Iraq

Wow, the surge seems to be working wonderfully.

Five U.S. troops were killed over the weekend in Iraq, the military said Monday, pushing the death toll for April past 100 in the deadliest month for American forces this year.

I'm still on hiatus, but I posted this over at Michlib:

Carl Levin is a phenomenal Senator and I'm very proud that he represents us.  He had the foresight to vote against the Iraq war at a time when it was hugely unpopular to do so, and has continued to provide unparalleled leadership as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.  In particular, Levin has played a key role in demonstrating that the intelligence showing a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda was intentionally misleading.

No matter how proud I am, I'm not going to agree with everything that he says.  Yesterday on ABC's "This Week," Levin indicated that he would continue to fund the war in Iraq, even if the President vetoed a timetable for withdrawal.  Unfortunately, this undermines efforts to end the war responsibly.

"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."

The problem with this logic is that control over funding is one of the only ways that Congress can assert authority over the President on policy matters.  If Congress refuses to even consider cutting funding for the war, Bush will know that he can violate every benchmark and act with impunity.

"We're going to fund the troops. We always have," Levin said. He added, "We're very strong in supporting the troops, but we're also strong on putting pressure on the Iraqi leaders to live up to their own commitments without that political settlement on their part, there is no military solution."

Levin is reinforcing the idea that Congress, and not Bush, is cutting off funding for the troops.  Congress passed a bill to finally provide adequate body armor and VA care, so Bush is the one who would be harming them by exercising the veto.  By implying that Democrats are cutting funding, Levin is legitimizing Republican talking points and giving Bush all of the negotiating power.

Regardless of how this issue is going to be spun, Democrats were elected to do the right thing.  Please contact Senator Levin today and ask him to stop undermining efforts to hold Bush accountable and end the war.

I'm still on a break from posting on this blog (or doing any kind of blogging), but I just couldn't let this go.  Last night, Stephen Colbert  mocked Congressman Tim Walberg for his comments that Iraq is as safe as Detroit.

Check out the clip:

The Iraq supplemental bill, which sets a certain date for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, passed out of the U.S. House today. Unsurprisingly, all nine Michigan Republicans voted against the bill and to continue the war.

"Mistakes have been made in the execution of the war. No one is disputing that," Knollenberg said. "But we should give the administration’s new policy a chance to work before presupposing its failure and our ultimate defeat in Iraq."

"New" policy? Is he serious? How many more last chances are they going to get from us?

Just for the record:

In addition to Stupak and Conyers, Michigan's House Democrats are Dale Kildee of Flint, Sandy Levin of Royal Oak, Carolyn Kilpatrick of Detroit and John Dingell of Dearborn.

In addition to Camp and Knollenberg, Michigan's House Republicans are Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids, Fred Upton of St. Joseph, Tim Walberg of Tipton, Mike Rogers of Brighton, Candice Miller of Harrison Township, and Thad McCotter of Livonia.

It's also worth noting that 60% of Michigan's Congressional delegation voted to continue the war. However, almost 60% of Michigan residents favor withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. That doesn't sound very representative to me.

One of my favorite comics writers yesterday talked about being asked whether he supports the troops. Given that he writes a comic that is often compared to the Iraq war, I thought his answer was interesting.

I get asked this more often than you might think… sometimes in interviews, sometimes in casual emails, and other times more aggressively, as if the person asks me already suspects how I might answer. One person at a convention asked me this before he would engage me in conversation, I guess to suss out if he was going to bother or not. Writing something like DMZ and being openly critical of the war and the Bush Administration, some people might wonder.

And it always annoys me because this is a binary question that has no binary answer. And what the hell does “supporting the troops” mean, anyway?

If your the Bush Admin, it means keeping the troops in Iraq for as long as possible, or sending them back in for multiple tours. That doesn’t sound like “support” to me (just like still shorting them on body armor isn’t particularly “supportive” either). So I don’t support the troops the way my government does.

I feel sympathy for them. They shouldn’t be there in the first place. Is that support? Emotional support, maybe, but they don’t know who I am and my thoughts don’t have any tangible impact on them and their day-to-day, so is that really support? No, it’s just me and my feelings.

If you haven't yet, be sure to check out Pride of Baghdad and DMZ.

The Detroit Free Press reports that Fred Upton has broken ranks with the Republican Caucus to oppose the escalation.

"Let's face it, this is a civil war. It is real anarchy," Upton, from St. Joseph, said on the House floor. "And in fact, the Iraqis don't want us there.

"All of us support our troops. But there are many of us that believe that this surge strategy will fail and will only prolong the day that the Iraqis will finally pick up the baton and lead their own government."

I'm glad that at least one Michigan Republican Congressperson has come to grips with reality.  Let's hope that Miller and Ehlers follow suit.

On the other hand, Mike Rogers' rhetoric and actions completely fail to parse even a basic application of logic.

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, said he would oppose the Democratic resolution but disagreed with sending more troops to Baghdad.

Huh?  How does that work?  He disagrees with sending more troops to Baghdad, but opposes a resolution that says the exact same thing.  The only logical explanation would be that he opposes the other part of the resolution, which emphasizes Congress' support of the troops.

Although Rogers has changed his rhetoric, his voting behavior still reveals loyalty to this failed policy of escalation.  Zack has more on that front.

According to the Detroit News, all of the Michigan Democrats plan to oppose the escalation.  All of the Michigan Republicans plan to support the escalation, except for three who refuse to answer.

Oppose Escalation

Bart Stupak of Menominee
Dale Kildee of Flint
Sander Levin of Royal Oak
John Conyers of Detroit
John Dingell of Dearborn
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit

Support Escalation

Pete Hoekstra of Holland
Dave Camp of Midland
Tim Walberg of Tipton
Mike Rogers of Brighton
Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills
Thaddeus McCotter of Livonia

No Answer

Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids
Fred Upton of St. Joseph
Candice Miller of Harrison Township

Their rhetoric may have changed, but they are still out of touch with the reality of the situation in Iraq.  There will be consequences.

Hat tip to Zack for the heads up.

Today, a fun little note from Pete Hoekstra to the rest of the U.S. Republican House Caucus was made public.  Representative Hoekstra urged his Republican colleagues to shift the current debate away from the proposed escalation, claiming that "If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

The Iraq conflict is one of the most important policy questions of our time and has an impact on nearly every aspect of our lives.  That it hasn't been openly debated in the House until the Democrats took over is indicative of a failure of leadership and an insensitivity to the concerns of the American public by the House Republicans.

There is widespread opposition to the President's proposed surge.  Given this public sentiment, it is ludicrous to assert that this issue shouldn't at least be discussed.  By avoiding the real questions about Iraq, Hoekstra is playing politics with the lives of Michigan soldiers.  Michigan lives are at stake in Iraq, and we deserve an honest appraisal of the situation from our representatives.

    Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—

    (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

    (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Short and sweet.  Please urge your local representative to support this.

We're finally going to get a head count, and I wouldn't want to be any Michigan Congressperson opposing this right now.

Via Bob Geiger:

"What emboldens the enemy is the almost 4 years' presence of Western troops in the middle of a Muslim country's capital, which causes over 70 percent of the residents of that country to oppose our presence.

"What emboldens the enemy is the open-ended presence of Western troops, which serves as a magnet for extremists and gives a propaganda club to our enemies.

"What emboldens the enemy is invading Iraq without the support of the international community.

"What emboldens the enemy is lawlessness and looters ransacking public buildings and institutions in Iraq.

"What emboldens the enemy is invading Iraq without a plan for the aftermath of the invasion.

"What emboldens the enemy is increasing the number of American troops, which results in Iraqis taking less responsibility for providing security for all the citizens of Iraq.

"What emboldens the enemy is the creation of Green Zones protecting Iraqi political leaders, in which they pursue a winner-take-all political approach."

Rock on.

Remember all the fuss about whether members of Michigan's Congressional Delegation supported the escalation or not?  Got a quick update to that.

Thanks to Stone Soup Musings, Dale Kildee is now on the record as opposing the escalation in Iraq. 

Years later, and the President still has not adequately answered my questions. I am convinced that my vote against the war was and is the correct course. The occupation of Iraq was a mistake from the very beginning that was further exacerbated by incompetent leadership from the White House and the civilian officials in the Pentagon. You may be assured that I will continue to support efforts to bring our American troops home from Iraq at the earliest practical time. (emphasis added)

Chalk one more for us!

Bush's approval rating in Michigan is sinking to embarrassingly low levels. No surprise, it's related to Iraq.

Clear majorities of Michiganders say President George W. Bush's new Iraq strategy won't work, and they doubt that pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the United States, a Detroit Free Press-Local 4 Michigan Poll shows.

...

Bush's 26% approval rating in Michigan is the lowest of his presidency. Nationally, Bush's approval rating has dipped below 30% only twice since he took office in 2001, both within the last year but neither as low as 26%. His approval rating was 84% in Michigan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"It's one of the lowest marks since polling was invented," said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., the Des Moines, Iowa, polling firm that conducted the survey.

...

Only 15% of those polled have strong confidence that Bush's move to add 21,500 troops will succeed.

"I believe enough of our guys and girls have died and been wounded over there," said Amy Wieleba, 51, of Novi. "I don't see what purpose it will accomplish. They hate us enough over there as it is."

Somehow, Dave Camp, Joe Knollenberg, and Tim Walberg all continue to support the President's escalation plan to varying degrees. Even worse, Representatives Ehlers, Hoekstra, and McCotter are avoiding the question altogether. Michiganders clearly do not support the escalation and we must hold our Representatives accountable on this issue.

Given that the Iraq war has cost Michigan taxpayers over $10 billion dollars, stopping President's proposed escalation is a priority for Michigan residents.  An escalation of the Iraq war would only serve to endanger our service men and women and increase tensions in the region.  Luckily, we can take action right here to prevent the President from implementing this misguided policy.

The Progressive States Network argues that state legislatures can play a key role in influencing the debate on national issues.  I remember many months ago when the Michigan Legislature passed a resolution on rising oil prices, which was a national issue.  Given that there is a precedent for our Legislature to weigh in on national problems (some as irrelevant as the Terri Schiavo case), I believe that a resolution condemning the President's plan to escalate the Iraq mess is appropriate.

Please contact your State Representative or State Senator and urge them to sponsor the following resolution on the proposed escalation.

WHEREAS, The President has proposed an escalation in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, U.S. involvement in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers and the wounding and disabling of more than 22,000 U.S. military personnel to date; and

WHEREAS, This proposed escalation will further extend National Guard tours in Iraq, that the costs to the states of the call-up of National Guard members for deployment in Iraq have been significant, as reckoned in lost lives, combat injuries and psychic trauma, disruption of family life, financial hardship for individuals, families and businesses, interruption of careers and damage to the fabric of civic life in our communities; and

WHEREAS, The American troops have valiantly upheld their duty in Iraq under dire circumstances; and

WHEREAS, More than $357 billion has been appropriated by Congress to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq to date, money that could fund desperately needed education, health care, housing, nutrition and other social services in our communities in the United States or humanitarian assistance abroad; and

WHEREAS, Previous budgets that have prioritized Iraq have led to cuts in critical block grants for states and have increased the federal debt, which compounded by interest payments, will likely lead to even larger cuts in funding for critical needs in the States; and

WHEREAS, Polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not support increasing the number of troops in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, Most military experts oppose escalation in Iraq and press reports indicate that even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have opposed such a strategy; and

WHEREAS, Legal experts on all sides have determined that Congress has not only broad authority, but a long tradition of limiting escalation or forcing redeployment of troops through the Constitutionally-designate power of the purse.

BE IT RESOLVED, That the state of ________, on behalf of its citizens, urges that in a period when the Iraq Study Group, leading military and diplomatic officials and allies around the world are calling for a reduction in troops and withdrawal of the US from Iraq, the United States government should not escalate its involvement in Iraq or increase troop levels; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That, at a minimum, the President should obtain explicit approval from Congress if he wants to send more American troops to Iraq.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a suitable copy of this resolution shall be sent to George W. Bush, President of the United States, to the Congressional delegation of ________state, and to the United States Congress.