,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Their spirits were high, their resolve was firm. They believe in the righteousness of their cause and know that Americans back home love and support them. Their high morale was so consistent across the board that it’s the only logical explanation for our poor performance in Iraq.” That’s why, said the Speaker, that the best way to “turn things around and getting them heading in the other direction is to deal with the unreasonably elevated esprit de corps of our troops.” Today’s remarks were Rep. Pelosi’s first full explanation of her party’s push to approve an anti-surge resolution. “It’s the confidence and commitment of our military that’s getting us in deeper trouble,” she said. “The non-binding resolution addresses that, without forcing any lawmaker to do something rash, like vote his conscience.” scrappleface.com