ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



First Glance

Posted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:05 AM by Huma Zaidi
Filed Under:

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, Lauren Appelbaum, and Carrie Dann
Politics abhors a vacuum, and the delay in the debate over the resolutions opposing a US troop increase in Iraq is giving some of the bigger participants time to jockey for better positions.  Two leading presidential candidates have further fleshed out their stances on the war, and the White House and Democratic Hill leadership have announced the formation of a bipartisan working group to discuss the way forward.

NBC's Ken Strickland reports that the still unnamed group would be assembled by Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, likely consisting of chairs and ranking members of the committees with oversight of national security issues.  The group "offers the best prospect for meaningful bipartisan consultations," per Reid spokesman Jim Manley.  He added that leadership will urge President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and some Cabinet members to attend the meetings, the first of which will be next week.  Strickland notes that a similar idea was first introduced last December by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I) and Susan Collins (R), leaders of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee. 

Sen. Barack Obama (D), in a speech on the Senate floor last night, called for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by March 31, 2008 in order to end "a foreign policy disaster," although he did not endorse a cut-off in funding.  His proposal goes further than those offered by his viable competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Obama is the only one of them who did not vote in favor of the war (not being in the Senate at the time), and he has consistently opposed it.

Next up came Sen. John McCain (R), whose support for the troop increase places him squarely on the opposite side of majority public opinion, and who has been seeking to temper his stance at the margins by arguing, for example, that Bush's proposed 21,500-troop increase probably isn't enough, and by criticizing Gen. George Casey's work as commander of US forces in Iraq.

Now McCain says the Administration has failed to adequately supply him with information critical to Bush's new strategy.  Strickland reports that in a statement released last night, McCain and Armed Services chair Carl Levin said the Administration, after repeated requests, has not provided enough details on the benchmarks Bush has said he'll hold the Iraqis to.  Over the past two months, Levin has sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice two letters seeking clarification on those benchmarks and any timelines associated with them.  McCain signed onto a third letter earlier this month, Strickland says.  In that letter, he and Levin said they found it "both baffling and disturbing" that Rice would not provide the information. 

Per their statement, Rice finally did respond with a document presumably adopted by the Iraqis last year on political, security, economic benchmarks.  But the senators felt the document "vividly demonstrates the failure of the Iraqi Government to meet the vast majority of its commitments."  Rice also listed additional commitments made by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but again, without details or timelines.  "What Secretary Rice’s letter makes abundantly clear is that the Administration does not intend to attach meaningful consequences for the Iraqis’ continuing to fail to meet their commitments," they said. 

And Sen. Joe Biden (D) finally/formally enters the presidential race today, filing online and announcing via the Internet.  His campaign homepage's lead graphic shows Biden's image superimposed on a map of the Middle East.  He also marks his announcement with another hearing on Iraq in his Foreign Relations Committee, which will feature former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright.

On the economy, President Bush is likely to lose out to the Fed for Wall Street's attention today.  Bush delivers part two of his economic State of the Union in Federal Hall on the Street later this morning.  The Fed will meet to discuss interest rates -- though probably not change them -- and issue comments about inflation and the state of the economy this afternoon.  CNBC's Patti Domm expects to hear some of the same message Bush used in his State of the Union address last week, tailored to Wall Street.  But, she says, the Street knows the issues already, and unless Bush is going to unload something new and big, his remarks won't capture much attention.  A Washington-based economic analyst tells First Read that "Bush might get attention if he made a genuine effort on entitlement reform or ratcheted down pressure on Iran." 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

bipartisan, bipartisan ya know ive heard that word and I know what the definition is but I dont think I have seen it put into practice lately
The bush administration is slipping. They forgot (!) to throw Mc CAin a few crumbs to keep him in their camp. Shame on Condoleeza......SHAME ON THEM ALL
Does anybody remember Michael Moore's speech at the Oscars when he said "Shame on you Mr. President?" Do you think he would be booed if he said those words today? On this country, at this time, bipartisan means the Congress works together to accomplish something and Bish does what he wants to do anyway.
looking at congress as a single entity, one is struck by the resemblance between its collective actions and those of an individual with moderate mental disability. after four years they're still looking for "more information". LOL
Would you tell me just how in the "Hell" do I get to publish a statement on First Read. I've read and answered most of your articles and have been left out of the discussions. Could it be I'm too Liberal for your news replys???????????/
The word bipartisan in the same sentence as Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi? Be serious. This WAS suggested by Lieberman and Collins last year but democrats didn't seem to want anything to do with it then. It's only a good idea if it's their idea. Obama's call for a definite date for withdrawal of American troops is as ludicrous as those made before his. You can't announce to the enemy when you will withdraw. At the same time Lieberman and Collins were calling for bipartisan discussions many prominent dems, including Joe Biden, were calling for MORE troops to be sent to Iraq, saying we didn't have enough there to do the job. The dems are consistent in only one thing, inconsistency. Whatever the other side of the aisle calls for is wrong and they are right. Do any of them have any core values or nmoral compass to lead them? Seemingly not. How can anyone who pays any attention to these guys put any faith whatsoever in anything they say or do?
Don't be fooled by statements about a strong economy. I work in Transportation, one of the first industries to go in the tank when things turn down. Right now talk in the industry is all about lower Q4 earnings compared to 2005 and a severe lack of product being moved. Just watch, 30-60 days from now Economists will be talking about how fast the bottom dropped out of the recovery.
Inconsistency? If you gave me a choice between someone who adjusts their position and policy based on the actual circumstances versus someone who steadfastly clings to their original stance, despite evidence that such a stance is seriously flawed, I will take the former any day of the week. The situation in Iraq is extremely complex, as is evident by the number of resolutions that are popping up attempting to address what should be done going forward. It's no wonder that people change their minds as more information becomes available, and as circumstances change. That's being responsible. Screaming at the top of your lungs about how you are right and you are the "decider" is not being responsible; that's behaving like a spoiled child. I despise the whole flip-flopping charge because it is, quite frankly, stupid. People change their minds about a hundred things every day. Just this morning I changed my mind 3 times about which shoes to wear. Oh my God! I'm a fashion flip flopper! I guess I will never make it to Congress now.
John - I'm not sure what you're referring to when you state "fast the bottom dropped out of the recovery." The recovery has been happening since the second half of '02. You are probably right that earnings will start to slow down. After 18 quarters of double digit growth that is bound to happen. I also agree that after a pretty good Q1 GDP number, Q2 and maybe even Q3 will be lower but nowhere near recessionary. Two or three month accelerations are normal during a mid cylcle slowdown that we are in now. 1985 and 1995 were both midcycle slowdown years that had blips of acceleration in them followed by slower yet steady growth.
"Bipartisan" in this Administration, actually menas "Bipolar".
Darren Pope==We have not heard from you in a while,thought perhaps you were dead. Glad to see you back. Do you find it amazing how many Republicans are speaking the word (bipartisan) since 11/07/06? That word didn't seem to be in thier vocabulary until then.
Darren...Darren ....Darren ... I read your post and the infamous line "People who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones" Your thoughts about Democrats and inconsistencies, lack of core values, morales, and blah blah blah .... very accurately describes the republicans in Washington. Why do you think the losers lost in November of 2006?
Darren, If you want consistency, look at OUR president: Against the 9-11 Commssion before he was for it; against nation building before he was for it; supports out troops in speeches while cutting veterans' benefits...need I go on? If I recall, Biden wanted more troops when the general discussion was, "do we have enough troops?" Last year, the Dems were not the majority, so how could they tour "bipartisan" when the Repub congress stifled their every move. Reid and Pelosi have shown more effort (whether sincere or not) at being bipartisan than the Repubs. On the withdrawal date issue, it is a tough one since it would require the Iraqis to "stand up" so that OUR troops can come home. A definitive date puts the Iraqis on notice; however, notifying the enemy in advance is bad strategy. Are you able to see both sides of an issue? Your post certainly have never shown that. BTW, I am a registered independent.
Robert Michael Moore wouldn't be booded today because we now know what's going on. He was one of the first of the now billions of outspoken critics against Stupid George. I don't invest in corporations just like him because all they care about is getting richer. I hope he does another documentry on how Bush is setting himself up to be the dictator of America. I hate stupid george!
Vote on a "Nonbinding Resolution" give us all a break you are either for or against! None of our elected politicians seem to realize that while they are debating this whole mess lives are still being lost and billions being spent to no end. All I want to see from our "Chicken Sh-- politicians is a vote either yes the troops stay or no pull the troops out "NOW". If you vote to keep the troops there, then declare this a "war" against Iraq (not insurgents or terrorist) and send in enough troops (500,000) and eliminate their so called elected government and anyone else who gives any resistance set up military rule. If you vote to pull the troops out then pull them out "NOW" not in six months, or next year, or five years, or ten years "NOW". Literally you are either in this mess up to your eyeballs or you want an end to it, but most of our gifted, talented, and supposedly best want to straddle the fence with such statements as "I support our troops but I'm against this war", "If I knew then what I know now I would have voted against sending troops", "We should have sent in more troops and things would have been different", "I'll vote to keep funding our beloved Iraq and Afghan conflicts but we don't need to send 21,500 more troops".
A choice between which shoes to wear is a little less important than how many troops are needed in war where people lose their lives. On what evidence did Biden and other dems base their flip-flop from more troops to against more troops in less than a month? Sue, thought I was dead? Yikes. No, sadly for the left the truth is still alive and well.
Darren - Lighten up, man. Seriously. The point is the same. People change their minds about all sorts of things from the most mundane (what to wear) to the most important (whether to get married, have children, go to college, etc.). These are reasonable, mature, thoughtful, intelligent people. Just so you don't miss it again, the point is that changing your mind as new information becomes available is not being inconsistent so much as it is adapting to changing circumstances. That is never something to scoff at or ridicule in my opinion.
The current march to defeat and disgrace has me astounded. What good could come of it? Why don't our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deserve reinforcements? Do you really want to hang them out on a limb with the status quo? Why doesn't their newly appointed commander, who engineered the strategy and asked for the troops get the support of the American people? Is it that so many are psychologically or politically invested in American defeat? Rue the day it may happen, because little good will come of it, and much bad. I think that it is clear the big effort to force withdrawl is primarily political gamesmanship, and doesn't take seriously into account either national security, or the fate of our military. Surely the Democrats don't want to inherit this problem if they win the presidency in '08, and it is a wonderful political stick with which to beat the republicans the longer it can be drug out, neither won, nor lost. What a shame it comes to that, all for power in playing politics. This libertarian is sure he's in for a bashing from such the left leaning readership that MSNBC gets, but I call it like I see it, and so far the "peace movement" has been anything but convicing that reason and rationality are their guiding stars.
This is from a recent AP article and I still believe that Congress passed a law after Vietnam "that after the President sent troops into a conflict Congress had a given period of time to either declare it a war or withdraw all troops" to prevent it from ever happening again. In recent decades, presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Not since World War II has Congress issued an official declaration of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea. Congress does not have to approve military maneuvers. John Yoo, who as a Justice Department lawyer helped write the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, called that document a political one designed only to bring Democrats on board and spread accountability for the conflict. The resolution passed by a 296-133 vote in the then-GOP-run House and 77-23 in the Democratic-led Senate, but it was not considered a declaration of war.
Again, Carrie, I ask, what new information came was made available to cause Biden and other dems to change their stance that we needed more troops in Iraq to no new troops in under a month? There was no new information other than Bush began calling for more troops. The call for more troops was based on advice he was given by some military leaders. The same military leaders Biden and his ilk accused Bush of ignoring as late as December of last year. If new information becomes available that suggests I should change my mind on any given subject of course I take that info seriously. That was clearly NOT the case with Biden, et al. It was simple political expediency.
The fact remains, Bush and Co. started this war, it's now a mess and there is no present plan to end it rationally. The United Nations is a logical choice as a forum to discuss and act on the Iraq and broader Middle East problems, but the Bush Administration has done much to taint the credibility of the UN. And the right wingers out there will spew much negative rhetoric and cite their petty gripes about the UN, but it is the best chance the world has to avoid a major disaster in the region. A successful plan on Iraq should transition into a control of the entire Mideast region by the UN, with a major international force that has the will and ability to engage violent offenders on all sides of the conflict.
Our government is disfunctional simply because the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't want to hear the truth and would turn out of office anyone who told it. Imagine a politcian daring to say, "We fight oil wars because Americans are energy pigs and demand to live in SUV-McMansion-Sprawl land on cheap gas. Only real cities and real mass transit and real conservation can save us from ourselves", or "Social Security can only be saved and universal health care can only happen, once we dedicate the tax revenues necessary to those programs and that means higher taxes for all, but especially for the rich." If our politicians are disfunctional it is simply because we are disfunctional. We refuse to hear the truth, and then accuse the politicians of duplicity.
I did not realize our troops were hanging out there on a limb(per Ay Jay,tx), if they are lets get reinforcements there asap, those who put them out on that limb need to be held accountable.
Ay Jay it's a civil war between religous factions who have never and will never get along. How you going to make them get along if they don't want to? Just because we used to have a democracy in this country why does anyone think the rest of the world wants one? We are trying to make them like us, they are not and don't want to be. Nothing good will come from us being in Iraq. The only way to win in Iraq is to kill everyone over there, as long as they contnue to breath they will continue to fight.
Darren-No, sadly for the left the truth is still alive and well. No it's not sad for us it's sad for us all you won't be so supportive of this administration when it's Emperor Bush. You will see they already control everything only a matter of time before Stupid George rules America as a dictator. Everything points to this happening open your eyes. What you don't also get Darren is the Iraqi's don't even want us over there how else do you explain their failure to be up and running. You can't can you. And that's just the way Bush wants it so he can keep feeding his oil buddies money then he can take over the U.S. and who will stop him you? You need to take a hard look at your President he's not mine becuase I didn't vote for him. A withdraw is the only way we can cut off Bush's money buddies and his money. Once we leave everything will go back to normal and we'll be safer because of it.
Jim, how do you plan to end a war? When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor did we come up with an "exit strategy" and a date for withdrawal before we responded? War is a series of chaotic events that hopefully end up in a desired result, victory over your enemy. Only then do you decide on an exit strategy or a date to pull out.
Ay Jay, one reason people have turned against the war is because the war was sold to the American people as a "Piece of cake" Wolfowitz said that it wouldn"t cost one thin dime, Rumsfeld said it would be measured in weeks not months and the fearmonger said we would be greeted as liberators. Before the war started Cheney said that anybody who wakes up each morning eager to go to war would have to be crazy. He was right but i'm not sure that being crazy is an impeachable offense.
I'm sorry but to hear people cry flip-flop regarding people who wanted more troops now apposing this "surge" is just rediculous. 1) If you actually think that introducing 21,000 (less than that actually as some of those troops will be going to Anbar province) troops into a city with a population of several million is going to go any significant distance towards pacifying Iraq, I have bridge I'd like to sell you. Cash only and in non sequential small denominations please. The Dems who wanted more troops wanted several orders of magnitude more than 21,000 and they appose the "surge" because an increase of 10% into the middle of a full blown civil war won't do anything except get more of our troops killed. 2) This strategy is not new (we have "surged" four times previously) it has proven to be ineffective in the past, and I see absolutely no reason to assume that it will work now. The GOP broke Iraq. They now have a choice of admitting their mistake and ending the conflict or getting pasted in the next election cycle as well.
Ah Darren, your selective memory serves you once again. When bush ordered the start of the Iraq invasion, the major discussion was did we have enough troops to win the peace after the war. Most military people said we did not have enough. Gen. Shinseki resigned/was removed since he was vocal about the troop levels needed for the peace. If you remember the looting and pillaging after the fall of Saddam, sadly, this is when Biden et al loudly asked about troop levels being sufficient. Rummy & Cheney said we had enough; the facts speak differently. However, you did answer my question with your response...you ARE INCAPABLE of seeing both sides of an issue unlike most people who post here.
Paw Paw - That is the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (or maybe 1974?). Anyway, it allows the President a maximum of 90 days to deploy troops without receiving Congressional approval..but at any point during those 90 days, Congress can say no. The problem is, once the troops are there it's a lot harder to get them out than to just say "take them out." In addition, if I remember correctly, the president is supposed to update Congress on the status of any troop deployments.
Now I know the result of South Carolina's foray into the nuclear industry over the last 15 years.
Darren's question: "Again, Carrie, I ask, what new information came was made available to cause Biden and other dems to change their stance that we needed more troops in Iraq to no new troops in under a month?" Answer: 2003 - Q1 2005 = supression of militants and possible Civil War (more troops) 2005 - present = Civil War, inevitable ethnic cleansing of Sunni population (beyond military control) good enough?
Peter truth is this is not an oil war...we haven't taken a drop of oil since we've been over there that theory was debunked a while a go. Next Social Security and universal healthcare. Many Americans don't want universal healthcare do you want what they have in Canada France and anywhere else this fiasco has been deployed? One of my relatives lives in Canada and he had to wait for over 6 months in pain to have knee surgery they just kept moving him back and moving other people in front of him. I'm glad we live in a country where we get the best medical treatment in the world. Do you think the quality of health care providers with stick around or even choose healthcare as a proffesion when the government steps in and tells them what they should pay themselves? So that's debunked. And finally Social Security...what a joke our leaders have broke the bank on that one. We don't need to raise taxes to pay for this there have been instances in which Social Security funds were treated like invesment funds and it was successful read the article weblink included below... http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-17es.html So I hope that clears everything up for you...you are right I don't think we have very many honest politicians.
Ay,Jay of Texas, Just how long do you imagine that our troops will be in Iraq? My bet is the Permanent "Colossal Embassy and five (5) military bases will be there long after we are dead or until another country runs us out, as did Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union. Earlier I asked how in "Hell" do some of the things I submit not get view. Surprise, surprise that one of twenty or thirty got mentioned. Maybe I sound negetive, but when Lt. Gen. David Petraus was in charge of the 101 st Airbourne command He made comments while flying over Tommy Franks route to Baghdad to dispose of Saddam Hussein, he was heard to say to those flying with him "Look at all those dirt mounds and he preceded to say that they were Ammo Dumps that were left unguarded and those same Ammo Dumps will be used by the enemy to kill our troops" Why wasn't anything done then? This illegal invasion was just another ploy to get a foot hold in the Middle East, since we were asked by the Saudi government to take our military boots out of the "Holy Land", which forced the USA to look for another Middle East "OUTPOST" to protect and defend Israel. To date our brave military just following orders, now have lost 3,079 of their brothers and sisters for this deliberate lie that Judy Miller help legitimize by the drum beats of war in Oct. 2002. Remember, UN-AMERICAN and UNPATRIOTIC for not agreeing with the lie of Karl Rove/Dick Cheney and the other nitwicks of war.
i like you darren!! its good to see a good, smart person through all these tye-dye hippies!!!
LOL about catwoman's remark about "the result of South Carolina's foray into the nuclear industry". Now for more serious matters: CJ mentions the "ethnic cleansing" of the Sunni population. How about the Bush Administration's own ethnic cleansing by inaction in our own country? I'm referring, of course, to what Bush's neglect of New Orleans has brought about. Prior to Katrina, her population was 67% African-American; now it's closer to 50/50. Obviously Bush, a closet racist, does not value New Orleans' one-of-a-kind, diverse culture. And there's an economic aspect to this, too--many of the New Orleanians who ended up evacuating were poor. Nowadays citizens who want to return, and their advocates, want the housing projects that had been flooded cleaned up and re-opened, but the city wants to tear them down because prior to the storm they had been crime-ridden and had other problems. Unfortunately for many poor, elderly, etc., the projects, though not good places to live, are the only places they can afford. So the activists who want the projects brought back think the city is trying to discourage the poor from returning. There are a lucky few New Orleanians who've managed to find good jobs and good homes in the places they'd evacuated to, are no longer poor, and understandably have no desire to give up their new stations in life by moving back to New Orleans, but this sort of thing is akin to winning the Lotto. Most of the poor and elderly are homesick for Louisiana and want to go back. But the shortage of affordable housing is keeping them from doing so. This is a threat to New Orleans' future.
Ok guys..lets have a mini quiz!! How Long Did it Take For AMERICA to establish itself? Wasn't AMERICA still fighting eachother in 1865? If you answered those two questions..then ask yourself this?? How in the hell is it reasonable to believe Iraq will be ok to run itself in five years. Give me a break. Stop Complaining!!! If you honestly think that pulling troops out is a smart thing to do..you are no smarter then a damn door knob!
All -- this is a reminder to keep your comments free of personal attacks. We want to keep the discussion as civil as possible. Thanks.
I'm a liberal Democrat, and I say we should NOT leave Iraq right now. The right thing to do is fix the mess that we have created in Iraq and the broader Middle East. We should deliver on the promises we've made to Iraq and make sure that the stability there is at least at the pre-invasion level. We've succeeded in turning that country into the very thing we went there to fix: it is now run by religious fundamentalists, it is a safe haven for militants, it is a partner of Iran. Instead of freedom flowing into the neighboring countries, sectarian tensions are. So PLEASE don't give this guy a free pass to simply declare a disaster and leave. Hold him accountable to fix this mess so future generations don't have to face the consequences.
Olivia we get it Katrina. That does not make our commander in chief a closet racist. Let it go already. I'm sorry for what those people had to go through but's it's not Bush's fault it's why not blame the moranic Democrats running the state government. Of all of the states that had problems after all of the hurricanes only those with Republican governors made speedy recoveries. And now the Democrats are back in power...God help us everyone....
Thanks for the reasoned and non-emotional replies everyone. I understand being against the war before it started, but we are in a very different situation today. It isn't so easy to just pull the plug on Iraq and walk away and then blast blame around here while things slip into chaos there. In Vietnam, there was chaos in the region for 20 years after we pulled out, a couple million additional deaths in the expanded civil wards in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, another half million or so died in the wind down in Vietnam itself, small wars between Vietnam and Cambodia, and Vietnam and China, refugees everywhere. It was a terrible mess for years. With Iraq, we could very well have the same problem, but on a MUCH larger scale, just because of the higher population densities in the cities, and the location of Iraq, and the injection of more potent religious fanaticism instead of political fanaticism. Our pull out will be an open invitation for the Shia and Sunni to have at it, and with Iran feeding the Shia, and Saudi Arabia (unofficially, of course) and Syria backing the Sunni, and the Kurds pushing for autonomy, it could get UGLY, as in drawing in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, et al into a proxy war over Iraq, or worse. America has always gotten relatively small portions of its oil from the middle east. The primary users of middle eastern oil are actually nations in the Eurasian continent, like the Europeans and China. America could probably tolerate losing 7-10% of our oil supply that we currently draw from the middle east with some major irritations, but Europe and Asian nations will be devestated, and then they'll start bidding up prices on other sources, like the ones we use in America, and you'd likely get radical increases in fuel prices, a fairly sharp global crash in economic output because of that, and a global increase in human suffering due to economic woes. In the short to medium term, such a result would be a real global crisis. Hopefully, it just remains local and doesn't spread, if we do pull out before the new Iraqi government is secure and capable of keeping some kind of order. I think that to risk this type of outcome would be unwise, to say the least. This outcome would be worse than the status quo, worse than the "new plan", far worse than if we eventually succeeded. Noone can really say what the odds are as to whether or not a collapse would happen. The best we could hope for with a complete withdrawl is a serious encouragemnt of terrorism against America as an effective means of pressuring us, and that the ensuing fighing between the sunni and shia stays generally within Iraq. Who knows what the human cost to the Iraqis would be? As bad as it is now, it would be FAR worse for them if we leave nothing serious in place to fill the "order" vaccuum. The rush to leave without completing our efforts will have clear costs and risks, and I DON'T hear much debate and discussion of those consequences, and how they might relate to staying, or reinforcing or other options.
Thanks Carrie it's really pretty plain and if you read this Congress has to take the blame for our troops still being in Iraq. The Democrats & Republicans were so busy riding the triumphant wave with their noses so far up the President's Whazoo they couldn't see the truth. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress "prior to the start of any hostilities" as well as "regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities" (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).
Mad Mike - Whether you get the best medical treatment in this country often depends on what income bracket you happen to fall into. It's not just a given that because you live in America, you get the best medical treatment.
Forgot to add, my family has borne some of the personal costs of the effort. I'm not stranger to it. My brother escorted convoys there for a year and has pictures of the bullet holes in his HMMWV from ambushes. My youngest brother is leaving in May to head that way for over a year. I've had many ROTC college buddies deploy there several times already. It's not something I'm not closely personally interested in. My brother is even more adamant about pursuing success there and trying to avoid a stinging defeat than I am, and he was there risking is life every day. If he thinks it is worth the risks and the cost, I have a hard time arguing with him. If it weren't for some medical issues, I'd have probably been there too.
Tee-shirt seen already in an Albuquerque mall: "My folks voted Dem - and all I got was this crappy Resolution".
Mad Mike Proud Army Vet, just out of curiousity, do you take advantage of VA medical care? Some might see that as "universal health care" for a certain segment of our population. That said, I hope not everyone falls into the "straw-person" trap you seem to imply. I do not think that the only choices available in the debate about how to provide the best medical care for the citizens of the US are either you're for the present system or you're for socialized medicine.
Rick.... I do not I'm fully covered at work but I have used VA for other things. If the Democrats or Republicans could present something worth while when it comes to our healthcare I would have no problem with it as long as it didn't change the care, costs, and coverage my family and I currently have.....
Carrie....if you're not in the right income bracket then go get an education and work to get there no excuses I've seen people do it time and again quit complaining about the status que of you're life (not saying you Carrie just an example) and do something about it.
Ay Jay, if you are so strongly for success in Iraq do you seriously believe that will be accomplished by Bush's current plan? Would it not be more logical to say that we need 10 times the number he has suggested, or more, to be sure that the job gets done once and for all. The problem with that is, I think that the insurgents/sectarian fighters/militias will simply fade into the country side and wait until the US declares victory/success and then withdraws to a smaller level, at which time they will come back out of the wood work and start it all over again
spunky munky--Regarding Bush's response to Katrina: Do you know that when the storm was going on, Bush was vacationing at his Crawford ranch, from which it would have been easy for him to make a quick trip to New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast to check out the situation as a national leader should. But guess what? He didn't. Instead, he flew out to California where he played air guitar at some fundraiser. (How appropriate--an airhead playing air guitar!) Meanwhile, after the storm, local people in Louisiana and Mississippi were doing what they could trying to help their fellow citizens out. And in New Orleans the Coast Guard and local groups such as the NOLA Homeboys and Cajun Navy carried out rescues. Back to President Nero who fiddled when New Orleans not only flooded but burned in a myriad of fires that made her skyline resemble Baghdad's. It took him about a week even to fly over and look down on the disaster area--and "fly over" and "look down on" are the operative phrases here. I really feel that Bush would have been far more motivated to act meaningfully--not only during the storm but also afterwards regarding supporting New Orleans' recovery--had Louisiana instead of being one of the poorest states in the nation been a populous, relatively-affluent state similar to Florida which has a large congressional delegation and substantial block of electoral votes. With a great deal of potential GOP contributors. The state and local officials in Louisiana could have done better--but in fairness to them the magnitude of the disaster overwhelmed them, and Louisiana fell apart. Katrina was the most extensive disaster to happen in America in many years, and the Idiot-in-chief should have kept this in mind (if he even has one) instead of going off and playing air guitar. Now you refer to "states with Republican governors" which "made speedy recoveries." I presume you mean Mississippi, the fiefdom of loyal GOP potentate Haley Barbour, which has a Congressional delegation containing the powerful GOP luminary Trent Lott, and has been making a speedy recovery and here's why. Louisiana sustained 80% of the damage including the loss of 80% of New Orleans. Which is bad enough because it already makes her situation much more difficult to recover from. But, to add insult to injury, as Governor Blanco said recently, the Bush Administration, with the help of Republicans in Congress, has been giving Mississippi proportionately more aid than it has been giving Louisiana. I don't feel like going into the specific examples, on which I blogged in detail several times last week. But here's the Cliff's Notes version--Louisiana which as noted suffered 80% of the damage got less than 50% of the aid. For example, Mississippi's program to help homeowners rebuild got its start 6 months earlier than Louisiana's, because funding for it was approved that much sooner. Hence Republican Mississippi's speedy recovery. Last but not least, how do you like Bush's omitting all mention from his State of Denial speech New Orleans or Katrina? While I wouldn't go so far as to say, "God help us," regarding the Democrats in Congress, I do want them to stand up to Bush and be pro-active at helping New Orleans rebuild instead of mostly keeping that city on the back burner the way the Bush Administration has.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=45917

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google