Join Peace Patriots at Faneuil Hall to Impeach Bush & Cheney

Join Peace Patriots at Faneuil Hall to Impeach Bush & Cheney

Click on link below!

IMPEACHMENT ACTIVITY SAT APRIL 28th BOSTON

Samuel Adams
American Patriot & Politician

1722 - 1803

" If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. "

—Samuel Adams

Howdy Folks,

It Friday morning, so I am on my way up to Boston to meet with (*)Dave Swanson, and (**)Elloitt Adams, VFP President, and decedent of President's John Adams, and Boston Patriot, Samuel Adams.
We have invited theses folks to speak at Faneuil Hall tomorrow. I am wondering who may have the CCPJ megaphone? I will be staying with Carlos & Melida tonight and will be with my friend Pat Scanlon, VFP tomorrow at the rally. Call me at (508) 432-0545 or in Boston (617) 323-5623! Come on up!

OpEdNews

---

April 26, 2007

The GE Democratic Presidential Debate

By David Swanson

MSNBC, owned by weapons-maker General Electric, opened Thursday night's debate with the unavoidable topic of Iraq, and unavoidably allowed each of the eight candidates on the stage to address it. Two of them, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel, spoke in favor of ending the war. Kucinich advocated cutting off the funding. Gravel proposed passing a law to make it a felony to remain in Iraq.

Of course, it's also a felony to spy in violation of FISA, to mislead Congress into war, to expose an undercover agent, etc., etc. And, of course, Bush and Cheney can find money at the Pentagon to continue an unfunded war. But Kucinich and Gravel were serious about trying to rein in this White House. The other six Democrats on the stage Thursday night (Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards) made clear that they oppose serious steps to force a swift end to the war. They would prefer to end the war as president, regardless of who has to die in the meantime, and heedless of the failure of such waffling to win elections in the past.

GE spokesman Brian Williams directed the debate and turned it next to scandal questions, asking each candidate a different question about some accusation of wrong doing. Most of the candidates blatantly refused to answer the questions and simply changed the subject. Asked if he could be trusted not to make regrettable comments, Biden gave the one-word answer "Yes."

Amazingly, Williams could come up with nothing to accuse Kucinich of. "You were against the war before being anti-war was popular," he said. "Why do you think you don't have more traction?" Kucinich gave an optimistic response on gaining traction. He may very well be right that he is gaining traction. But I wonder if his answer would have been different had this question come at the end of the debate, because Williams answered his own question by proceeding with much of the debate as if Kucinich and Gravel were not on the stage. One factor that may have encouraged GE in this, at least in the extreme nature of the imbalance it pursued, may have been that Gravel, an alumnus of Camp Democracy http://www.campdemocracy.org took his turn on the scandals questions and simply kicked ass. He said he was embarrassed by the current Congress and that some of the candidates scared him, especially by their refusal to oppose any nuclear attack on Iran. Gravel did not quite fill the role of Al Sharpton in last season's debates, but he appeared to speak with great off-the-cuff uncalculated honesty, putting the pro-war candidates in their place. GE immediately put him in his, and when he got a chance to speak much later he said he was beginning to feel like a potted plant on stage.

The next series of questions were about domestic policy, and focused largely on divisive issues like abortion. GE skipped Kucinich and Gravel. Then came health care question, which skipped Kucinich and Gravel. Clinton, who throughout the debate seemed the most ill at ease and the most unwilling to say anything substantive, gave an interesting account of her failed effort at health care reform as first lady. She said that people originally supported her plan, but that their view of it soured after she'd let the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies work on it. From this, as from her vote for the Iraq War, she drew no lessons. She would again allow the insurance companies to continue to exist and to draft her plan, but she would go into the process with more pessimism. (You and the rest of us, Hillary!)

GE next asked each Democrat what the worst mistake was they'd ever made. This was not terribly enlightening, except perhaps by comparison to the upcoming Republican debate in which GE will likely ask the candidates what the worst mistakes are that Democrats have ever made.

Then candidates got a variety of different issue questions, including right-wing phrasing like "illegal aliens." In this round, former Senator Edwards was asked to criticize oil companies' profiteering and refused. Gravel was skipped. And Kucinich was finally called on, about health care. He was given about 20 seconds but nailed it. The plan that he and Congressman John Conyers have put forward for single-payer health care cuts through all of the bluster and bombast (to use an Obama phrase) of the other candidates, who have by now reached the point of warning each other that their band aids won't repair severed limbs.

Next came a series of questions about "non-Iraq foreign policy." Obama was asked to name three allies and only got to two (Europe and Japan) before proposing to use the military to relate well to China. Williams accused Obama of having said that the Palestinian people are suffering, and Obama assured him that he meant they were only suffering from their own leaders' failures and that Israel is not to blame.

This time around, Kucinich was skipped but Gravel was called on. GE asked him to name three enemies. He replied that it was absurd to think we had any enemies while we spend as much on our military as all other nations combined. "Who are you afraid of, Brian?" he asked the nearest representative of the military industrial complex, which he accused of running not only the government, but also "our culture."

Williams asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed there was such a thing as a "global war on terror." Kucinich's hand was one of the few or the only one (MSNBC.com's video does not do as well as its audio, so I couldn't see) not raised, so Williams asked him to explain. He said that the phrase "global war on terror" has been used as a pretext for aggressive war. Kucinich then went back and answered one of the questions he'd been skipped on – that of enemies and allies – and concluded by putting at the top of his agenda brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace in an even-handed manner.

Kucinich got to answer one other question as well. Williams asked which candidates supported impeaching Dick Cheney. Kucinich's hand was the only one, or one of the few, raised (again, I couldn't see, but I'm guessing Gravel raised his hand too).

Kucinich raised a copy of the Constitution and spoke of his duty to uphold it. He said that the country had been taken into war on the basis of lies, and that the administration was threatening to do the same on Iran. Sadly, the audience had been strictly forbidden to applaud during the debate. (GE claims to ban clapping to save time, but it would save more time by turning off Richardson's microphone each time he runs over his assigned time limit just clearing his throat. And the debates would be better to watch if some segment of the public were involved.) There was no ban on applause at an event where Kucinich spoke the day before.

Here's video: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/21806

Then several candidates got new random questions: gay marriage, Cuba, the climate. Even Gravel got a question, on nuclear energy. Kucinich, who was skipped, raised his hand during Obama's turn to challenge the Illinois Senator on his refusal to oppose nuking Iran. Gravel jumped into the exchange as well. But Obama refused to take the option of aggressively nuking another nation off the table.

And that was it, until the post-debate spin room. GE did not ask about the budget or wages or the right to organize.

There were, quite stunningly, no questions about which of the new presidential powers these candidates would use if elected. Would you, as president, spy on your political opponents without court warrants? Would you detain people without charge? Would you use any secret prisons? Would you torture? Would you disobey laws? Which ones? Would you announce your intentions in "signing statements"? Would you engage in any aggressive wars? Would you launch any wars not declared by Congress? Would you ever intentionally mislead Congress? Would you lie to the public about matters as grave as hurricanes, wars, and spying? None of these topics came up.

Plenty of accusations against Democrats did arise. Why, Williams wanted to know, are Democrats labeled as less able to protect us? Well, they aren't in polls, but they are by weapons makers. Williams asked what these candidates would do in response to an event like 9/11, but he didn't ask that simple question. He asked how they would use the military overseas to respond to an attack like 9-11. The candidates who got that question did not challenge its unstated assumptions. Clinton, in particular, sounded exactly like Bush. And Biden, who was not asked this question but jumped in to answer it later, sounded worse.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(*)David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.org Progressive Democrats of America , and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. His website is www.davidswanson.org. In April 2007, Swanson began consulting part-time for Kucinich for President 2008.


Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org

Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.--

(**) Veterans for Peace President: Elliott Adams

Elliott Adams was a paratrooper in the infantry serving in Viet Nam, Japan, Korea, and Alaska.Elliott has been active in Veterans For Peace, his local Chapter (#10, Albany, NY) as well as regionally and nationally. He's worked with IVAW. Elliott has stepped forward bringing all of his experience and passion to the work of VFP, including attending the last three Board meetings, being one of the finalists for the Executive Director position and creating and filling the VFP Nonviolence Training Coordinator position. He is a decedent of US President John Adams & US Revolutionary Samuel Adams.

Hope to see you on the road towards peace.
John Bangert,
Progressive Democrats & Peace Community




Not one more dime!
Not one more day!
Not one more death !
Bring Our Troops Home Now!

Who’s Running?

Some notable names in the field of potential presidential candidates:

DEMOCRATS

OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut
John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina
Mike Gravel, former senator from Alaska
Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa

ESTABLISHING EXPLORATORY COMMITTEES
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico

WIDELY MENTIONED
Al Gore, former vice president; from Tennessee
Gen. Wesley Clark, retired NATO commander; from Arkansas

OFFICIALLY NOT RUNNING
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin
Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia

REPUBLICANS

OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
Representative Duncan Hunter of California
Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts

ESTABLISHING EXPLORATORY COMMITTEES
Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas
Senator John McCain of Arizona
Tommy G. Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin
James S. Gilmore III, former governor of Virginia
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado
Representative Ron Paul of Texas

WIDELY MENTIONED
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
Gov. George E. Pataki of New York
Newt Gingrich, former House speaker from Georgia

OFFICIALLY NOT RUNNING
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee

Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times.

Tips

To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.

Related Searches

• Presidential Election of 2008

Senator Clinton Pressured on Iraq

February 21, 2007

NY Times

By PATRICK HEALY

CARSON CITY, Nev., Feb. 21 — Two Democratic presidential rivals of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton applied more pressure to her over Iraq today, extolling the virtue of admitting mistakes about the war — which she has not done — and comparing politicians who do not to President Bush.

The toughest words, made here at the first Democratic candidate forum of the 2008 race, came from former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. He said that Americans needed “a different kind of leadership” from a president who, Mr. Edwards said, had refused to admit errors on Iraq. Mr. Edwards has apologized for his 2002 vote to authorize military action in Iraq; Mrs. Clinton cast the same vote and has stood by it while also criticizing the war strategy.

“We need a leader who will be open and honest with you and with the American people — who will tell the truth, who will tell the truth when they’ve made a mistake, who will take responsibility when they’ve made a mistake,” Mr. Edwards said.

“If we want to live in a moral and just America and we want America to be able to lead in a moral and just world, we need a leader who is honest, open and decent,” he added.

Asked by the forum’s moderator, George Stephanopoulus of ABC News, about Mrs. Clinton’s explanation that her vote was cast sincerely based on military intelligence at the time, Mr. Edwards replied: “Whether it’s good enough I think is between her and her conscience — it’s not for me to judge.”

Another candidate, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who has also renounced his 2002 vote, said there was “nothing wrong” with admitting mistakes.

“There are two things that people in public life — two responses people in public life never like to give, and I don’t understand why: ‘I made a mistake’ and ‘I don’t know,’ ” Mr. Dodd said. “I’ve made them in the past, I’ll make them in the future.”

Because the forum rules prevented direct engagement among the candidates — indeed, they only appeared on the stage one after another — Mrs. Clinton was inhibited from responding immediately. Once it was her turn, she reiterated her opposition to the war and outlined her new plan to cap troop levels and start withdrawing some units from Iraq within 90 days.

If the president does not move in her direction, she added, “I think we should require that he has to seek additional congressional authority, because it has run out on what George Bush has tried to do in Iraq.”

Of the major Democratic candidates, only Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was absent; he was campaigning in Iowa. Yet he was here in spirit — at times the focus of the forum, and of some reporters, drifted to the e-mail attacks today between the campaign war rooms of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama over an Obama donor’s personal criticism of the Clintons this week.

Mr. Geffen, in an interview with a columnist for the New York Times, described Mrs. Clinton as “incredibly polarizing” and “ambitious,” and also said Mr. Clinton might make trouble for his wife’s campaign by causing a new scandal in their lives.

Mrs. Clinton, when asked at the forum if Mr. Obama should denounce Mr. Geffen’s remarks, said: “I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don’t want Democrats or the supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction. I think we should stay focused on what we’re going to do for America.” She added, to strong applause, “And you know, I believe Bill Clinton was a good president, and I’m very proud of the record of his two terms.”

When pressed, she said she would leave it up to the Obama campaign to make its decision on Mr. Geffen, and then noted that she was “excited” to be in Nevada “with the other candidates who came” — a comment that only drew attention to Mr. Obama’s decision to skip the event.

The Geffen remarks bubbled up throughout the forum: One candidate, former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, joked about being “polite” to Mrs. Clinton, while another, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, said Mr. Obama should denounce Mr. Geffen’s remarks.

“If we’re going to win, we have to be positive,” Mr. Richardson said. “I think these name-callings are not good. I don’t know Mr. Geffen. I don’t know what was said. I was actually studying for this presentation, so I didn’t see all the news,” he added, to laughter.

Mr. Richardson and another candidate, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, also used the Geffen flap to call on the Democratic field to forswear negative campaigning.

Not everyone seemed to agree with that. Outside of the event here in the state capital of Nevada — which is scheduled to hold the second round of presidential caucuses next January — leaflets attacking Mrs. Clinton as unelectable were tucked under the windshield wipers of cars. The leaflets, of unknown provenance, were titled “Why Can’t She Win?” and cast her as unlikable among liberals (over the war) and conservatives (over just about everything).

Other than Iraq, health care insurance received the greatest discussion among the candidates, with most of them promising to enact universal health coverage. Mr. Richardson pledged that he would not increase taxes to expand health care, but rather focus on preventative care, while Mr. Edwards repeated his plans for a massive health care program that would include higher taxes on wealthy Americans.

“I think we have reached a place in American history where small baby steps, incremental steps are not enough — we need big, transformational change,” he said to some applause.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been portrayed by Edwards advisers and others as an incrementalist, said she wanted to develop a plan to provide universal care without spending billions of dollars more, given that the United States already spends hundreds of billions more on health care than any other nation.

Yet she also presented herself as a bold goal-setter, recalling President John F. Kennedy’s pledge to put a man on the moon in a decade.

“I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term, and with everybody working on that I think we can do it,” she said to applause.

Edwards Needles Clinton About Iraq Vote

By BETH FOUHY

CARSON CITY, Nev. - Former Sen. John Edwards jabbed gently at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday in the first all-candidates forum of the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, saying her refusal to disavow a 2002 vote on Iraq was "between her and her conscience."

"It's not for me to judge," said Edwards, who _ like Clinton _ voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq, but unlike her, has since apologized for his vote.

The event format did not permit Clinton to respond to Edwards' swipe, which stood out on an afternoon in which Democrats launched serial attacks on President Bush's war policies.

"The worst we can do is tear each other down," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who called on his Democratic rivals to sign a pledge to avoid negative campaigning and concentrate their energy on taking the White House away from the Republicans next year.

Among Democratic presidential contenders, only Barack Obama skipped the event, which was hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union. The Illinois senator campaigned in Iowa instead.

The convergence of so many candidates underscored Nevada's newfound importance in the 2008 nominating campaign. The state will hold caucuses on Jan. 19, five days after the lead-off Iowa caucuses and presumably only a few days before New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary.

In their time on stage, several of the candidates made an explicit pitch for the votes of union members, stressing their backing for legislation designed to make it easier to join unions, for example.

Edwards, Clinton and others drew cheers when they voiced support for universal health coverage, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio vowed to pull the United States out of NAFTA soon after taking office in the White House.

But the Iraq war overshadowed all else at the two-hour event, Democrat after Democrat vying to show their eagerness to end U.S. participation in a conflict that has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

"Sign me up. No negatives," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said just after Richardson made his appeal. Moments later, though, he spoke dismissively of congressional efforts merely to stop Bush's plan to deploy additional troops. "Don't talk about capping and all that. Do something," he said.

Clinton and Obama support separate bills to prevent an increase in troop levels above those in effect in January.

Kucinich was more direct. He said he had voted against authorizing the war in 2002, adding, "People are looking for a president who does the right thing when it matters the most."

Former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, a quarter-century out of office, was the eighth candidate. "I don't think it's a big deal whether I get elected president or not," he said at one point.

The event occurred on a day in which aides to Obama and Clinton clashed over remarks made by DreamWorks founder David Geffen, a one-time supporter of President Clinton who has lined up behind the Illinois senator in 2008.

The Hollywood mogul was quoted in the New York Times as saying while "everybody in politics lies," the former president and former first lady "do it with such ease, it's troubling." Aides to the New York senator promptly called on Obama to give back a campaign donation from Geffen.

Clinton sidestepped a question of whether Obama should denounce Geffen's remarks. "I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction," she told moderator George Stephanopoulos.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the first to speak, brushed aside a suggestion from some administration allies that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq would create chaos.

"How much more chaos could there be in Baghdad than exists today?" he asked to applause from the audience at a union-sponsored event near the Nevada state capitol.

"Time has run out on what President Bush has tried to do in Iraq," said Clinton when she took her turn on stage. She touted her legislation to begin a troop withdrawal within 90 days, and as she has repeatedly, declined to apologize for her vote to authorize the war in 2002.

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack struck a similar note. "I want to challenge every single one of you and ask a simple question, what have you done today? What have you done today to end this war in Iraq?

"It needs to be ended now. Not six days from now, not six months from now. Not six years from now. It needs to be ended now, and it is up to you," he said.

Edwards, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, said it was time to begin a troop withdrawal. "I voted for this war. I was wrong to vote for this war. I should never have voted for this war. I take responsibility for that. No one else is responsible for it.

He added, "But the truth is, if we want to live in a moral and just America, and we want America to be able to lead in a moral and just world. We need a leader who is honest, open and decent and trying to do the right thing."

Stephanopoulos asked Edwards moments later whether he had been referring to Clinton.

"Well, whether it's good enough I think it's between her and her conscience. It's not for me to judge," said the former North Carolina senator.

The program called for each contenders to make brief opening comments, then field three questions from Stephanopoulus, an ABC News broadcaster and former aide in Bill Clinton's White House. That meant, for example, that Clinton was backstage when Edwards spoke.

The Republican National Committee used the forum to try to put its own spin on the candidates, releasing "research documents" containing unflattering critiques of each of the Democrats hours before the event.

In recent years, Democrats have sensed political opportunity in the mountain West, a fast-growing region long dominated by Republicans. Nevada, with its large Hispanic population and influential labor unions, was considered a battleground state in 2004, and President Bush won the state by just 3 percentage points.

Associated Press Writer Brendan Riley in Carson City, Nev., contributed to this story.

A service of the Associated Press(AP)

Here is something which you can do today!

Let's get ready for the March on the Pentagon.

On March 17th, 2007 we will be Marching from the Viet Nam Veterans Monument (The Wall) to the Pentagon. Not one more dime, Not one more day, Not one more death!
Buses will be leaving from Cape Cod. Barnstable & Orleans,

UK and Denmark Sending Troops Home

SPIEGEL ONLINE - February 21, 2007, 03:19 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467813,00.html

PARTIAL IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

While the United States is ramping up its military presence in Iraq, the UK and Denmark feel its time to start sending the troops home. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that there will be less than 5,000 British troops in southern Iraq by the summer and Denmark plans to withdraw its entire contingency.

AFP

Some British soldiers in Iraq are eying a return home.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that the UK will withdraw about 1,600 soldiers from Iraq in the "coming months" and aims to have troop levels below 5,00 by late summer -- that is if the local forces can secure the southern part of the country currently under British control.

Appearing for his weekly Prime Minister's Question Time in the House of Commons on Wednesday, Blair said: "The actual reduction in forces will be from the present 7,100 -- itself down from over 9,000 two years ago and 40,000 at the time of the invasion -- to roughly 5,500."

British troops will remain in Iraq until at least 2008 and work to secure the Iran-Iraq border and to maintain supply routes to US and coalition troops in central Iraq, Blair told parliament. He said the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had agreed to the plan.

"What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it means that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis," he said.

The proposed cut in the numbers of British troops is in marked contrast to the current United States policy, which is to send in more troops. President George W. Bush's new Iraq Strategy involves sending 21,500 extra soldiers to Iraq in an attempt to quell the continuing insurgency there.

The allies have had very different Iraq Wars since the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. While the British control the Shiite-dominated southern part of the country, which has been relatively calm, the United States has become bogged down in Sunni-dominated central Iraq, and in the capital Baghdad -- home to both Sunnis and Shiites. Blair acknowledged this difference during his speech, saying "the situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad -- there is no Sunni insurgency, no al-Qaida base, little Sunni on Shia violence," adding that it was nothing like the "challenge of Baghdad."

The White House confirmed that Bush and Blair had discussed the plans to withdraw troops on Tuesday. "While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said "we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis," he added. "The United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq."

NEWSLETTER

Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

In October, the head of the British Army, Sir Richard Dannat had warned that the presence of UK troops in the south was if anything making things worse by exacerbating security problems and some opposition politicians have pressuring Blair to bring British troops home.

Last month Blair, who has said he will step down by September of this year at the latest, told parliament that he would outline his future strategy in Iraq following the completion of Operation Sinbad, a joint British and Iraqi mission targeting police corruption and militia influence in Basra. At the time British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said that Operation Sinbad offered the prospect of a "turning point for Iraq." On Sunday, in an interview with the BBC, Blair had said that the operation was now complete and "successful."

Another key ally in the Iraq War, Denmark, has also announced troop withdrawals. On Wednesday Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that the 460 Danish troops in the south of the country will have left by August. He added: "We expect that the Iraqis during 2007 will take over security in southern Iraq."

US Senate To Vote On Iraq Surge Today

US senate to vote on Iraq measure

The Democratic party has the majority in both the upper and lower houses of congress [AP] A resolution condemning the US president's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq moves to the US senate, one day after it overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives. The non-binding measure, passed in the lower house by a vote of 246 to 182 on Friday. Opposition Democrats controlling the senate decided to hold a rare meeting on Saturday to renew their bid in the upper legislative chamber to reject George Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq. However, Democrats hold a razor-thin 51-49 majority in the senate. Republicans loyal to Bush have warned they would try again to block debate on the resolution. Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, said: "Senators will have another opportunity to express their view on the war in Iraq. "Americans deserve to know whether their senator stands with the president and his plan to deepen our military commitment in Iraq, or with the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this escalation. "Let us be clear: Anyone voting 'no' ... is voting to give the president a green light to escalate the war." Resolution dismissed Your Views "Has any of the Bush Iraq plan worked other than causing the worst destruction?" Zaffar Zohair, Islamabad, Pakistan Send us your views Democratic leaders in the House successfully pushed through the resolution on Friday, winning the support of 17 of the chamber's 201 Republican members. The White House immediately dismissed the document, noting that it was non-binding, and warned Democrats against moving toward cutting off war funding. The resolution said congress "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007" to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. It adds that "congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honourably in Iraq." The vote ended a week of debate, the most serious debate organised on the Iraq war since the US-led invasion in March 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein. More than 3,100 US troops have since died. Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, said: "Some of our House colleagues claimed this week that this resolution is merely symbolic and meaningless. "If they believe that the sentiments of the people's House expressed by an overwhelming majority is meaningless and only symbolic, then our democracy is at risk." War funding Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq has been condemned by a House resolution [AFP] But the White House has said it would press on with the new strategy and warned Democrats against moving toward cutting off war funding. In a statement shortly after the House vote, the White House said: "The president believes that the congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our armed forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country." "Soon, congress will have the opportunity to show its support for the troops in Iraq by funding the supplemental appropriations request the president has submitted, and which our men and women in combat are counting on." In the coming weeks, congress will have to debate and vote on the budget for the "war on terror", beginning with an outlay of more than $93bn for 2007. Most opinion polls show 51 per cent of Americans support a non-binding resolution repudiating the president's troop "surge" proposal, while 63 per cent back proposals for getting US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008.

A House Not So Diveded! Now Senate Do Your Thing!

A Divided House Rebukes Bush on Iraq
By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL LUO

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — A sharply divided House of Representatives passed a resolution on Friday formally repudiating President Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 new combat troops to Iraq.

The rare wartime rebuke to the commander in chief — an act that is not binding, but that carries symbolic significance — was approved 246-to-182, with 17 Republicans breaking ranks to join all but two Democrats in supporting the resolution.

Passage was never in doubt, but the debate, lasting full days and much of three nights, brought nearly every member to the floor to declare, briefly but often vehemently, where they stood on a short, resolution affirming support for the troops but denouncing Mr. Bush’s new approach to the war.

“We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. “Today, we set the stage for a new direction in Iraq.”

With 392 members speaking, the debate lasted twice as long as when Congress voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

And it illustrated how the partisan divide over the war has deepened. While Democratic leaders had purposefully written the resolution to attract a bipartisan following, the number of Republicans who joined them was only about half of what some Democrats had predicted.

“Republicans may have lost the vote on this nonbinding resolution,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader. “But we won the debate.”

The Senate is expected to consider Saturday whether to move toward a vote on an Iraq resolution, but there, enough Republicans are expected to hold ranks to block the Democrats’ approach, at least for now. In political terms, the resolution carries weight because of public sentiment, particularly from voters who placed Democrats in control of Congress.

Several historians compared its significance to the repeal by Congress in 1971 of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing the Vietnam War. That vote did not halt the conflict as members of Congress approved continued financing for two more years.

The House resolution stood out, historians said, because it criticized a specific battlefield tactic proposed by the president. It also could set the stage for a more consequential clash with the White House if Congress begins exercising broader power and authority in an effort to bring the war to a close, possibly by restricting financing.

“Never before in our history has Congress attempted to control or restrict strategic battlefield decisions,” Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said. “It is wrong as a matter of policy and it will come back to haunt us for years to come.”

The deliberations represented the third major Iraq debate in four years, but with Democrats controlling Congress, the rules, tone and outcome changed. Republicans were not allowed to offer their own alternative proposal, but they forcefully defended the president and his policy.

Now, questions of financing the conflict loom large for Democrats in Congress. The White House and Republicans pre-emptively accused the party of starting along a path to cut financing for the troops, a suggestion Democratic leaders denied. But some of their rank and file are pressing for exactly that.

On Friday afternoon, as the debate neared an end, people seated in the gallery applauded when Ms. Pelosi praised the fortitude of American forces. Lawmakers and spectators rose as she called for a moment of silence to honor the more than 3,100 United States troops who have died in Iraq since the conflict began.

The resolution specifically stated Congress’s disapproval of the president’s plan to deploy more than 20,000 troops to Iraq, which Mr. Bush outlined in a speech on Jan. 10. But through more than 45 hours of deliberations, the debate grew far beyond the context of the resolution.

The arguments grew familiar as the hours marched past, with lawmaker after lawmaker rising to address what was typically a nearly empty chamber. Democrats argued that Americans should not referee a civil war, that previous efforts to pour more troops into Iraq had failed and that diplomatic measures were the only way out of the crisis.

Republicans, meanwhile, sought to portray the war in Iraq as a key battleground in a titanic global struggle against militant Islam and criticized the resolution as a slap in the face for troops on the battlefield. Failure in Iraq, they said, would lead to widespread instability in the region.

“What we’re doing with this resolution is not a salute to G.I. Joe,” said Representative Phil Gingrey, a Georgia Republican. “It’s a capitulation to Jihadist Joe.”

The White House, reacting to the vote, turned its attention to what many assume will be the next fight: the president’s spending request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The president,” Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said, “believes that the Congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our armed forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country.”

Even before the House voted at midafternoon, senators had already started to speak about the resolution in their chamber. The Senate has been locked in a stalemate over Iraq for two weeks, but Democratic leaders are seeking to put Republicans on the record during a brief Saturday session.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference, dismissed the significance of the weekend vote, which is on a procedural question, and announced that he and Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, were flying to Baghdad instead. Two Democrats scheduled to take the trip canceled.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, planned to miss the vote to campaign in Iowa. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton planned to break away from campaigning in New Hampshire to vote.

Iraq has dominated this session of Congress. While Democrats are broadly aligned against the war, there is little unity on the next step. Some lawmakers seek to cut financing and cap troop levels while others propose delving into war strategy.

“There is a long tradition of Congressional dissent during wartime, but I don’t know that it’s ever formalized itself the way this is shaping up,” said the associate Senate historian, Donald Ritchie. “Taking a stand in opposition to a commander in chief’s decision on a war policy, that’s unusual.”

After the vote, Democratic leaders painted their victory as an expression of public outrage at the war and a sign that the new Congress intends to challenge the president. “It’s the first time he has had a review of his policy, rather than a rubber stamp,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Representative Boehner, the Republican leader, said the Iraq debate highlighted the intentions by Democrats to begin reducing financing of the war, which he described as “a slow-bleed policy that cuts off funding and reinforcements for our troops in harm’s way.”

Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, has said he would seek to block new deployments by requiring troops to meet a series of conditions and training guidelines. A day before the vote, he presented his plan in a 24-minute broadcast on MoveCongress.org, a Web site dedicated to ending the war.

Democratic lawmakers and senior aides said they believed Mr. Murtha’s appearance could have kept some Republicans from supporting the resolution, fearful of being linked to the antiwar coalition.

But for all the attention paid to the symbolic resolution, it remains an open question whether it will have much immediate effect.

“It is very hard to change war policy from Capitol Hill,” said Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. “We won’t have a real solution on Iraq until Republicans walk down to the White House and say, Mr. President, the jig is up, this is a bad direction and you need to rethink what you’re doing.”