Clark calls for funding cutoff if administration does not change strategy.

[calteacherguy]

August 27, 2007

We must find a way out of Iraq.

<snip>

We can't succeed in Iraq with more troops, no matter how good they are, because we can't succeed in this war just by killing people or intimidating the opposition.

For the past ten weeks, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq -- a broad coalition of organizations working to end the war -- have been pressuring Republican obstructionists who keep rubberstamping George W. Bush's failed policies.

Tomorrow, their efforts will culminate into one national day of action -- Take a Stand Day. AAEI in coordination with coalition partner, MoveOn.org, will be hosting Town Halls on Iraq and Stand Up Vigils across the country to send a clear message to Congress: bring a responsible end to the war.

Can you attend the Take A Stand Town Hall and/or Stand Up Vigil in your community and make sure your representatives hear the public's voice on the Iraq war?

Sign Up Here: http://pol.moveon.org/event/septembervigil/?rc=congress

Despite what George W. Bush says, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we leave Iraq, we'll still be left with significant interests in the region. We'll still have concerns about Iranian nuclear potential, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, our friends in the Arab Gulf, and yes, the security of the world's principal supply of oil. These interests won't go away simply by pulling U.S. troops out.

Congress must demand George W. Bush present a real strategy and policy in the region and defend it. If George W. Bush refuses, then Congress must explore legislative measures, including funding cutoffs to force President Bush to change the course in Iraq.

The administration doesn't want to talk about this. They want to talk about troops. They want to say they support our troops, and if we question the numbers of troops or their effectiveness, they want to say we don't support our troops. President Bush, we're not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning you. Stop hiding behind General Dave Petraeus.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark
www.securingamerica.com

[aquart]

1. Do it.

[AtomicKitten]

2. That's what a leader looks like!!!!

just do it

[rodeodance]

3. He is right. about cutting off funding. From what I hear Bush will do of the same.

[KT2000]

4. Yes !!

Still would love to see President Clark.
We need someone with his brains.

[shireen]

5. General, please put me out of my misery and

R U N ! ! !

:patriot:

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Why won't anyone challenge Bush on Middle Eastern Strategy (other than Clark)?

The entire neocon world view is an unfolding disaster, bad as Iraq is it does not begin and end there. The Bush Administration has contributed to the continuing destabilization of the entire Middle East, and with an attack on Iran now under active consideration they are about to throw a lit match onto a pile of gun powder. Why can't Democrats talk about anything more far reaching than which troops should come home in which month? That has to be discussed certainly, but is that it, is that the extent of our differences with George Bush? No wonder we continue to march down a path to war with Iran. Even Bush's own U.N. Ambassador sees the growing potential for absolute disaster in the Middle East (though he doesn't follow through and fault George Bush for helping create it):

"Middle East turmoil could cause world war: U.S. envoy"

VIENNA (Reuters) - Upheaval in the Middle East and Islamic civilization could cause another world war, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was quoted as saying in an Austrian newspaper interview published on Monday.

Zalmay Khalilzad told the daily Die Presse the Middle East was now so disordered that it had the potential to inflame the world as Europe did during the first half of the 20th century..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070827/pl_nm/mideast_khalilzad_dc_1

[karynnj]

10. Many Democrats have challanged Bush on this

many saying very very similar things about how US lack of engagement has made the Middle East more unstable.

In fact, there was a Feinstein/Lugar bill that I never heard of here - only through a liberal (non-neo-con) Jewish activist group - Brit Tzedak v'Shalom (The Jewish Alliance of Justice and Peace) that called for people to get their Senators behind this bill. This is a pretty balanced effort. This was from a July mailing - I don't think it was acted on in the Senate - but that is hard to find without a name or number.

Current Senate cosponsors of the Feinstein/Lugar resolution (21):

CA: Feinstein
CT: Dodd
HI: Akaka
IN: Lugar
MA: Kerry
ME: Snowe
MS: Lott
MT: Baucus
NC: Burr
NE: Hagel
NH: Sununu
NM: Bingamin
OH: Voinovich
OR: Wyden
PA: Casey
RI: Reed, Whitehouse
VA: Webb
VT: Leahy
WI: Kohl
WV: Byrd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Full text of the Feinstein/Lugar resolution

Note: This resolution is going to be reintroduced from its original version (S.Res.224) to update the text regarding recent events in Gaza. The new bill number is not yet available, so please refer to it as the "Feinstein/Lugar resolution on Israeli-Palestinian peace," or the "updated version of S.Res.224." The text below is from the updated bill.

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Whereas ending the violence and terror that have devastated the State of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza since September 2000 is in the vital interests of the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian people;

Whereas the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict strengthens extremists and opponents of peace throughout the region;

Whereas more than 7 years of violence, terror, and military engagement have demonstrated that armed force alone will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute;

Whereas the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians want to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict and live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity, and security, based on a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace;

Whereas on May 24, 2006, addressing a Joint Session of the United States Congress, Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert reiterated the Government of Israel's position that `In a few years, could be living in a Palestinian state, side by side in peace and security with Israel, a Palestinian state which Israel and the international community would help thrive';

Whereas, in his speech before the Palestinian Legislative Council on February 18, 2006, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said, `We are confident that there is no military solution to the conflict. Negotiations between us as equal partners should put a long-due end to the cycle of violence... Let us live in two neighboring states';

Whereas, in June 2002, the President of the United States presented his vision of `two states, living side by side in peace and security', and has since repeatedly reaffirmed this position;

Whereas events of the past 18 months, including the victory of Hamas in Palestinian legislative elections, the continued firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel, and the escalating intra-Palestinian violence and chaos, culminating in the June 2007 takeover of Gaza by Hamas, make the achievement of President Bush's vision even more difficult;

Whereas a robust and high-level American diplomatic presence on the ground is critical to bringing Israelis and Palestinians together to make the tough decisions necessary to achieving a permanent resolution to the conflict;

Whereas June 2007 marks the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Arab states;

Whereas all parties should use the occasion of this anniversary to redouble their efforts to achieve peace; and

Whereas achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace could have significant positive impacts on security and stability in the region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) reaffirms its commitment to a true and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of 2 states, the State of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and with recognized borders;

(2) denounces the use of violence and terror and reaffirms its unwavering commitment to Israel's security;

(3) calls on President Bush to pursue a robust diplomatic effort to engage the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, begin negotiations, and make a 2-state settlement a top priority;

(4) urges President Bush to consider appointing as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace an individual who has held cabinet rank or someone equally qualified, with an extensive knowledge of foreign affairs generally and the Middle East region in particular;

(5) calls on Hamas to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist, to renounce and end all terror and incitement, and to accept past agreements and obligations with the State of Israel;

(6) calls on moderate Arab states in the region to intensify their diplomatic efforts toward a 2-state solution and welcomes the Arab League Peace Initiative; and

(7) calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to embrace efforts to achieve peace and refrain from taking any actions that would prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations.

[karynnj]

11. Kerry has always spoken on the middle east and other foreign policy issues

As have other members of the Senate foreign Relations Committee - I know that Dodd did late last year after he and Kerry went to Iraq, Lebanon and Syria - and each went to other countries as well. I may have missed a lot - but I have not heard much beyond vague statements that we need more diplomacy from the Presidential candidates.

Here is a short u-tube where Kerry spoke of the situation in Palestine in 2005 in a very informal forum in MA this year. This is a down to earth exchange - there are many many detailed exchanges in the SFRC where Kerry, as chair of the Subcommittee on the middle east and near east has spoken to both Bush administration people and experts. This was nice as it provides a good simple example of Kerry's foreign policy views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXd66eae9K8
(other segments of this forum were at the bottom of this Kerryvision.net link http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/07/senator_kerry_i_dont_run_from.html#more )

Kerry also had a very nice op-ed in the Boston Globe early this year.

http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/1/4/a-crucial-time-for-saving-lebanon-s-fragile-democracy

So, Kerry and others on the SFRC have done their job in the committee to advice the Bush adminstration. The links are to examples where he has spoken to the public to influence opinion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I oversimplified, but it is more than Israel/Palestine also

Kerry in particular has been a leader with strategic vision; he went to Syria in person, he spoke of combatting Terrorism as something best handled through police type means more than through military ones, etc. I give Kerry great credit.

Israel/Palestine is probably the lynch pin to regional progress, but not all of the tensions the U.S. has with Iran, for example, can be laid at Palestine's doorstep. Tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan are not primarily due to the Palestinian issue. Issues related to the aspirations of the Kurds for a homeland are not Palestine related, nor at root are Sunni Shiite splits. Meanwhile virtually every national democrat talks about ways of getting our troops out of Iraq weekly if not daily, but Bush rarely if ever gets contronted to either own or disown the PNAC plans for Middle Eastern regime changes that totally animated the foreign policy of his Administration and which appear to still be driving it. How often do we see Democrats add two plus two together to conclude that it is the continuing Bush policy of seeking regime change in "unfriendly" Middle Eastern states that makes it nearly impossible for the U.S. to completely withdraw from Iraq without possible dangerous consequences?

[karynnj]

13. Kerry in late July/early August heald a hearing on Pakistan

where Nickolas Burns testified. Kerry has spoken of all those areas - they are all in the area that he is responsible for - the near east and middle east. Kerry has spoken on Iraq as much as anyone in or out of government. Kerry has spoken on every one of the Iraq issues you mention. (In fact the main topic of that Forum was Iraq - many of the other clips are about Iraq.) Kerry in several of the book tour events spoke about Bush's motivation having been PNAC, though he had always said it wasn't.

I answered on Israel/Palestine because you said middle east - rather than near east.

I do think the candidates need to address these issues more fully, but - at least from what I've seen - only Senators Biden and Dodd have spoken with any great detail. What I am watching for is who people (like Clark, Kerry or Gore) seem to be advising - so far I don't have a clue. We know Hillary will likely be most influenced by her husband. Neither Obama or Edwards have any one as obvious guiding them on foreign policy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Thanks for the update Karynj

I'm glad you were on this thread to catch me early for not having given John Kerry the credit that we both know that he deserves in this area. He is one of our very best in general, but especially on foreign affairs. And I agree that a few, such as Biden and Dodd, have addressed larger strategic issues, but even so rarely is George Bush held to account to re-articulate the strategic vision that guides his actions now in the wake of the disaster of Iraq. Is the United States still attempting to install "Democratic governments" across the region? Is it our goal to treat Iran as an international pariah in the same way that we treated pre-invasion Hussein's Iraq? Does Bush have a vision for restoring America's standing in the eyes of the Islamic world, or are we already stuck living out his whole vision?

I'm certainly not hearing enough about this from our current Presidential front runners.

[karynnj]

20. Here's a thread from today that shows quiet diplomacy on Pakistan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3485717&mesg_id=3485717

[Schema Thing]

7. K & R

[FrenchieCat]

8. Clark states it well.........we are arguing about the wrong issue.....

Cause how many or how few troops ain't the problem. The issue is the policy we have and have had in reference to Iraq AND the rest of the middle east. We shouldn't have ever invaded Iraq.


"They want to talk about troops. They want to say they support our troops, and if we question the numbers of troops or their effectiveness, they want to say we don't support our troops. President Bush, we're not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning you. Stop hiding behind General Dave Petraeus."-Wes Clark

[Jai4WKC08]

9. I'll be there

There's a Kansas City Vigil down near the Plaza, at 63rd and Ward Parkway (for those who know the city). We only have about 75 people signed up so far, but I suspect more will show up.

I sure wish we could get more people interested tho. Sigh. The war just doesn't touch most people's lives. A majority might like to see it end, but not enough to inconvenience themselves about it.

:kick:

[sarcasmo]

15. Right idea, but no backbone in congress.

[Boo Boo]

16. Kicked for a real leader. /nt

[Cameron27]

17. K&R

for Wes :-)

[ProSense]

18. Cut funding! Remember when 14 Senators voted to deny funding unless Bush changed policy?

Round One

Damn it was a great bill!

Soldiers are dying for real so Congress needs to pass an Iraq bill with real consequences

[TacticalPeek]

19. K & R

:kick: