Posted on 07/27/2007 9:55:04 AM PDT by pissant
WASHINGTON, July 27 (UPI) -- Rep. Duncan Hunter Friday opposed new moves to impose a withdrawal timetable for Iraq.
Hunter, R-Calif., is the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and a conservative candidate for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination.
He said the new proposal, H.R. 3087, to be offered Friday by Rep. Ike Skelton, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, "would require the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeploying our troops from Iraq, including a plan to achieve 'the transition of United States combat forces' and to limit U.S. military missions to a handful of vaguely-worded tasks that include supporting Iraqi forces and protecting Armed Forces facilities."
"In my view, this language also crosses the well-defined line established by our own Constitution," Hunter said. "We have heard this statement in relation to withdrawal plans ... but in light of this legislation, it clearly bears repeating: 'the president shall be commander in chief.'
"It is true that the legislative branch must conduct vigorous oversight over the activities of the executive branch," the congressman said.
"However, it cannot be our congressional prerogative to limit our nation's commander in chief in such a way that would effectively paralyze our military, remove operational flexibility, and impose in statute a rigid set of parameters that our military commanders have not requested and -- by all accounts do not want," he said.
President George W. Bush is expected to veto the legislation if Congress passes it.
I believe in giving the surge a chance to work. If it is proven that it is NOT working (I believe it already is) then and only then should talk of pullout begin. Let’s face it we simply cannot continue fighting in the streets of Iraq forever. At some point success or victory needs to be described, reached and celebrated with the parades of our heroes here at home.
DH PING
Good man.
That is why I support Hunter’s plan: Train up the ALL Iraqi forces for heavy combat duty. As they get that battle experience, hand over swaths of territory to them, and we rotate our troops out. No benchmarks for the iraq politicians. We’d be waiting til hell freezes over.
We’ve already done that. That is what Pres. Bush celebrated when he landed on the aircraft carrier. It has been miserably redefined but that was the war. Everything after that has been the rebuilding of Iraq and establishing a stable government. Our victory on that part is when they have a functioning government and able to police themselves without our assistance.
Personally, I hope we build permanent bases in Iraq and have a solid relationship with the new government. We have a lot more work to do in the middle east and we need that vantage point to conduct operations. As the Carpenters sang, “We’ve Only Just Begun.”
PRESIDENT DUNCAN HUNTER ‘08
I think we SHOULD withdraw from Iraq.
.
.
.
.
.
points to tagline -——\
“That is why I support Hunter’s plan: Train up the ALL Iraqi forces for heavy combat duty. As they get that battle experience, hand over swaths of territory to them, and we rotate our troops out. No benchmarks for the iraq politicians. We’d be waiting til hell freezes over.”
If that is truly his plan, I love it. I remember Bush suggesting something like this but I think he got so hung up on “democracy in Iraq” that he kind of got off kilter as far as training the Iraqis and then getting out....Hunter is my guy at this point, but I would love to see some positive movement in the polls for him. Maybe he needs to look into the camera in the next debate and say to the “Democrat voters” watching, “if you want out of Iraq and don’t want a sequel of the killing fields, I’m your man.”
The only stipulation to that is I believe we will have bases there for decades. Big AF bases.
One of the reasons I believe that Hunter will be SECDEF or SECSTATE under a Rudy or Fred Administration. He is solid on security and not afraid to challenge the lefties in Congress or in the media. Too bad he just doesn’t add up nationally. Still, if Rudy or Fred wins, this guy would be solid in character and experience in protecting our nation.
Perish the thought! Hunter is going to win this thing.
“The only stipulation to that is I believe we will have bases there for decades. Big AF bases.”
So long as they’re out in the middle of nowhere in the desert and have clear fields of fire. Because they will need them.
I have no reason to trust Rudy or Fred of using good judgement in picking any conservatives for cabinet positions. To assume that they would may only be wishful thinking. My guess(fear) is their cabinets would consist mostly of inside the beltway moderates, the go-along to get-along crowd. Washington needs shaking up, not the same old crap.
I agree with pissant. Hunter will be elected president.
Depends on how well the surge and the training of the Iraqis goes. My expectations is for an utter defeat of the terrorists in that country. Regardless, the Kurds will gladly have us in their area.
Win or lose, he’s leaving Congress. But his successor may have his same name. But he can’t campaign much becasue he is killing jihadis in Afghanistan.
If I did not think he had a shot, I wouldn’t bother with this. He has a shot because he has the clearest and strongest message. Now we just have to spread that to the masses.
Hunter paraprased it, even better to read the actual language of it, and pose the question - is the other party so desperate for fundraising that they are willing to have the President veto it again, and for the same reasons?
I found the text, here it is:
Message to the House of Representatives
May 1, 2007
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1591, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007."
This legislation is objectionable because it would set an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground; it would micromanage the commanders in the field by restricting their ability to direct the fight in Iraq; and it contains billions of dollars of spending and other provisions completely unrelated to the war.
Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the region or to make our people safer here at home. The mandated withdrawal in this bill could embolden our enemies -- and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. It could lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and freedom-loving people around the world, and is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the region. Ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal could increase the probability that American troops would have to one day return to Iraq -- to confront an even more dangerous enemy.
The micromanagement in this legislation is unacceptable because it would create a series of requirements that do not provide the flexibility needed to conduct the war. It would constrict how and where our Armed Forces could engage the enemy and defend the national interest, and would provide confusing guidance on which of our enemies the military could engage. The result would be a marked advantage for our enemies and greater danger for our troops, as well as an unprecedented interference with the judgments of those who are charged with commanding the military.
Beyond its direction of the operation of the war, the legislation is also unacceptable for including billions of dollars in spending and other provisions that are unrelated to the war, are not an emergency, or are not justified. The Congress should not use an emergency war supplemental to add billions in spending to avoid its own rules for budget discipline and the normal budget process. War supplemental funding bills should remain focused on the war and the needs of our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to defend our freedoms and preserve our Nation's security.
Finally, this legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I must veto this bill.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 1, 2007.
Bush has been punching back hard on Iraq. Too bad so many of his GOP ‘allies’ are lilly livered pukes and don’t do what Bush and Hunter have done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.