Brownback is against Bush's Surge

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Senator Brownback has stated that he opposes President Bush's proposed 2007 troop surge in Iraq and the Democrats "cut and run" strategy:

"It does mean that there must be bipartisan agreement for our military commitment on Iraq. We cannot fight a war with the support of only one political party. And it does mean that the parties in Iraq--Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds--must get to a political agreement, to a political equilibrium. I think most people agree that a cut and run strategy does not serve our interest at all, nor those of the world, nor those of the region, nor those of the Iraqi people. So I invite my colleagues, all around, particularly on the other side of the aisle, to indicate what level of commitment they can support."

— Senator Sam Brownback, U.S. Senate floor speech, January 16, 2007

---

doesn't say much of anything other than to state the obvious:  Brownback doesn't support the solutions he has heard so far, yet he has no solution himself.

When is someone going to stand up and propose Iraq be split up into three nations?

[Verily]

The thing is, the Senate doesn't have the power to actually do anything about Iraq. All the Senate can do is prevent what the President wants to do. It isn't that none of the Senators have any ideas (maybe they do, maybe they don't), but, even if they all had ideas, they are all powerless to implement them.

[Reaganfan]

The thing is, the Senate doesn't have the power to actually do anything about Iraq. All the Senate can do is prevent what the President wants to do. It isn't that none of the Senators have any ideas (maybe they do, maybe they don't), but, even if they all had ideas, they are all powerless to implement them.

Because, "the buck stops here".

[Mr. Morden]

The thing is, the Senate doesn't have the power to actually do anything about Iraq. All the Senate can do is prevent what the President wants to do. It isn't that none of the Senators have any ideas (maybe they do, maybe they don't), but, even if they all had ideas, they are all powerless to implement them.

Except that Brownback is running for president.  So he has more of an obligation to explain his Iraq policy than a run-of-the-mill senator.

[Verily]

The thing is, the Senate doesn't have the power to actually do anything about Iraq. All the Senate can do is prevent what the President wants to do. It isn't that none of the Senators have any ideas (maybe they do, maybe they don't), but, even if they all had ideas, they are all powerless to implement them.

Because, "the buck stops here".

I can't even pretend to know what you're trying to say. That Bush should start taking responsibility for his actions rather than passing the buck? I doubt it, from you.

The thing is, the Senate doesn't have the power to actually do anything about Iraq. All the Senate can do is prevent what the President wants to do. It isn't that none of the Senators have any ideas (maybe they do, maybe they don't), but, even if they all had ideas, they are all powerless to implement them.

Except that Brownback is running for president.  So he has more of an obligation to explain his Iraq policy than a run-of-the-mill senator.

Maybe, but designing a plan for a situation that, if he is elected President, he won't be in charge of for two whole years, is absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't trust a plan designed two years before its execution; a lot can change.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The thing is, the Senate doesn't have the power to actually do anything about Iraq. All the Senate can do is prevent what the President wants to do. It isn't that none of the Senators have any ideas (maybe they do, maybe they don't), but, even if they all had ideas, they are all powerless to implement them.

Even if one is powerless to stop something he objects to, leadership still requires leading.  The Iraq war has been going on for almost 4 years, it's not like it is a unannounced homework assignment.

I don't support the surge without taking out al Sadr and demanding the current Iraqi PM stop the militias.  

I don't support pulling out and allowing the chips to fall where they may.  

Is any candidate for 2008 proposing that we should begin coordinating the splitting of Iraq into 3 countries?  That solution seems the most viable at this point in time and is in line with decades of analysis on Iraq - that removing Saddam would cause a civil war and lead to the break-up of Iraq and the destabilization of the region.

[Moooooo]

When is someone going to stand up and propose Iraq be split up into three nations?

Biden has been calling for Iraq to be split up into three nations for at least a year now.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Maybe, but designing a plan for a situation that, if he is elected President, he won't be in charge of for two whole years, is absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't trust a plan designed two years before its execution; a lot can change.

no one is saying he needs to tell us today what he would do with Iraq on Jan 20 2009.  I want to know what he thinks we should do today based on how he views the current reality in Iraq.

One of these candidates needs to step up to the plate and 1) denounce Bush's naive plan for increasing troops without dealing with al Sadr, and 2) denounce the knee-jerk quit and go home mentality of the naive populous, and 3) denounce the Baker commission for wanting to throw Israel to the wolves, and 4) then propose an alternative approach.

[HardRCafé]

Watch as Brownback surges from 1% to:  1%.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

When is someone going to stand up and propose Iraq be split up into three nations?

Biden has been calling for Iraq to be split up into three nations for at least a year now.

I thought he simply called for making three separate states within Iraq and not three separate countries?  Still, Biden's idea is better than what we currently have.

Too bad Biden is an arrogant ass who treats his public office as if he were a poster on this forum.  If he starts showing some courtesy and respect, he could turn into a statesman bridging the divide between Dems and Reps and help formulate a strategy that is both acceptable and workable.