The Al-Qaeda Congress

Now that even some Democrats have made it clear that Congress's current desire to hand cuff the Commander-In-Chief could put troops at greater risk, and Democrat non-binding resolutions are more political acts of terrorism aimed at Bush, than they are legislation, perhaps it's time we acknowledge the Democrat controlled 110th Congress for precisely what it has become - the Al-Qaeda Congress.

Once launched, a war is not an endeavor for which you can simply change your mind based upon polling data.

"I've had enough of 'nonbinding,' " said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is helping to draft the new Democratic proposal. The 2002 war resolution, he said, is an obvious target.

As Senator Joseph Lieberman recently pointed out, never before in America's history has a Congress attempted to so brazenly undermine an on going military effort while our troops were in harms way. Sadly, the Democrat Leadership has opted to throw in with our greatest enemy, as it believes it will ultimately yield a political gain.

They're incredibly wrong-headed in doing so, and also wrong in their thinking this will benefit them politically in the end. Of the things America dislikes most, losing and losers certainly rank high on the list. Unfortunately, losers intent on losing is precisely what the 110th Democrat controlled al-Qaeda Congress has become.

link - Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.

Comments

[Darth Malice]

Chet is trying to cover himself because he is in a conservative district.

[Zifnab]

"If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk"

What other option do we have? If Dems cut off funding for the war, the President has basically threatened to Stalingrad the military. If Dems let him keep plowing on, we'll be in Iraq until the next Presidency. And another 1000 troops or more will see their blood shed in the desert for nothing. Bush is killing our troops for nothing, and Congress can't touch him because... it will put the troops in danger? How, exactly, do you take back the steering wheel from a drunk driver when you're already on the highway?

And, again, this all goes back to the question of how a Congress that demands the soldiers it sends into battle be properly armed, armored, and rested is preferable to sending them in defenseless and exhausted, as per the President's policy.

[Andrew]

Hahaha - Al-Qaeda Congress. The right-wing dullards are always good for a laugh. Go win some hearts and minds, jackasses. Hahahaha

[PoliticalCritic]

The Dems are just doing this for political gain. It will help them in 2008 if they look like the party trying to get us out of Iraq. In reality, this legislation will do nothing. It won't pass.

[Zifnab]

"In reality, this legislation will do nothing. It won't pass."

And why won't it pass? Because the Republicans are being deliberately obstructionist. They think they're still in the majority and if they throw a big enough hissy-fit, the US will keep funding their travesty.

[seekeronos]

The Al-Dhimmi Donkey Kongress is hell bent on committing political hara-kiri by its treasonous support of our enemies.

The Party of Che Guevara and Al-Qaeda simply won't rest until America is ground up like hamburg in between the filthy, rotted molars of the Caliphate.

I guess it is time for the Veto Pen to come out of its golden holster. Try getting a supermajority, you crazed dhimmis... and good luck getting _any_ other controversial legislation through.

Oh and by the way, don't count on the SCOTUS to bail ye out either, if things get that ugly.

[Darth Malice]

Seek I do worry about the crazed Dems,but I worry more about the soft,weak,pathetic,sorry,and butt-kissing GOP.Will they protect our troops?

[Doug]

Political acts of terrorism . . . the Al-Qaeda Congress . . . throw in with our greatest enemy . . .

You're really losing it, Danny. Time for a glass of warm milk and a nap.

[Phoenix]

Hold on a minute. Forget name-calling and what the republicans or democrats are doing for political gain.

Zifnab, What do you think the best thing to do would be? Serious question. The only qualifier on that question is for you to think about the fate of the good Iraqi people.

This isn't an in-your-face challenge. It's just a direct question.

[Purple Avenger]

"And why won't it pass? Because the Republicans are being deliberately obstructionist."

Yea, they should just jump right on the treason-train and ride off the cliff with the dems.

[Hard Right]

Wow. It smells like shi* in here. Oh, it's all the leftards trolling away. That explains it.

Leftards claim we invaded Afghanistan AND Iraq for oil. They claim we didn't send enough troops to Iraq. Then they oppose sending more troops to Iraq. They say they support the troops, but have called them murderers, terrorists, poorly educated, and worse. They complain troops were sent to Iraq without adequate body armor-but neglect to mention Bush started out with an army 56 billion dollars short of equipment because of the Dems. The left also wants to give captured terrorists the same legal rights as American citizens. The left wants to negotiate with Iran and Syria over Iraq-the very states trying to kill our soldiers, take over Iraq, and declaring death to America. Lastly, leftists have been leaking classified information that hurts America and it's war on terrorism.

Gee, I wonder why they are called traitors and the terrorists love them so. (Roll Eyes)

[warrenb]

"Of the things America dislikes most, losing and losers certainly rank high on the list."

Yes nobody likes A LOSER LIKE YOU DAN!

[seekeronos]

Darth Malice:

Truth be told, if the GOP shows that it is not able to turn things around, and we wind up with a solid looney left dominated Donkey Kongress, and any of the current slate of Dhimmicretin POTUS candidates in the WH... I think the GOP will fracture or simply fade away into Whig-like obscurity.

Then the Christian Right might re-form into another party to help rescue the heartland, northland, and possibly Texas (that's flyover country to you prissy hippy elite wanna-bes) from the clutches of the Dhimmis, or perhaps even secede from what will certainly not be the USA I grew up in.

[Dan Riehl]

"Yes nobody likes"

Waah!!! Waah!!

[Jeff]

Look out: Illegals in the USA murder more people per year, than die in the Iraq war annually.

"Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population." -- One News Now

I guess if the Congress is doing this in order to "save American lives" wouldn't preventing illegals from entering be a better solution?

[Phoenix]

That's okay, Dan. Anything I can do to help?

[Phoenix]

Where's Zifnab?

[Zifnab]

"Zifnab, What do you think the best thing to do would be? Serious question. The only qualifier on that question is for you to think about the fate of the good Iraqi people."

The best proposal I've seen was pitched by Ned Lamount. We pull our troops back to the borders, out of Bagdad and the other major cities. Abandon support of the government, because Maliki is an al-Sadr pawn at best and just playing both sides against the middle at the worst. Open up serious diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria to crack down on border smuggling and to rein in the fringe radicals in Iraq. We'll want to open refugee camps and bring in humanitarian aid for people fleeing the violence. Basically, we quarantine the civil war and extract anyone who doesn't want to be caught in the middle.

Finally, we make a serious redeployment from Iraq to Afganistan, where the troops are desperately needed. We fire the no-bid contractors and bring in a whole new crew. We can't rebuild Iraq from the inside, so we'll relocate our efforts to the small towns and cities. Expand their infrastructure to accomidate the refugees and grow the regions of Iraq that aren't suffering from violence. The end result will be the three-state solution. Shia, Sunni, and Kurd will each get their own countries, but we'll gut the power establishment of the old cities and allow migration to create new ones.

[Kite]

This arguement can be stopped easy enough.

ATTENTION!!!: The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT THE POWER TO CONGRESS TO MICROMANAGE A WAR. The Constitution grants the President the power to call up the NSA and perform the nescessary movements to keeping the nation secure against enemies (domestic or foreign).

Congress has only ONE power when it comes to managing a war. Power of the Purse. THATS IT. If you guys have the testicular fortitude to defund the war then do it. Defund it. Prove to the world that your just a bunch of cowards and that we can't win a war anymore.

So, quit acting like Congress has this all mighty power to tell the President what he can and cant do. The Constitution does not give you that power. You cannot limit him in terms of power. Only funding.

[Jeff]

I was actually watching CNN a few nights ago, and it is Constitutional for the Senate to do this. But it'll never pass... About 35-45% of Americans still support the war, and about 55% want us to stay until we win...

[Kite]

I'm glad you were watching CNN a few nights ago but that still doesnt mean it's constitutional for the Senate to undermine the presidents commander-in-chief powers.

The congress does not have constitutional support to micromanage a war. They cannot gain the same powers that the President has when it comes to troop deployment, where they are to be deployed, and war strategy. Congress can only vote to fund or defund a war.

Thats it. Either defund it or the dems need to shut up.

[Jeff]

"Either defund it or the dems need to shut up."

Exactly

[seekeronos]

Short of increasing our troop levels to around 500,000 to bring the Iraqi region completely under heel, the "Lamont Plan" would be a workable option, with a few changes.

1) No negotiations with Iran or Syria. That is like handing heroin to an addict, or worse, bullets to an assassin. Given the Shiite leanings of those two states, it would mean a complete genocide of the Iraqi Sunnis (and very likely, the Kurds - especially since Turkey won't complain about a potential security issue getting butchered away).

2) KILL Mookie Al-Sadr and the other known strongholds. No announcements of troop movements or plans, just a visit in the middle of the night by a bunch of GBU-84s to level his safehouses.

3) After Mookie and his likely replacements are dead, replace Maliki with someone who actually gives a damn about the Iraqi people.

4) Agree with the UK to divide Iraqi into three new nations along sectarian lines, with respective capitals in the centre of each new nation.

5) De-populate most of Baghdad to each of the three new nations. Declare it an international development zone, outside of the sovereignty of any of the three new nations for a duration of time (perhaps 20 years) under a lease to a trusteeship composed leading American and British financial concerns. (This could easily incorporate some of Zifnab's ideas about getting better contractors - and placing flexible bidding with defined margins for risk - a compromise between fixed bid and no-bid to avoid discouraging reasonable bids that may be hard to account for risk factors).

During this time, the Trustees will rebuild and rapidly make Baghdad a cosmopolitan city on a par with any Western capital.

Aggressively promote any combination of Western secularism and Christianity within the Baghdad zone.

6) Reduce troops as needed to police (with deadly force) :

--a. The oil infrastructure (to also be managed under lease by the Trustees, with profits divided among the three nations as determined by the Trustees, minus management fees)

An "instant death" zone of 300m will be rigorously enforced - first by US forces, then later by security specialists managed by the Trustees.

--b. The Baghdad International Development Zone. With a native population reduced to about 15-20% of present, remaining locals (screened rigorously for tractability and affinity to Westernization) should prove valuable to the rebuilding of a Baghdadi Urban core. Naturally, a firm security presence will be needed to ensure that radicals deported to the Shiite and Sunni nations are swiftly and harshly dealt with.

--c. Force deployments in the three nations. Forces will be deployed in Sunni and Shiite nations, by the USA and UK respectively. A phased draw down (or transition to other theatres) of troops is acceptable if an equivalent or greater number of contracted security or native national security personnel can be successfully stood up. Pacification of natives should be relatively easier given the lack (or reduced potential) for sectarian conflict. Rebellion against authority, and (imams) preaching against the reorganization will be harshly suppressed; compliance and adaptation to secularized conditions will be equally met with a relaxing of adversarial policing.

Within US-administered area, Christian ministries shall be invited (at personal risk) to help in the reconstruction and education of the relocated populations. The UK may or may not do similarly in its jurisdiction, but aggressive reconstruction and development efforts are always good. The Kurdish area, given its independence and self-policing against Sunni and Shiite militants, may be left to continue as it is, with US-brokered assistance as requested from the Kurdish government. Negotiations with Turkey, Kurdistan, and the USA may help ensure Kurds and Turks of their mutual security, whilst binding Kurdistan not to interfere or support the Kurdish separatists within Turkey.

7) Within time (10 years as a possible deadline), a complete withdrawal of US and UK forces should be possible, excepting any contracted security elements. Trade agreements and oil-revenue sharing agreements between the three Iraqi states should be completed by this time.

8) By 2025, groundwork should be laid to re-unify the Iraqi states as cantons along the Swiss model, maintaining and re-populating Baghdad with a modernized, internationalized, educated, and non-radical population.

[Phoenix]

Hey, thanks, Zifnab. I appreciate you stating it all out. You've got some thoughts that we've all probably thought about. The thing that would scare me is dividing the country into three - I don't think those people could handle not fighting. And I'm on the side of not talking to Syria or Iran. Doesn't that sound odd written out like that? It's just that in that region it would give them face. (Same in North Korea) Plus, they lie. Westerners believe in a man's word. His handshake as a sign of trust. That is so far from their mindset that we'd be wasting our time. Half the frustration with this whole war on terror is that we, westerners, transfer our logical mindsets onto them. We don't even think alike.

Anyway, good job. Yes on Afghanistan for sure. You too, Seek. Really good synopsis. (I couldn't do it.)

[templar knight]

See what can happen when people get together to solve problems. I think all of us realize that Iraq will have to be divided into three distinct zones, as mentioned above. And really, that is exactly the way Iraq was divided until the British stepped in and set up a rump state. The dynamics of the religious and ethnic groups in Iraq just about make this a neccessity. I see no other way out other than a unilateral withdrawal which would result in a bloodbath, beyond anything we have seen so far. IMHO.

[SDN]

The Turks have flat out stated that setting up an autonomous Kurdish region would trigger a full invasion from them. How would you deal with that without using American troops?

[Phoenix]

Deny them entry into the UN if they so much as step inside Kurdish territory.

(I might have 'UN' wrong.. WTO? Oh well...they want in something bad enough to be taken seriously.)

What's wrong with the people over there? Tribalism? god...

[seekeronos]

"The Turks have flat out stated that setting up an autonomous Kurdish region would trigger a full invasion from them. How would you deal with that without using American troops?"

Trade and membership to certain organizations could easily be called into question - but on the other hand, I think that so long as concessions were made by both sides as not supporting the Kurdish operatives in Turkey.