<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2007-04-26

Colorado's Own Senator Humiliated In Debate

Senator Salazar: “Today, I voted for the Iraq-Afghanistan Emergency Supplemental bill. I believe that this bill supports our troops, our veterans and their families, and should be signed by the President.

“But first I would like to say that as we continue the debate on this legislation and on the best way forward in Iraq, I have two key principles in mind.

“One, we should honor the bravery and courage of our troops. America’s finest men and women have done an extraordinary job – too often without the needed equipment and support. But honoring our troops means more than just singing their praises. It means making sure that every American in Iraq is adequately trained and equipped; it means guaranteeing every veteran access to all available benefits and services; and it means setting a policy that is as wise as our soldiers are brave.

Senator B: When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.
In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

Sen Salazar: The bill sends a direct message to the Iraqis that our military commitment is not open-ended. We hold the Iraqi government accountable through measurable and achievable benchmarks for security, political reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

Sen B: How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises."

But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?

On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."

Sen Salazar: “I support this new direction for Iraq. This new direction recognizes the reality that success in Iraq is contingent upon a strategy of military, political and diplomatic progress.

Sen B: We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.
But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.

Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues.

Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.

It wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it.

And who was this mystery Senator who surgically destroyed our Senator's rationale for voting for surrender? What Republican was so effective in debate?

Dream on.

No, the Senator who seems to speak with the greatest clarity and the most insight on this most important issue is a Democrat--Joe Lieberman.

Which must e even more embarrassing for our Senator.

And what, you might ask, do our other representatives have to say on the issue? Well, neither Ed Perlmutter or Mark Udall could, I suppose, be bothered to add to their websites any statement in support of or opposition to (shyaahhh!) this legislation.

Makes me awfully proud to have these guys representing us in Congress.
Posted by: Michael / 4/26/2007 11:52:00 PM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?