AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1459 times:
Speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C. after a trip to Jordan, Iraq and Israel in which he and his Democratic counterpart, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, U.S. Sen. John Warner, a Republican, faulted the government of Iraq for deteriorating conditions in that country and raised the possibility that American policy might be reevaluated if progress was not made. Sen. Warner is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
While he praised U.S. military efforts to maintain security in Iraq, Sen. Warner said that conditions in some parts of Iraq had worsened and that there was a lack of commitment to progress on the part of Iraqi leadership. Sen. Warner said that the U.S. may be at risk of losing the battle to secure Baghdad.
The Senator noted the view of U.S. commanders that American troop levels in that region could not be reduced in view of the security conditions they faced. He said that acknowledgment should be made of sectarian violence and heavy casualties to U.S. troops occurring there.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1458 times:
I think both Sen. Levin and Sen. Warner are decent representatives. I believe, particularly in reference to Sen. Levin, that both try to work both sides (liberal and conservative) of an issue and don't play as much partisan politics as many (read that most) of their contemporaries.
I'm glad to see Sen. Warner saying what many of us here - liberal or conservative - have been saying (or thinking) for a while.
Did Sen. Levin echo those comments? The Post article didn't make that clear.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1455 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1): Did Sen. Levin echo those comments? The Post article didn't make that clear.
I think that Sen. Levin took, if anything, a harder line and he's probably leaning forward a little more toward changing U.S. policy.
Over the last two months, I've become unhappy with the lack of progress made by the civilian leadership of Iraq, which is why I thought that the news article was particularly noteworthy.
I still support the President on Iraq and want to give Iraq a chance to prove itself. But sooner or later, we'll have to face the facts if Iraq's government is not up to the job, and that may mean either increasing U.S. presence in that region to compensate, or pressuring the civilian leadership there to do their jobs, or both. The news that so many U.S. soldiers were killed just this month -- and it's early yet in the month -- is heartbreaking. It reverses a minor trend where casualties were actually on the decline.
I wouldn't be surprised if diplomatic channels are already buzzing with admonitions to Iraq to move up the timetable when its government can take over the full reins of its own defense. The recent surprise visit of Secretary of State Rice to Iraq might have something to do with precisely this possibility.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 3): What a jackass ! If the USA hadn't invaded Iraq, there wouldn't be any problems at all.
And for all we know, Saddam would be well on his way to providing nuclear materials to terrorists for use in the United States and Europe.
Even the detractors of the President should acknowledge that Saddam was, at the very least, quite interested in securing nuclear weapons material, even despite controversies about the yellowcake allegations pertaining to Nigeria. (As to the latter, please see: http://www.stonescryout.org/archives/2006/04/more_details_on.html.)