Democrats, Republicans think it's a bad idea

Poster from Micah Wright's Propaganda Remix Project

In the news, refreshing candor from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel about George W Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq: "I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam if it's carried out," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Another Republican senator, George Voinovich, told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he had lost faith in the president's Iraq policy. "I've gone along with the president on this and I've bought into his dream and at this stage of the game I just don't think it's going to happen," he said.

Meanwhile Democratic senators expect Republicans to join next week in pushing a non-binding resolution through Congress that is critical of Bush's new Iraq policy. If the vote proves successful, Democrats may use their control of Congress to deny funding for Iraq. During the Vietnam War, congressmen used control over spending as leverage to force withdrawal of troops.

Early in February Bush is expected to ask Congress for more "emergency" money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While prepared to pay for soldiers already in the field, the Democrats could question allocating funds for additional troops.

Alternatively the Democrats could sponsor legislation to re-authorise the war. In 2002, Congress went on record to invade Iraq due to the Bush administration's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since no such weapons were found, Democrats might argue a new authorisation for war is required.

Senators expressed their anger Thursday over Bush's speech, as well as charges that he had once again taken his decision alone, undermining the administration's claims to have consulted widely before crafting a new policy.

A Washington Post report noted similarities between the new Iraq strategy and a policy memo produced last November by Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser - a month before the Iraq Study Group produced its report. "The president's speech last night ignored the recommendations of both parties, military leaders and foreign policy experts and the will of the American people," Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold told the foreign relations committee. He urged Congress to cut off funds for the increased troops. "With the president determined to escalate a failed strategy in Iraq, Congress must use its power of the purse to safely bring our brave troops out of Iraq," he noted.

What's he afraid of?

Meanwhile, after the president's speech Wednesday night, the White House broke with tradition, refusing to let photojournalists shoot still pictures of the president at the podium. As a result, newspapers and wire services ran low-quality "frame grabs" from the video of the speech. An official handout photo from the White House, which most news outlets rejected, was the only other option.

Both the Associated Press and Reuters refused to accept the handout photo. They sent their members notices explaining that frame grabs from the White House video pool would be their only photo coverage of the speech.

Comments

[Robert]

In Switzerland, if a petition with over 100 000 signatures is submitted to the government, the government is legally required to hold a national referundum on the subject. I really wish this would happen in other countries as it would make them more democratic. Both Bush and Blair are ignoring the wishes of the majority. If the USA and the UK had this referundum system (even if the number of signatures required were much higher), they could not do so.

[GoGo]

Watching the speech was like watching a horror show where the antagonist is a seriously delusional sociopath. This man is a serious manipulator.

Thanks for the eloquent write-up.

[Paris Parfait]

Ascender I think that was a different speech - not his prime time address. He certainly wasn't crying then.

[AscenderRisesAbove]

I heard from some one in Australia that said that the front page photo of Shrub had a tear rolling down his face during the speech.

[JanePoe (aka Deborah)]

The only explanation that I have is the George W. Bush is truly delusional. I hope Congress stands up against him with more than just words.

[pepek]

...

>:(

[Tammy]

I wonder what he will do when no one will give him money?

[AscenderRisesAbove]

I caught a bit of the congressional questioning on tv this afternoon; questioning Shrubs top generals advising him to send in more troops. They speak on his behalf. I feel Shrub would never be able to have the cameras trained on him in this fashion. He would break under the pressure of being so closely scrutinized. He would be exposed for his fourth grader mentality.

[Amber]

How ODD about the photo thing! WTH is that about??

I thought his speech was more of the same. I am so MAD. I gave him and his intentions the benefit of the doubt, but like so many American's, he has totally lost me. I am willing to believe he was mislead in the information that made him want to invade Iraq. And maybe that makes me silly. But then when the truth came to light, I fully expected heads to roll! The more he stands firm in these ideas of his, the more I feel like he is just lost. I feel like he was playing politcs in the start by NOT going in balls to the wall in the first place, and instead trying to apease everyone. I think this put our troops at risk, and made it impossible to win. Now, wanting to put more troops, it seems far too little too late! The ratio of troops needs to be 1 to 40 civilians-- this is the strategy that was used in Germany and in Japan in order to maintain and heal the nations after the wars. We don't even HAVE enough troops to do this in Bagdad, now, let alone all of Iraq!! And the number he talks about isn't enough, anyway.And then he basically calls out two MORE nations!? Helllo? Dumbass? Shut up, already.

And where were the Generals whose job it was to protect the troops? Too afraid for their jobs to speak up about what was right and wrong?? Because I don't think they did. I have not seen any come to the media and say they asked for more, and he said no. They could have done that, and if they were fired, maybe that would have fired up the nation and let us in on what was going down sooner! They could have made a public fuss, right?

I am just pissed. Pissed pissed pissed about the whole clusterfuck.

What he isn't getting is that WE can't want freedom and democracy for a nation MORE than the people in that nation do! WE can't be willing to die for it, if it is a lost cause. So far, I don't see that they do.

Sorry this turned into a rant, Tara!
Thanks for these thoughts and dialog.

:)

[Regina Clare Jane]

Let's hope the Democrats can do something about this now- we need someone to stand up for us that can actually do something besides talk about what a horror Bush has created...
God help us all...

[Cate]

Hagel spoke well.

We are in a nightmare of irresponsible, wayward policy and decisions. I cannot believe that that maniac has not been stopped.

[berrie]

ok Tara I watched and thought to myself 'how can this be happening?' did anyone else get the feeling ole georgie had had a few too many cocktails beforehand???? aside from the rubbish that was spewing from his piehole* His speach 'slurred' alot and you could just tell that he was uncomfortable, as he should be...this insanity has got to stop....and soon!

[ally bean]

"the White House broke with tradition, refusing to let photojournalists shoot still pictures of the president at the podium."

Well, isn't that interesting? Why do I always feel so manipulated every time this man speaks? Because I am being manipulated, I suppose.