Posted on 01/17/2007 11:12:58 AM PST by Enchante
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats working with a well-known Republican war critic are developing a resolution declaring that President Bush's troop build up in Iraq "is not in the national interest," said people familiar with the document.
The resolution also would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress, according to officials who are knowledgeable about the draft.
These officials would speak only on grounds of anonymity because the drafting is still under way. Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, is helping Democrats with the wording of the anti-war resolution.
"It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq," it says.
The resolution will be cosponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) and Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), as well as Hagel. Levin, D-Mich., chairs the Armed Services Committee, and Biden, D-Del., heads the Foreign Relations Committee.
The Senate leadership is expected by Thursday to propose the resolution, with debate planned around the same time that Bush delivers his State of the Union speech next Tuesday.
Hagel's agreement to help Democrats champion the resolution amounts to a setback to the administration and to Bush, who has argued vehemently that some 21,500 additional U.S. troops are needed to help the Iraqi government calm sectarian violence in Baghdad and Anbar province.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
LOL either that or his mama has dropped by.
No, it meant large crowds breaking things, fighting and lighting cars on fire...like the streets of France.
Real honorable guy.
/s
So he was against the war after he voted for it in 2002? Like the rest of his leftist co-conspirators? What a guy!
Chuck Hagel has absolutely zero chance of winning more than one or two primaries under any circumstances. He has finished himself among the base by following the McCain triangulation model to make himself popular with the the Tim Russert's of the world while throwing the Prersident and the rest of the GOP under the bus.
Secondly, not only is he a RINO, he is wrong about Iraq. The worst thing we can do for many reasons is not finish the job
I would not piss on Chuck Hagel if he were on fire. In fact I will spend my money in a way specifically designed to injure any prospects that Hagel might think he has.
I can't stand the f#@king traitor!
PF
***...who throws the term "the Bush crime family" around...***
On another thread, I told a Paul supporter that he ought to remind Paul of Reagan's 11th Commandment - since Paul claims to be GOP - to which the guy replied that he had never heard Paul say anything personally offensive about President Bush. I didn't bother responding. What a lost cause.
Were Hagel to switch parties, the only one that would make sense for him to join is the Libertarian Party. His grades on all the scorecards of Congress indicate he is one of the most principled conservatives in Congress.
But, thanks to the War in Iraq, the American right is splintering into the national-conservatives and the libertarian-conservatives. All around the world, when the right splits, the left wins.
Libertarians are not conservatives, and conservatives are not libertarians, although there is an overlap, and although Ronald Reagan said inside every true conservative is the heart of a libertarian (he was speaking more of himself than of conservatives in general). Neverthelesss, usually, we can work together.
During the last several years, we have not had any progress on things that matter to either faction. No progress on spending, on entitlement reform, etc. As a consequence, there has been no "good feelings" that has enabled either faction to accept compromise positions on anything.
I put the blame for all of this on mission creep that's been going on in Iraq. Congress in authorizing the use of force in Iraq cited things of immediate concern to the American people.
But, upon the discovery that there were no WMDs, the mission "shifted" to one of enabling Iraq to form a new government. As they stood up, we were supposed to stand down.
Well, they have ratified their new constitution, elected their new government, and have now had three years to field an army and a police force. But, we're not standing down because, well, now we have a new mission. Now, our mission is an Iraq capable of governing itself, defending itself, and so forth.
Why is Iraq's future OUR responsibility?
And, when did Congress ever authorize the use of force for this mission?
I don't think Congress ever did.
Ron Paul, during the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, was first elected in a Democrat district in a special election. Then lost in the general. He then came back and won in the next general. He then increased his majorities to the point that he eventually ran unopposed.
During the 1990s to the today, he has done approximately the same thing in a new district that originally leaned Democrat, except that the Democrats thought they could mount a challenge to him last year and actually ran a candidate who got his head handed to him.
With regard to Chuck Hagel, he runs up enormous victories in Nebraska.
I'm glad I pulled you out of your shell... Please let your feelings flow concerning the good senator.
Breath in... Breath out... It's healing.
There was never any such discovery. The WMDs the world knew were there were simply never found ("absence of proof is not proof of absence"). That's what happens when you give a dictator an 18 month head start to get rid of them. Any guesses on what those trucks were carrying into Syria days before the war started?
The other part of the mission was to end a Sunni regime aligned with the Sunni terrorists who had just slaughtered 3,000 civilians in NY, PA and DC. The Sunni dictator is dead. His Sunni terrorist allies remain. The mission continues.
His last blowout victory came on the heels of his Iraq War vote (he voted for it).
He hasn't faced the voters since stabbing the President (and the troops he sent to fight) in the back became his favorite pastime.
I think we can stipulate that it is almost always the demonrat's fault. In this way we won't waste time stating the obvious and can go right after the traitors on our side.
More than 500 shells have been found, a declassified document shows this. It is ignored by the press, and for some reason is not pushed by the republicans.
The knee jerk defeatists and surrender monkeys must understand that if few terrorists sitting in a cave in Afghanistan with a limited budget and few volunteers were able to do 9/11 terrorist attacks, killed 3000 Americans, and caused over one trillion dollars in economic damages, then if the terrorists control Iraq and the whole Middle East, and its vast oil resources, they will have hundred of billions of dollars under their control, they will not only blackmail the whole world with the oil weapon, but they will use these hundred of billions of dollars to attack us everywhere in the world, acquire nuclear weapons and cause much more death, destruction, and economic losses than those of 9/11 2001 and at a scale that is so scary to think about.
Sorry if left out the word Rino. Or would WUSS feel better to you.
About a year and half ago, Paul actually stated that Harriet Meirs has been "involved in the past covering up for the Bush crime family's activities". He also predicted that Karl Rove was going down with Abrahoff(ms?)
Paul lost his first election in 74
He won and lost in 76
Won in 78, 80, and 82.
He lost in 84
Failed as Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 88 with 0.47% of the popular vote
Won Congressional seat in 1998 which he still holds....despite his loud calls for term limits LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.