Here are some annotated highlights of Mike Ferguson's take on the Iraq War resolution passed last week by the House. His comments are in italics, with ours in plain text.
I am disappointed that the strategies employed thus far have not been more successful and that our progress in Iraq has been too slow, and I am saddened that those who have drafted this resolution are offering no alternatives of their own for our mission in Iraq. Indeed, they are prohibiting consideration in this Chamber of any alternative.
Yes, Mike, the debate is limited because this debate is about a specific proposal to add 21,500 more troops to Iraq, continuing the failed policy the Bush administration has attempted at least four times (in Fallujah twice, in Baghdad twice). I also find it difficult to accept your desire to debate alternatives in Iraq when you were in the majority for the first three years and ten months of the war and prohibited any debate during that entire time! Why is it only now that you are in the minority you want open debate?
Even better, your claim they are prohibiting debate on alternatives is a load of cow manure. You were given five minutes to say anything you wanted. So was every single member of the House of Representatives. No one said you may not bring up alternatives to what you admit is a failed policy. You chose to do that on your own, and then blame the Democrats. If you had an alternative, you could offer one. But you've been steadfast in just lockstepping behind the President and refuse to change your tune even as you see the situation imploding.
But that is not what is going on in this Chamber here today. Members are being cynically asked to vote on a resolution that does not address victory or success. It does not offer a pathway toward the peace and the prosperity that are vital to the region. It simply plays politics with the war and, in so doing, does our troops and their families here at home a terrible disservice.
I've been tracking closely you for almost three years now, and I still can't figure out if you are just plain obtuse or intentionally missing the point to protect your political views. I keep wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt, but then you say stupid crap like this.
Nancy Pelosi said this was the "first step" in changing the direction of the war in Iraq. It is not the only step, and it is not intended to provide solutions to the mess the Republican Congress allowed to fester for almost four years. You either know that, or you have your head in a bucket of Kool-Aid.
Pelosi has promised more votes, more debate, more action on this War. It's not her that is playing politics with the War, but beginning the process. It's your Republican Minority, which allowed Bush a free hand for four years, that is continuing to play politics by pretending this debate is the last action the House will take on the War.
Make no mistake, failure of the U.S. mission in Iraq will not end the war. It will only shift the battlefield. The terrorists are at war with us, whether we fight back or not.
Ummm, yeah. Again, Mike. There are a few terrorists in Iraq (and they were not there until after we invaded, remember) but the United States military says that the vast majority of the attacks on Iraqi civilians and American soldiers are being carried out by Sunni insurgents or Shiite militia. The "terrorists" are actually a sideline and have little to do with the war.
Back four years ago you and the rest of the Republican leadership sold us the Iraq War as part of the "War on Terror" but that has proven not to be true. The only al Qaeda cell was in the Northern Kurd region which Hussein did not control and we patrolled. There were no weapons of mass destruction for Hussein to use on our soldiers or our country. The only support Hussein gave to terrorists was to Hammas, and not to al Qaeda which he distrusted. There was no nuclear weapons program. There was no competent Iraqi military.
Over the past four years we've learned all this, and yet you insist on continuing to sell the war as part of the larger effort to stop terrorism. But it has even failed in that, with each report on international terror attacks from the Bush administration showing them rising and not falling.
Please, stop trying to scare us into backing this war with the memory of 9/11. It's a lie that there is a connection, it has always been a lie and it demeans the House of Representatives and the 7th Congressional district when you say it over and over and over again.
The status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. We need a new strategy, new tactics, new commanders on the ground, and a new and sustained commitment from the Iraqi government that they will do more of their share.
Well, at least we agree on one thing – the status quo stinks and the people currently making the decisions need to change. However, that doesn't mean blindly following the Bush administration which already – with you watching silently from the safety of the House Republican Majority for almost four years – screwed the pooch on this one and shows no sign of changing its abysmal record.
We know that the road ahead will be difficult and that the prospects for success are dwindling. But I believe a renewed and amplified effort by U.S. forces and Iraqi troops to retain security in Baghdad may offer the best hope we have for the lasting success of the U.S. mission and for the future stability of Iraq's government. It may also be, I believe, our last chance for victory. The President knows this, and I believe the Iraqi government and its people know this, too.
And yet following Bush blindly is exactly what you want to do. Seriously, if President Bush were to ride his bicycle straight into a tree 100 times would you follow him the 101st? I think you would. Or, maybe not because that would risk your safety. Maybe instead you would just send someone else's children to run into the tree and then stand on the sidelines silently like you did for the first 3,000 dead American soldiers.
