Maureen Dowd's View on the Iraq Senate Hearings

The always excellent Maureen Dowd gives her view from the Senate floor during the hearings on Iraq. Is the surge working, what can we hope to accomplish and just why is the president of Iran more popular there than we are? All excellent points discussed in her Sunday column.

A confused Chuck Hagel asked the pair: “So, where’s the surge? What are we doing? I don’t see Secretary Rice doing any Kissinger-esque flying around. Where is the diplomatic surge? ... So, where is the surge? What are you talking about?”

Hijinx Abound at Senate Slumber Party

WASHINGTON-In an effort to pass legislation that would bring American troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats held a sleepover in the Capital building Tuesday night. The effort was supposed to force a vote on the issue with Republicans but things soon got out of hand as the night wore on. Filibustering took a backseat to frivolity once the sun went down.

Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown and California Democrat Barbara Boxer were spotted doing impressions of Republican Leader Mitch McConnel behind his back as he addressed a sleepy group around two in the morning. The Kentuckian grew increasingly angry and derided the two for their antics but the attention simply spurred them on. "He's asking for it," Brown said. "He's so damned serious all the time. Someone should tell him to take the stick out once in a while."

South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham was also the target of tomfoolery during his address to the chamber. A bi-partisan group made up of Ted Kennedy, John McCain, George Voinovich , Barbara Mikulski and Jim Webb huddled in a corner playing a drinking game. Every time Graham used the words "hero" or the phrase "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" the group would down a shot of Wild Turkey. At the close of his speech only Kennedy and former Marine Webb were still coherent enough to proceed with their own prepared statements.

The gags were not limited to opponents across the aisle. Presidential Hopeful Barack Obama could be heard making raspberries and other noises during fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton's remarks. The Senator from New York had trouble identifying her tormentor but caught on to the antics of the junior Senator from Illinois after fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer surreptitiously pointed him out. "I'm hoping for a cabinet position if she pulls off this presidential thing," Schumer said. "Giving up Obama could get me the Secretary of State job. You never know".

Independent Joe Lieberman and Democrat Bill Nelson giggled quietly as they tugged on the hair of a sleeping Trent Lott. "I still don't know if it's real or a wig," Lieberman said silently. "If it's a wig," Nelson said, "He's got it glued on pretty good." The game ended when Lott suddenly woke up and Lieberman and Nelson rolled over pretending to be asleep on their own cots.

Republicans Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss and John Cornyn were seen playing a game they called "alive or dead" with a slumbering Robert Byrd. The octogenarian senator had a cat nap around 3 am and the participants took turns holding a mirror under his nose to ensure he was still breathing. They were eventually chased off by Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy who ensured his elderly friend was all right by using the mirror once more before lying down on his own cot.

Finally, Senate stick-in-the-mud John McCain brought the fun to a close by loudly arguing with fellow Republicans Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel over their decision to side with the Democrats on the issue of redeploying the troops back to the U.S. "You're all a bunch of pansies!", the Arizonan could be heard saying loudly. "I bet none of you would last thirty seconds in the cockpit of an A4-E Skyhawk with a pair of MiG's screaming down on you. You'd bail out and wet your pants!" In return, Hagel remarked that maybe McCain should ask House Republican Ron Paul for some advice on how to run a successful campaign because "he has a better chance of sitting in the Oval Office than you do, loser." McCain was physically restrained from assaulting Hagel by several Senate pages. Snowe refrained from commenting but could be seen making an obscene one-fingered gesture at the presidential contender.

By morning though, the Democrats had failed to convince their Republican colleagues and lost the opportunity to bring the troops home by a vote of 52-47. The constant pestering of Republican Senators by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice finally wore down even those Republicans who have voiced opposition to the war. "I voted no just to get her the hell out of my office," muttered Ohio republican George Voinovich. "I know and you know I'm against the war but she just wouldn't shut up until I promised to oppose the Democrats. I don't know how the president puts up with that kind of nagging."

Senator Jim Webb & Senator Lindsey Graham On Meet The Press

Click play and watch Sen. Jim Webb debunk Sen. Graham's claims that the military in Iraq blindly supports President Bush's failed policies. You know, it just gets tiresome to here people like Sen. Graham say that the soldiers could win if we would just let them. As if the debate about whether we should pull out or not is more detrimental than launching this invasion with too few men. If Sen. Graham wants to point the finger at the people not supporting the troops he needs to start with the White House.

Ryan Correctly Votes Against War Funding

I'm not sure where folks got the idea that Congress was unpatriotic if they exercised their Constitutionally granted powers to control the government's purse strings but it sure is strange. Maybe it was when they became stupid enough to think Hannity and Limbaugh were worth listening to. Maybe it was when they decided that waving flags, patriotic segment titles and Ollie North were relevant to a newscast. Who knows? However, by voting against the war funding compromise worked out between the President and Congress, Representative Tim Ryan expressed the opinion of the majority of his constituency. In approving this funding bill without a solid plan for withdrawing troops for Iraq, Congress has abdicated its power to the Executive branch. This bill does nothing to get the troops out of harms way regardless of the fact that the President must report back to Congress on 18 checkpoints. How the Democrats got from timetables to withdraw to a checklist of progress is beyond me.

In this article, Rep. Ryan states it would be irresponsible to give the president a blank check to continue the war. I agree. Stay the course may not be in the White House vocabulary anymore but the policy remains in effect. To this White House, victory is a moving target, a phantom idea that is only visible in a fleeting glimpse. Choose your definition:

• To stop Saddam Hussein from threatening us with weapons of mass destruction
• To liberate the Iraqi people
• To fight Al-Qaeda there so we wouldn't have to fight them here
• To bring democracy to the Middle East

Whatever the reason is, it wasn't worth the thousands who have died and the tens of thousands who have been wounded. After more than four years of trying to convince us that entering this quagmire was a good idea, you would think the President would declare victory and get out of Iraq. But no, he just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper. Why not, though? After all, this is going to be one more problem someone has bailed him out of. Just like his oil business in Texas, he will be the only one who walks away with a smile on his face. It will be up to the rest of us to mourn the dead, care for the wounded and pay off this ridiculous debt. He will walk away unscathed, secure in the knowledge that he was always right, even when he wasn't. Well, at least our Representative did the right thing. Too bad more Democrats can't find their courage.

Representative Tim Ryan Explains the Democratic Surge Resolution...Loudly

Best line? "You go to war with the president you have, not the one you wish you had"

Supporting the Troops Without Supporting the War

There has been a lot of talk lately about those liberals who do not support the war in Iraq being unpatriotic. And by that I mean conservative talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and others claiming that it is impossible to draw a distinction between the troops and the mission. Now I know I shouldn't let ol' Rush get to me like that but now this inane point is being repeated by a lot of people calling talk radio and those filling up blog space. To tell you the truth, I'm sick and tired of conservative commentators having the audacity to explain my position just so they can knock it down. This is what's known as the straw man argument. First you define your opponents position and then you argue against it without benefit of directly debating them. It's clever and effective if your listeners are the sort of people who still believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the United States on 9/11.

This is the careful distinction liberals draw when stating they support the troops but not the war; the troops are our families, our neighbors and our friends. They are the sons and daughters of the people who live in our communities. We understand that these brave souls volunteered for service in the armed forces. Whether they are patriotic, needed money for an education or felt a deep desire to do something after America was attacked, we recognize that they have volunteered to protect this country. We want them to be safe and to never, ever, be put in harm's way needlessly.

And we hate the war in Iraq. Oh, how we hate the war. We didn't believe the evidence when Colin Powell went to the United Nations ( I wrote a letter to The Vindicator stating such) and we cringed whenever President Bush and his cult of personality tried to infer that Iraq had something to do with the attacks on 9/11. I understood attacking Afghanistan. I supported attacking the Taliban there because they aided Al-Qaeda and those were the people that had attacked us. The Taliban needed to go and Al-Qaeda needed to be hunted down. You don't attack this country and then think you can hide anywhere on this planet from us. We'll round up a posse and chase you until you can't breathe anymore. At least that's the way it should be.

Anyway, that's the distinction that Rush and his audience don't understand. Iraq didn't attack us. They didn't support those who did. Al-Qaeda didn't operate in Iraq until after we invaded and screwed up the occupation of the country. So, to summarize; we like the troops and want them safe. We don't think more of them should be sacrificed to achieve whatever definition of victory the White House has thought up this week. Hopefully everyone understands now. If you don't or just don't want to, that's fine. We have some elections coming up that will help you see the error of your ways.

Will More Troops Bring Success in Iraq?

I'm having trouble reconcilling President Bush's decision to increase the troop levels in Iraq with the reasons given by him when we went to war in 2003. If you recall, this administration asserted a pre-emptive strike on Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The president and his advisors feared Hussein would use those weapons against the United States himself or indirectly by providing them to Islamic extremists. By not complying with United Nations resolutions, Hussein was inviting an invasion.

Except, as we all know, there were no WMD to be found. No nuclear program, no stockpiles of Mustard Gas and no Anthrax. There is more Botulism in Beverly Hills than there was in Baghdad.

After the invasion came the declaration of Mission Accomplished. Flowers were lain at the feet of the soldiers liberating Iraq and a new government was swiftly formed. Peace reigned. No wait, that didn't happen either. Instead, it became nightmarishly clear almost immediately that post-Iraq planning was inadequate to the task. Donald Rumsfeld's invasion on the cheap was turning into a very expensive occupation.

Before the war began, President Bush was warned by Secretary of Defense Colin Powell regarding Iraq that "If you break it, you bought it". In other words, he was responsible for whatever happened in Iraq after the invasion. Secretary Powell was the man who instituted the doctrine of overwhelming force during the first Gulf War. His plan during that war utilized 500,000 troops to evict Hussein's military from Kuwait. Rumsfeld thought it could be done on the cheap with 150,000. To an extent he was correct. That's all it took to overthrow Hussein's regime. However, one has to assume the brutal insurrgency that followed and continues to this day would have been less successful if the number of troops in country had been closer to what Secretary Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopff used in 1991.

So now we find ourselves with a war won, a dictator executed and an insurrection that threatens to not only tear Iraq apart but damage the United States in a way that will take a generation to repair. Almost four years have gone by since the initial invasion and the President has suddenly figured out that there are not enough troops on the ground to provide security in Iraq.

The argument goes that we must fight the extremists in Iraq so that we do not have to fight them here. It is a ridiculuous statement and I refute it by saying the criminals that attacked us on September 11th were given haven in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If we had commited fully to Afghanistan in 2001 we could have secured that country by capturing the forces of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Instead we are now in a position where we are propping up two infant governmets, we are still chasing the terrorists who attacked us and still fighting the Taliban. The terrorists would never have been able to establish a base of operations in Iraq under Hussein's regime. Not only would he not have allowed it but our Air Force controlled the Northern and Southern parts of the country under the no fly zones established in the wake of the 1991 war. Invading and occupying Iraq was a blunder that will cost us even more lives and money now that President Bush has decided to increase the effort.

Any sane person is stymied by the terrible options available to deal with this mess. We are in a country we shouldn't be in, fighting a war that shouldn't be fought and now we find ourselves responsible for a population that cannot decide if they want us in their country or not. The down side to pulling the troops out and leaving is that we leave behind a weak government that is vulnerable to Islamic extremism. If it falls Iraq could become a breeding ground for new terrorists. Young children could be taught that Americans killed their families and grow up to become a new generation of Jihadists. Iran could subtely control the country as Syria did Lebanon for two decades. Staying and commiting more troops gives us a chance to prevent that future but it will cost lives and billions of dollars with no guarantee that the effort will succeed. It is madness to think that an acceptable solution can be salvaged from this.

So Colin Powell's warning from 2002 rings in our ears. "If you break it, you bought it". You know who owns this mistake? Everyone who voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004. Every Democratic Senator and Representative who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion on Oct.11, 2002. Every person who was afraid of being labeled unpatriotic if they questioned why we were invading a country that had not attacked us. Every journalist who failed to ask the tough questions when the invasion was announced. Every person whose sense of patriotism went no further than slapping a yellow ribbon on the back of their SUV. Every person who watched TV instead of going out to vote. In short, every person in the country owns this. This was our mistake. It doesn't matter that polls now show 70% of us don't support the president or his war. It certainly doesn't matter to the Iraqi's killed in the invasion or to those that live in darkness because we can't keep the electricity on in Baghdad for more than six hours at a time.

We elected this President. Twice. So we broke it and now we have to buy it. And we have. We have paid enough. No more parents should have to bury their children or bring them home maimed. This military has done all it can and it has done so with honor and pride. Most of us will never know what it means to sacrifice as these men and women and their families have. We owe it to them to let them lay down their arms and come home.

Who knows? Perhaps the Iraqi government will find the strength to stand on their own and claim their country for themselves. We will deal with the outcome either way.

Going forward we need to think harder about ways to preserve the peace. We need to think harder about ways to solve problems without relying on force. The military trusts us to elect leaders that will only put them in harm's way as a last resort and we have failed. We owe it to ourselves to do better than we have.