Sunday Gab Fests with commentary

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press WriterSun Jan 21, 5:38 PM ET

Two leading Senate Democrats sought to build support Sunday for a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's war strategy in Iraq, cautioning that division over whether it goes far enough could spell defeat.

No matter what the Resolution finally turns out to be, just get everyone on record. If Bush can't be stopped now, those who block meaningful congressional action will not be in D.C. much longer.

"The worst thing we can do is to vote on something critical of the current policy and lose it," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. "The public doesn't support his policy, a majority of Congress doesn't support his policy.

"If we lose it, the president will use the defeat of a resolution as support of his public policy," Levin said.

And he will be dead wrong!

The new Democratic-led Congress heads this week toward its first vote on the war, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee beginning debate Wednesday on a resolution condemning Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province. A vote could come as early as that same day.

The proposed nonbinding resolution, which is largely symbolic and would have no affect on money for troops, states that "it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq."

Well, not shit, Sherlock! Everyone with more than three neurons firing and who hasn't been in a coma or ideologically brain-damaged for the past 4 years, knows that.

It has generated some division among Democrats who want to go farther by cutting funding for new troops, moderates in both parties who want softer language and Republican leaders who have vowed to filibuster.

Anyone who filibusters any Resolution against this criminal war, must be targeted for defeat in 2008, if not worse; like standing along side Bush and Cheney in the dock for their crimes against humanity.

On Sunday, Levin and Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., who sponsored the resolution along with Republicans Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, called their proposal a first step that would send a "powerful message" that Bush must change course.

Does anyone really believe he will hear any such message? Get real. He was sent a damned strong message by the electorate last November. He sure as hell hasn't heard that message!

Other congressional steps, such as limiting federal appropriations for the war, could come later if Bush were to continue pushing forward with additional troops in defiance of the resolution, they said.

How much later? How many deaths later? How many billions later?

Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, downplayed the notion that support could splinter over how far lawmakers should go to restrain the president's power to wage war. He said he expected the half-dozen competing proposals to oppose the war each would get an airing.

As well they should. The last thing we need is more lock-step congress. Besides, we want everyone on record.

"I don't think there's any muddled message here," Biden said. "They'll all get a chance to be voted on, with some discussion."

The proposals to limit the war vary.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., and Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., say they want to cut funding for new troops to prevent the deployments. Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., has a proposal that would cap troops at existing levels.

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon said he was wary of the term "escalating" in the resolution and was working with Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb., on a "constructive, nonpartisan resolution that expresses the opposition of the Senate to the surge."

I find it hard to imagine that senators are now going to squabble over semantics while people die and are maimed in an unnecessary, criminal war! I thought that Senator Smith was at the "end of his rope." when someone is really at the end of their rope, they don't get bent out of shape about a word.

Besides, unlike troop level increases in the past (which haven't worked), this one is being announced as a new stratgey, a change in policy. It is, therefore, an escalation, against the will of the people, as clearly expressed.

Collins and Nelson, alongside Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., were expected to announce the details Monday.

This is going to be some version of Baker-Hamilton, we expect.

And the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats say they would introduce legislation this week calling for greater accountability on how Iraq war funds are spent.

That's nice. It should have been done years ago. Do you guys have a plan to get the wasted funds back, or are you just going to whine about it?

Bush, meanwhile, was expected to address the Iraq war in his State of the Union address Tuesday and renew his calls to work together with Democrats on a bipartisan way forward.

Bullshit, By working together, Bush means going along with every nutty plan he comes up with.

Earlier that day, the Senate Armed Services Committee will also hear from Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, a former division commander in Iraq, who was tapped by Bush to replace Gen. George Casey as the top American commander in Iraq.

On Sunday, Biden said despite the competing proposals, there was overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress against the war. He said Vice President Dick Cheney was absolutely wrong in suggesting that a resolution against the war would "embolden our enemy."

Or it could have just the opposite effect. It might be seen as the first sign of Democracy in this country in over 7 years.

Does Cheney believe that the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq didn't embloden "our enemy? Does he understand that the invasion actually created far more enemies, even among our old allies?

"Every single person out there, that is of any consequence, knows the vice president doesn't know what he's talking about. I can't be more blunt than that," Biden said. "He is yet to be right one single time on Iraq."

Our favorite comment of the day.

Hagel suggested there may be more Republican support than is generally known for seeking a vote in Congress toward ending the war in Iraq.

"It is wrong to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war," he said. "Are we not to register our sense of where we are going in this country?"

"Let every member of the Senate express themselves," he said, saying they owe that to the American public.

Hagel is right-on! By all means, let our elected officials express themselves. We can't wait!

"We have anarchy in Iraq," he said. "It's getting worse."

Much more of Bush, Cheney and their slack-jawed followers and there is going to be anarchy here!

Biden and Levin spoke on "Fox News Sunday," and Hagel was on CBS' "Face the Nation.