Timeline
 

With a vote on bringing troops home impending in the House:

Michael Chertoff declares he has a gut feeling that AQ will attack


House passes resolution to bring troops home


White House says Al Quaeda ready to attack US

Who know if this is fear mongering or not. I like your idea of a massive buildup to overwhelm the various factions keeping Iraq in chaos. I think we need a draft. The all-volunteer force is too small for the challenges that face us. We need to stop pussyfooting around. Look how the mission in Afghanistan has failed to reach a conclusion. I think it's tough love time for Pakistan, too. With AQ living large there, we'll never stop the terror they can unleash.

We need to send Chertoff to Iraq, and replace him with someone who'll work diligently to secure our ports and borders.

Everything you say here makes perfect sense Jim. Afghanistan is the Poster Child for the need for a draft. If we can't eliminate, decimate, annilate the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, there are only a few answers why, the most plausible is that we don't have enough fighting force on the ground. the second of course is that our diplomatic relations are amateur at best.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it really makes you wonder from a geopolitical standpoint why Afghanistan is a failure. Add 50%+ year over year illegial opium exports and it really makes you wonder what's going on and why our leadership at all levels is spineless.

The WH doesn't have to do anything to stave off a vote. The Senate would probably not pass it, Bush would 110% veto if they did and neither the House or Senate could come close to overriding it.

you sure Rick? Seems the GOP are starting to build up a little courage. Who would have thought Democrats would be dragging them, kicking and screaming to the awful truth that the President doesn't know what he's doing.

it's only a matter of time before there's a full party revolt.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/13/us.iraq/index.html

GOP senators to press Bush for plan to pull out of Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two leading Republican senators announced Friday they want to demand President Bush offer a plan to start reducing U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of the year.

Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana are proposing an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would also declare the Senate's 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq "obsolete" and in need of revision, Lugar says in a prepared statement to be delivered Monday on the floor of the Senate.

"We are hopeful that regardless of where senators stand on surge versus withdrawal, they will find our amendment to be a constructive bipartisan attempt to prepare for whatever policy follows in the coming months," the statement says.

"With this goal in mind, our amendment mandates that the administration immediately initiate planning for post-September contingencies, including a drawdown or re-deployment of forces. It requires those plans to be presented to Congress by October 16 of this year, and it states that the plans should be designed to be executable beginning not later than December 31."

Lugar's statement says the so-called "surge," or buildup of troops in Iraq, "must not be an excuse for failing to prepare for the next phase of our involvement in Iraq, whether that is withdrawal, redeployment, or some other option. We saw in 2003 after the initial invasion of Iraq, the disastrous results of failing to plan adequately for contingencies."

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will report to Congress on the state of the war in September.

Lugar's statement says in order to "ensure an opportunity to debate the implications of General Petraeus' report, our amendment declares that the rationale given for the authorization to use force, which passed in 2002, is obsolete and requires revision.

"Many of the conditions and motivations that existed when we authorized force almost five years ago, no longer exist or are irrelevant to our current situation. Therefore, the amendment states that Congress expects the president to send Congress a new rationale for the authorization at the time of the Petraeus report."

Lugar adds, "We want to avoid a drift in Iraq policy that continually references the next report or milestone, even as the fundamental conditions of our intervention in Iraq remain extremely problematic and hazardous."

The amendment will also call for "an urgent diplomatic effort in the region to repair alliances, recruit more international participation in Iraq, deal with refugee flows, prevent aggression, generate basing options, and otherwise prepare for future developments," the statement says.

"This must proceed, now. If we have not made substantial diplomatic progress by the time a follow-on policy is implemented, our options will be severely constrained and we will be guessing at a viable course in a rapidly evolving environment."

The Warner-Lugar amendment acknowledges a report on U.S.-set benchmarks for Iraq that Bush released Thursday. The report shows "satisfactory progress" in eight areas, while highlighting that there's "more work to do" in other areas, Bush said.

"Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report that satisfactory progress is being made in eight areas," Bush said during the news conference.

Iraqis "have provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad," said the president. However, Iraqis have "not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share in oil revenues."

Bush also announced Thursday that he's dispatching Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East next month to use "the tools of diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's democratic government."

The pair will meet with allies and reiterate the U.S. commitment to the International Compact with Iraq, which was put together in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in May, Bush said.

On Thursday afternoon, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted 223-201 to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008.

Bush vowed again Thursday to veto any legislation that would establish a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

I'm sure that there's very little courage in either side's positions. The Dems are against anything Bush is for and a lot of Republicans are worried about their fates being tied to Bush's low popularity. I can't imagine a scenario in the near future where the votes are there to override Bush's guaranteed veto.

It does not matter whether it makes it to the Senate or to the President's desk to be vetoed. It is enough that it passed the House.

This is all the proof our opponents over there need that we are losing our resolve. This will encourage any of the faithful members of the religion of peace who are on the fence to make a move, and not toward democratic society

"Bring it on"

Bring what on?

THE BOOGY-MAN IS COMING TO GET US!!!

FEAR AND PANIC!!! FEAR AND PANIC!!!

(you need our help, so please don't mind as we implement martial law).

The US is now fighting IRAN in Iraq. There is tons of evidence to support this. Your brilliant leaders at work, fighting the "war on terror" , bringing "peace and democracy" to the Iraqi people while bankrupting the American taxpayer, at the same time the person who attacked us on 9/11 (Osaba Bin Forgotten) still at large.

this is a tragedy on so many fronts. and those accountable , for starting the war in the first place, based on WMD fear and lies, still walk as free men and women.

btw, watch for the "COLOR CODE TERROR LEVEL" to go up right as we approach the next election.
what a bunch of horse-schit.

"We need a draft"?
You guys are real generous with other peoples blood. :rolleyes:

just parroting Bush some time in 03 or 04 looking the camera in the eye and telling the world's terrorists to bring it on.

it was a response to Tobra above.

I think Bush and Team have done more to encourage terrorist recruitment around the world than any protesters have, or indeed, probably could.

When you tell the enemy to bring it on, when you say their name over and over and that very act encourages their rage and commitment to fight you, you become the very mortar that holds terrorists together and allows more bricks to be laid.

Bush is that mortar.

Polarization creates it's own opposite.

I wonder why ''1984'' was required reading when I was in school.

BTW, ''They'' did not create Chaos in Iraq, nor did Bin Laden OR Saddam. Thank you Mr Bush, take a bow.

And I am so sick of the "Democrate are power hungry and creating a crisis to take over our free market economy.'' argument.

Someone escalated a crisis into a war on an enemy we cannot beat. They didn't build themselves back up as much as we are giving them a cause. Wouldn't that enable some to take over our free market economy ? Hasn't that already happened ? And you all sit back and argue the results while chanting ''Stay the course.".

And you never tire of it. Read a real newspaper for heaven's sake.

but weve never been "stay the course"....

Our initial invasion of Afghanistan was absolutely the correct move after 9/11. We had Al Queda, Osama, and the Taliban on the ropes in Afghanistan although we screwed up and let Osama get away at Tora Bora. Had we followed up with the contstruction, aid, and most of all establish security for the population as was initially proposed Afghanistan would very possibly be a very different place today. We certainly had the troops and everything else needed to do those things at the time.
Unfortunately, GWB at the urging of Darth, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. decided to reset the table in the middle east by invading Iraq and deposing Sadam so Afghanistan became just an afterthought in the war on terror. So Afghanistan is very probably lost in the long run and Iraq is a fiasco.

As to the draft? you smoking something very strong. No politician has the ba*^s to even seriously mention a draft. The great American middle class would go bonkers if they though their new HS grads would be going off to basic training rather than to State U.

They can't win, can they?
Summer 2001: A lot of chatter about attacking America. Yea sure. Shut up. Fear and panic. Don't interrupt my Chandra Levy and shark attack news.

On a related note, General Patreus' job is to win the war. Harry Reid's job is to keep the Senate majority in November 2008, and to hell with the Iraqi people or the US military.

actually the chatter was before summer 2001.

The bottom line is you can't wipe them all out. Period. I don't care how many troops you send over there. Terrorists are like doritos...don't worry, they'll just make more.

The key if to figure out how to keep them from wanting to radicalize. And the radicals are NOT the demographic most of you guys think.

I understand. Bin Laden is the new Che Guevara. The old terrorist begets the new terrorist.

http://abc.net.au/news/features/img/Artsblog/chebin.jpg

We need to get a ginormous key made, like the ones they hand over in a ceremony to a superstar ath-a-lete when he comes to town, but 1000X bigger, and hand it over to them in a nice ceremony, in DC or maybe Philly.