Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rebutting Bush, Edwards: "No Timeline, No Funding, No Excuses"

Posted by Howie Klein at 5:04 AM on September 14, 2007.


Howie Klein: After Bush's lame speech on keeping the war going for a decade, the Democrats came out swinging.
Rebutting Bush, Edwards:

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

If you didn't listen to Bush's lame plan to keep the war going for a decade, here's the full text. Perhaps someone can name the 36 countries fighting along side us in Iraq. The response from Democrats was... muted and underplayed. We owe John Edwards for buying a couple minutes on MSNBC to give an Outside-the-Beltway response where he said, among other things

No timeline, no funding. No excuses. It is time to end this war.
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) gave a perfectly fine Inside the Beltway response on behalf of the very loyal semi-opposition. Personally I preferred Howard Dean's response on behalf of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party:
The President's speech tonight offers a war without end. It is a PR stunt to buy more time for a stay the course strategy in Iraq that simply hasn't worked. There's a reason two-thirds of Americans want a troop decrease in Iraq: our brave troops have done everything that's been asked of them, but they cannot solve Iraq's political problems. Now they are hostage to the failure of our civilian leadership to present a thoughtful plan to bring them home.
It is long past time for the President to acknowledge the realities on the ground in Iraq and for Bush Republicans in Congress to stop standing behind the President and start standing up for the American people instead. Republicans urged the American people all along to wait till September before changing course. Well it's September, and it's time to do just that.

Like many Democrats, Hillary and Obama sent politically-correct statements out to their supporters. Hill:
Regrettably, the President did not seize the opportunity tonight to offer the American people a candid assessment of the challenges that we continue to face in Iraq, or offer a change in course to his failing strategy. Instead, he portrayed an unavoidable reduction in U.S. troops to pre-surge levels as a marker of progress. Redeploying over the next year five of the twenty combat brigades currently deployed in Iraq will merely bring our total number of troops back to the same level that existed before the President announced his escalation in January of this year. As was discussed during General Petraeus's testimony this week, troop levels in Iraq must decrease by this amount regardless, in order to avoid extending Army deployments beyond 15 months and straining our military even further than it already is.
What the President told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home.
The Commander-in-Chief has the authority to issue the order to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more of our troops home so much faster. They have done everything we have asked of them and more, but are now stuck in the middle of a civil war. I continue to implore the President to change course, bring our troops home faster, and end this war responsibly as soon as possible.

Obama sounded OK too:

It is long past time to end a war that never should have started. President Bush was wrong when he took us to war, he was wrong when he escalated this war in January, and he is wrong to stay the course now. I opposed this war from the beginning, I introduced legislation in January that would have already started to bring our troops home, and I will continue to lead the fight in the Senate for a fixed timeline with a deadline for the removal of all of our combat troops. The American people are not going to be fooled by the same false promises of success that got us into Iraq. Iraq's leaders are not making the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, but the President wants us to keep giving him a blank check. We must not continue the enormous sacrifice of our troops, our military readiness, our treasury, and our standing in the world just to keep the violence at the same unacceptable levels it was at in 2005 and 2006. That is why I have proposed an immediate and sustained removal of 1 to 2 combat brigades each month to conclude by the end of next year. We have to come together-- not as Republicans and Democrats-- but as Americans to turn the page in Iraq so that we can recapture our unity of purpose at home and our leadership around the world.
Harry Reid:
Tonight President Bush announced his plan to keep at least 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, demonstrating that he is trying to run out the clock on his failed strategy and leave the hard decisions to the next president.
For months the American people, a bipartisan majority of Congress and countless military experts have called for a new way forward in Iraq, but the President has offered only a commitment to endless war that will continue to take American lives, deplete our treasury, and divert our focus from fighting an effective war on terrorism against Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda operatives.
After almost five years, tonight was just more of the same. It's not progress nor is it the strategy for success our troops deserve. And as long as President Bush keeps them in harm's way without clear purpose or achievable goals, Democrats will keep fighting to responsibly end this war.
Pelosi was good, even if she is, in the words of Chairman Mao, a total and complete paper tiger:
Tonight, President Bush outlined a status quo strategy that leaves at least 130,000 American soldiers in harm's way as part of a 10-year occupation of Iraq.
The American people reject the President's call for an 'enduring relationship' with Iraq that is based on leaving our troops in the middle of a deadly civil war for at least 10 years. The President failed to answer how maintaining 130,000 soldiers in Iraq would strengthen our military, make us safer, or how he would pay for its additional $700 billion cost.
In the fifth year of war, after more than 3,700 brave Americans have lost their lives, it is unconscionable to ask additional sacrifices of our military while Iraqi politicians refuse to make the political progress necessary to end sectarian violence. The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment and the President's plan for a 10-year war in Iraq.

So is it time for the Democrats to lead--like most Americans want them to? Even Republicans who live in moderate districts and must fave non-Confederate voters next year were dismayed with the complete lack of genuineness in Bush's approach tonight. Tomorrow's Washington Post claims for them it fell flat. Republicans who have been rubber stamps for his policies and agenda know they are in trouble and tonight probably made it worse. A good example is Susan Collins of Maine, a complete Bush Regime tool who fell in with Lieberman and is probably going to be defeated for re-election. She wasn't happy tonight.
I just don't think that waiting another six months to reassess the situation is going to move us forward. The whole premise of the surge, as the president advocated it in January, was to buy time for political reforms, and that didn't happen. To continue with the same strategy that failed to produce the results that the president and everyone hoped for just doesn't make sense."
Does this mean the Democrats will start leading-- like most Americans would like to see them do? This craven, cowardly, overly cautious lot? Please!

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, iraq war, pelosi, reid, edwards, obama. clinton

Howie Klein is the creator of the blog Down With Tyranny!


GOP Senator Lindsey Graham Breaks Ranks, Admits "The Green Economy Is Coming"
Finally, one member of the GOP has a slice of reality pie.
Post by Staff. November 5, 2009.
Iowa Wingnut Steve King Lauds Lobbyists as American Heros for Bussing in Health Reform Protesters
Astroturfing earns praise from the GOP rep.
Post by Lee Fang. November 4, 2009.
GOP Loon Goes Off the Rails: Health Reform Greater Threat than Terrorism
The government's trying to put you to death, don't you know.
Post by Faiz Shakir. November 2, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
:)
Posted by: Scientz on Sep 14, 2007 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards for President of the United States!

Way better than the establishment status quo candidate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ask the questions and listen!
Posted by: Schroeder on Sep 14, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you John Edwards for finding the right opportunity to say what desperately needed to be said! We need to be paying attention to what the democratic candidates are saying! Ask the tough questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOTHING NEW
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 14, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's about what I expected from Bush. But the reaction of Congress is getting old. True, they don't have the votes. But it's time to call Bush on the money. That's the only bargaining chip there is. And no more reports please. There is no progress, just rearranging the players. We can't continure to allow people to die so that American politicians can maintain their dignity and avoid embarassment. Time to listen to the people, including John Edwards. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not without republican spin Posted by: kww355
Riding a paper tiger
Posted by: Christie on Sep 14, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaker Pelosi is a paper tiger. She allows continued funding of the war and keeps impeachment off the table--in spite of what the American people are demanding. All expenditures begin in the House. All Nancy Pelosi has to do is NOT bring up Bush's request for $50 billion to continue the war. Tell Bush he has just enough money to bring the troops home within the next six months---period. And she blocks action for impeachment of VP Cheney--which is an indictment that would allow the Senate to hold a trial. Are we going to allow Bush/Cheney to continue war in Iraq and bomb Iran? I feel as if we are riding the paper tiger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: iding a paper tiger Posted by: gathaiga
Stephanopoulos: "Congress can't do anything"
Posted by: porgygirl on Sep 14, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right after Bush's speech, on ABC I think it was, George S was asked by the other talking head, "Can Congress do anything?" and George said "No, they don't have enough votes."

What a great way to keep the millions of Americans, who had just thrown their Big Gulps at the President's face on the screen, from contacting their congresspeople to demand that they stop funding the war. The corporate media is absolutely shameless in its efforts to pacify and silence the public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democratic response
Posted by: gathaiga on Sep 14, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....do something you numnuts!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

filibuster, boys and girls, filibuster
Posted by: warrior woman on Sep 14, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Again it is the same ol', same ol' stuff. Earlier this week Robert Parry wrote of the idea of a filibuster. Read:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/091007.html

Yesterday, this article appeared: Media Misrepresent Democrats' Options on Iraq War
FAIR
Thursday 13 September 2007 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091407N.shtml

Essentially, this is the deal: "Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq-it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41-the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War-if they choose to do so."

So, go do it, boys and girls, filibuster, we've got your backs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Allies?
Posted by: bookie on Sep 14, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anyone else notice that Bush twice early in the address called Iraq our ally? I guess calling Iraq an occupied nation, or a conquered nation just isn't politicallly correct. Bush is living in a dream world, disconnected from reality. I thought Edwards made a good speech. I'm liking this guy for President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time to get behind John Edwards!
Posted by: AlohaTerry on Sep 14, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMHO, John Edwards is our best Candidate for President. Hillary's got the Money, as does Obama, but the RepuKKKes will say "How can SHE (a Woman??!!) be the "Leader on the War on Terrorism" (Their Spin on the Farce in Iraq) when she can't even control her own husband?"
And on Obama, they will say "Have you noticed how this 'Inexperienced' Guy's name sounds just like...'Osama'?
Psst--he's also 'Black'...
They will try to smear Edwards as being a rich Elitist with $4oo haircuts, too---
But Edwards made his money fighting against the Corporations fighting for US, the People!
He wasn't born with a Silver Spoon, like Bush, Romney, et al. He isn't a Hypocrite like Gulianni, or a Moron like any candidate the RepuKKKes come up with.
John Edwards IS Our Best, and Brightest Hope!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dennis Kucinich has said it all along.
Posted by: taureandevi on Sep 14, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dennis Kucinich was against the possibility of a war with Iraq that he compiled a report and shared it with his colleagues. It turned out his premonitions were not smoke but founded on intelligent vision as every thing he warned would happen did.

Kucinich decided to devise a way out back in February. Kucinich realizes the power of words and will not say or endorse anything that goes against his clearly stated position just to be popular.

Americans might not be ready to even after all these decades realize the dream of America, but if it sounds good, consider Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Threaten Bush's "legacy" - IMPEACH!
Posted by: jontan88 on Sep 14, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole occupation is about "saving" whatever is left of Bush's "legacy". The Dems did a stupid thing and took impreachment "off the table" which gave Bush the green light to do what he is doing to the country. If they hadn't done that, we would already be out of Iraq. We would have had him by the balls. Why is it the Dems feel they need to also "protect" Bush? Makes me sick...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"politically correct"
Posted by: sui_generis on Sep 14, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must be missing something here -- How was Obama's statement "politically correct", as you call it...?

I don't mind reporters or commenters who insert their own personal biases against one candidate or another, but at least be open about it and back it up with facts, please?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HE VOTED FOR THE WAR!
Posted by: Angry and Black on Sep 14, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AND NOW HE IS RUNNING AGAINST OBAMA AND KUCINICH WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR!

OBAMA KUCINICH 2008: Leave the jokers behind!

No Hillary!
No Edwards!
No Gore!
Noe Biden!

AND ESPECIALLY NO RACIST MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICANS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HE VOTED FOR THE WAR! Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: HE VOTED FOR THE WAR! Posted by: Angry and Black
» RE: HE VOTED FOR THE WAR! Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: HE VOTED FOR THE WAR! Posted by: Angry and Black
Teal
Posted by: teal on Sep 14, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats committed a serious blunder when they okayed General Petraeus to command a Surge they were against. What is their problem? Why do they refuse to cut off funds for a War that 2/3s of us are against? We will face the same problems in Iraq whether we leave tomorrow or 10 years from now. We broke it but we don't own it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO MORE BLANK CHECKS!!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Sep 14, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Reid and Pelosi have to do is announce that sufficient funding - and only that - for withdrawal will be passed whenever the Rethugs get out of the way. If the Repukes filibuster or the fascist-in-chief vetoes, they will resubmit the bill until they see reason. If not, Bush and his nazis are refusing to fund the troops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NO MORE BLANK CHECKS!! PS Posted by: UnEasyOne
Bilderberger Boy..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Sep 14, 2007 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards favors a Military Strike upon Iran..

So who is he trying to kid..?

He has also censored and just evicted disappeared all of his most liberal and progressive supporters from his Blog site one after another..

Me among them true, but I have found out so many others not for obscenity or anything but we believe to suck up to Hillary and please her or the Republicans that frequently harass Democrats there..

Now he wants Republicans in his cabinet..come on haven't we had enough of them, haven't they done enough harm..?


I'm afraid he is the Bilderbergers inside bet..their way of hedging things..against the People as usual..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bilderberger Boy.. Posted by: warrior woman
War continues with no end
Posted by: illuminatislave on Sep 14, 2007 4:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its makes me sick to listen to this revolting rhetoric by the democrats. Its the same crap they were feeding us back in November prior to the elections only to give Bush a blank check to continue his war. It was then that I realized the democrats had sold out the American people just as the Republicans had years ago. Both parties democrats and republicans in addition to MSM all work for the same group, the international bankers.

Democrats vs republicans, republicans vs democrats; its all an illusion sold to us by MSM. Its really the international bankers who own our congress and MSM, against the American people. The international bankers have alreadly chosen our next president. My guess is that it will be George Bush wearing a dress. And the war goes on and on and on.......International bankers view American troops as nothing more than pawns on a chessboard to be sacrificed for the king. We are their slaves. Our troops are their gladiators. The international bankers don't care who wins the war. All they care about is that the war continues$$$$$. As long as there is somebody volunteering to fight in their war, the war will continue forever. For those of you who are about to die, I salute you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JOHN EDWARDS ALWAYS WILL WORK FOR THE UNDERDOG
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Sep 14, 2007 8:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE JOHN EDWARDS IS WORKING GOR YOU , CHECK HIS WEB SIGHT. HE MADE HIS FORTUNE WORKING FOR THE UNDERDOG. NUFF SAID.! ! !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When will Congress
Posted by: andrushka on Sep 15, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
start to work hard really? First stop pampering to the President by funding his illegal war, as someone else wrote:"just give him enough money to repatriate every single one GI, and AT THE SAME TIME, start procedures to impeach Bush and Cheney. JUST DO IT for Heavens'sake. And stop also the construction of Little America in Baghdad (US embassy). This US building will be an eyesore for the Irakis for ever. Its is really obnoxious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funny...
Posted by: newtype_alpha on Sep 15, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I actually liked Obama's response almost as much as Edwards'. I may be in the minority here, but he seemed to have the right combination. Exactly right idea (Let's get the hell out of here!) combined with a bit of sense (one to two brigades a month). I do hate to admit it, but Edward's rhetoric is just a shameless emotional play; he knows good and damn well we can't get those troops out of Iraq instanteously and he'll probably end up following Obama's idea anyway.

Hm... Edwards for Prez, Obama for VP? I could definately live with that. ^_^

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a bunch of phonies.
Posted by: bodo on Sep 16, 2007 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised so many people are buying this BS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]