Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Attention Taxpayers: Rhetoric Not Matching Reality

As Popularity Plummets, Senate Dems Express Concern Over “Wasteful” Spending But Bill Continues To Grow Every Day

FACT BOX
Only 1 Amendment To Reduce The Size Of The Bill Has Received More Than 4 Democrat Votes

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “[T]he President, the Democratic leaders, the Republican leaders certainly have every intention of moving forward to getting everything out of the bill that causes heartburn to a significant number of senators.” (Sen. Reid, Press Conference, 2/3/09)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I’m very committed to making sure that we get it scrubbed cleaned of many of these programs.” (CNN’s “State Of The Union,” 2/1/09)

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): “If there is wasteful or silly spending, or spending that does not, you know, create jobs, that that sort of stuff needs to be pruned out.” (Fox News’ “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” 2/3/09)

SEN. JIM WEBB (D-VA): “People filling up buckets with projects … we found more than $100 billion of items that really don’t meet those [stimulus] criteria.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 2/5/09)

SEN. ROLAND BURRIS (D-IL): “We are seeking not to let this thing get loaded up with all these other pet projects and pet programs…” (Fox News, 2/4/09)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I’d have a very hard time voting for this package as it stands.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 2/3/09)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “We’re trying to keep — keep things down.” (Fox News, 2/3/09)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I don’t think this bill is perfect. And it needs some work. It needs some surgery.” (CNBC, 2/2/09)

SEN. JEFF BINGAMAN (D-NM): “Each senator will have the chance to offer amendments on the floor this week, to improve on the proposal, to delete things that they think are inappropriate that are in the proposal. I expect to vote for some of those amendments, because I think there are ways we can improve the proposal.” (MSNBC, 2/2/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-NC): “‘We have to do things in the right way,’ Hagan said. ‘We cannot be putting debt on the United States’ books in a frivolous way.’” (“Sen. Hagan Settles In,” Greensboro News-Record, 1/11/09)

###

Burning the midnight oil: The Sellout Amendment is here (Michelle Malkin) 

By Deborah Tate
Capitol Hill

Tate report - Download MP3 (1424k)
Listen to Tate report

Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in 12 years in 2007, promising to fulfill an ambitious legislative agenda and to change the course of the unpopular war in Iraq. They conclude the year accomplishing few of their key priorities, including affecting the course of the war. VOA’s Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

President Bush offered his assessment of the Democratic-led Congress at a recent appearance with reporters.

“The end of 2007 is approaching fast, and the new Congress has little to show for it,” said President Bush.

The American people appear frustrated with Congress, too. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll finds that only 21 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Congress, with 64 percent disapproving.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans acknowledge they haven’t accomplished as much as they would have liked, and are blaming each other.

Republicans say Democrats refuse to compromise. Senator John Cornyn is a Texas Republican:

“When one side or the other tries to jam their agenda down the throats of the other side, it does not work,” said Senator Cornyn. “Exhibit A [the example] is the dismal record of this broken Congress during this last year.”

But Democrats say Senate Republicans are to blame, calling them obstructionists. Under Senate rules, the minority can block legislation using procedural tactics. Sixty votes are needed to overcome such tactics, known as filibusters, but Democrats only hold a 51 to 49 seat majority.

Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, says Republicans’ use of the tactics has neared record levels, and predicts they will pay politically in congressional election less than a year from now.

“They are filibustering themselves out of their seats next November,” said Senator Schumer. “The American people dramatically want change. Every time they stop the wheels of progress, every time they stop us from doing things that America wants, they are hurting the country.”

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada blames President Bush for his unwillingness to compromise.

“President Bush reminds me of somebody who was a lawyer, who would never negotiate anything, a nice guy, pleasant to visit with, but he was impossible to deal with on any case that he had,” said Senator Reid. “That is what we have with President Bush. He is impossible, and he has been for seven years, to deal with.”

But President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress defend their strategy, saying they are stopping Democrats from legislating on matters that are not in Americans’ best interest.

Despite much partisan wrangling, lawmakers did manage to accomplish several modest achievements - including approving measures to improve homeland security as recommended by the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. In addition, Congress overrode a presidential veto on a bill to restore the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, and reformed congressional ethics and lobbying rules.

Democrats were not as successful in overriding vetoes of popular legislation to deliver health care to children of low-income families and expand stem cell research to help cure diseases.

But more importantly, Democrats failed to make good on key priorities, including reforming the nation’s immigration system and setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Democrats, who were elected to the majority in large part as a result of Americans’ dissatisfaction with the course of the war, are especially disappointed that they were not able to push through a withdrawal timeline, despite dozens of attempts. They abandoned the effort in the waning weeks of the congressional session.

One political analyst says the reason the Democrats’ had trouble making good on their vow to change the course of the war is in large part the influence that the president wields - even as his second term in office winds down.

Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey:

“The inability of Congress to pass any kind of legislation limiting the American role in Iraq was a reflection of the fact that the president would veto anything that Congress passed that imposed any kind of limitation on him,” said Ross Baker. “The fact that the Democrats have withdrawn all such efforts is an indication of the power of even a weakened president in his final year in office to play a very commanding role in what gets done on Capitol Hill.”

Baker also says changing circumstances on the ground in Iraq played a role in the Democrats’ inability to get a withdrawal timetable approved. He says President Bush’s decision to increase the number of troops in Iraq helped tamp down violence, which in turn, helped reduce the number of U.S. casualties.

“As that number has gone down I think the place of Iraq on the agenda of American people has gone down, and a great deal of the anger and frustration has dissipated,” he said. “That could change if things get worse, and they easily could. But that certainly is a major element in the inability of the Democrats to get the votes they need.”

Members of the Democratic Party’s liberal base are angry that their party’s majority in Congress has not been able to set a timetable for withdrawal. Democratic leaders are vowing to try again next year.

Senator Carl Levin is a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“The effort is not over,” said Senator Levin. “We may not be able to get the votes, but we are going to keep on trying. I think we are duty-bound to see if we can get some kind of timetable in place.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat of California sought to accentuate the positive, suggesting that a timetable for a troop withdrawal from Iraq and other agenda items that did not pass this year could be approved if more Democrats are elected next year.

“We signaled change,” said e Nancy Pelosi. “We made a difference. And now we are showing that in order to get much more of this done - we can some of it done this year, but we need a Democratic president and we need stronger majorities in the House and Senate.”

All 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 Senate seats will be on the ballot in November’s elections.

A headline in the news today may really be repeating a familiar story that has been around as least since last Spring and possibly for every year since Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in the Senate. It is also possible that it cannot be simply attributed to partisan politics in terms of criticism as there is evidence it has at least been mentioned at Huff Po and the Daily Kool Aid, correction, Kos. It is sad when blogs resort to unflattering remarks like the one just presented but what goes around comes around, it provides a little entertainment and we’re all adults and can handle it, right?

Hillary Clinton Lands Earmarks For Campaign Contributions - The Huffington Post.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/10/hillary-clinton-lands-ear_n_76048.html

Clinton’s earmarking history was brought to my attention in another diary … Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 …
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/10/12507/504

You’re right. The links are not hot as there is no forthcoming dialogue about the content at those two sites on HRC’s propensity for earmarks. The fact that there are search engine results pointing to Clinton earmark discussions on liberal blogs is information enough for the purposes of this post. That is to say, they are aware of it. Feel free to inform about others favoring the earmark practice as it is a bad thing no matter who does it.

The USA Today was responsible for the first story noted about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s earmark history in the news today. It points to a story in the LA Times that was not reviewed here as they required at least registration with a username and password or the like and that is not worth the time and effort nor a trend that is looked upon favorably here. So the next best and quickest source for the data on Clinton earmarks was avaiable at The Hill dot com.

Apparently the LA TImes indicates Clinton has provided $500 million in earmarks for 59 corporations in the state of NY since 2001. About 2/3 of those corps contributed to her campaign. She has a total of $2.3 billion earmarks since entering the Senate but is not the leader on earmarks except when compared to others with her relatively low seniority. Her pal Senator Chuck Schumer and her agreed to work together on earmarks for business in the state their Senate seats represent.

The idea is that the earmarks build a questionable set of relationships within a state and then spread nationally to enhane the ability to raise cash for a campaign. The details of the money numbers are basically the same in the notes on the LA Times story and the information at the Hill dot com.

The Hill adds that other candidates, specifically Barack Obama who had one earmark for education related to children with disabilities and John McCain who had no earmarks at all. What does this tell you about Hillary Rodham Clinton? Should she be assailed for participating in the practice? Perhaps or perhaps not depending on your own preference. But the examples of Obama and McCain suggest that not all politicians abuse their influence on appropriations.

L.A. Times: Clinton embraces ‘pork-barrel politics;’ her aides say she’s helping constituents

The Los Angeles Times this morning takes a long look at what it says is Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of “old-fashioned pork-barrel politics, first to build power in the state, then to extend it nationwide as she becomes a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks
By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman
June 13, 2007
Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

Looking back at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s criticism of Barack Obama as naive and irresponsible, the statement should be left on the table while everyone considers recent actions by the former First Lady. Her campaign finance irregularities are as bad as those of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff yet few if any in the liberal ranks will press the issue as they would if she were a Republican. Jefferson’s $90K in the freezer is evidence of that.

Promoting a transparent remake or sequel to her failed health care idea more than a decade ago is as irresponsible as anything with which she accuses Obama. Add to that her lame energy and education policies and a manic attachment to the fringe left with a global warming panic and this self-proclaimed centrist earns her socialist moniker.

But for Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards inventing villains and feeding on their campaign designed victims is not enough. Perhaps the stress of a longer than usual campaign season is beginning to crumble their plans. Lately, HRC can’t find enough gaffes to fill a day on the trail with the TipGate and QuestionGate to follow ChinaGate and TravelGate. So the planted questions story now has Clinton and Edwards feeding on each others carcasses and looking all the naive and irresponsible which she accused Obama of being.

‘Planted’ questions: Edwards compares Clinton to Bush; she says it won’t happen again

Clinton The news — and now confirmation — about instances when the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “encouraged audience members to ask her specific questions” (as The New York Times rather cautiously puts it this morning) has opened up another round of sharp words with one of her Democratic contenders.

As our Gannett colleagues at the Des Moines Register write:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was acting like President Bush’s when it recently planted a softball question from an Iowa audience member, rival Democratic candidate John Edwards said Sunday.

Clinton camp accuses Edwards of acting like Bush
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — In a sign of the increasingly bitter feud between the leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign Monday accused John Edwards of acting like President Bush and dividing Democrats.

A student says she was told what to ask during a Clinton event in Newton, Iowa.

On Saturday, Edwards, while campaigning in Iowa, criticized the Clinton camp for planting a question in the audience, saying the practice is “what George Bush does.”

“George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they’re only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor,” the former senator from North Carolina said.

But it is Edwards who is acting more like the sitting Republican president, the Clinton camp says.

“What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said Monday. “Sen. Edwards’ campaign resembles that more and more every day.”

This sort of behavior is problematic for the Democrats and is present throughout the party. Their strategy to attack the Bush Administration, appeal to the fringe left by condemning the military, maverick missions to appease state sponsors of terrorism and generally characterizing all conservatives or Republicans as evil is as complete a failure as one could imagine.

The Congressional majority owned by the Democrats since the November 2006 midterm elections has once again delivered proof that their party is not capable of leading a scavenger hunt much less a government. Their giddiness at winning the last Congressional majority omitted any consideration that one has to actually bring forward sensible initiatives to perform adequately in politics and have any chance of success.

This post ends with an excerpt from a WaPo item.

The Can’t-Win Democratic Congress
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Democrats in Congress are discovering what it’s like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.

Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?

Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party’s presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton– who has been in Washington since her husband’s election as president in 1992 — is to criticize politics as usual.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
Faultline USA
Conservative Thoughts

Whenever the word bipartisan is used an alarm should go off to warn the uninformed or remind the politically astute of impending skulduggery from government whether at the federal, state or local level. While politicians tout bipartisanship as a process that should be endorsed by the public, the truth is the only purpose it serves is that of politicians. Contrary to the proposition that bipartisan efforts embody a noble and altruistic function by public officials, it is merely a contrived ploy involving cooperation from both parties for a mutually beneficial outcome. That outcome in no way suggests any benefit for the public at large.

One commentary on the current issue dealing with the Senate confirmation of President Bush’s nominee for AG points to Senator Chuck Schumer’s performance on this issue.

Schumer’s Epiphany
November 5, 2007

Michael Mukasey’s prospects for confirmation as Attorney General seem to be resuscitated, thanks to the endorsements of two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We suppose this counts as progress — of a sort.

On Friday the New York Senator ended his indecision, noting that, while Mr. Mukasey was “not my ideal choice,” he was “the best we can hope for” from President Bush. California’s Dianne Feinstein also came out in favor; she reportedly made up her mind earlier in the week but waited to announce her intentions to give some cover to Mr. Schumer. That’s another indication of the leftward pressure on Democrats.

As the commentary above notes the probable motives of both Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Dianne Feinstein, the press release below indicates Schumer’s evolving position on Mukasey from 2003. If he is unsure of his own choice for AG, why was Mukasey on his short list for SCOTUS?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 10, 2003

WITH SUPREME COURT VACANCY LOOMING, SCHUMER OFFERS PRESIDENT BIPARTISAN APPROACH; SUGGESTS LIST OF CONSENSUS PICKS FOR HIGH COURT

Schumer’s action intended to inject bipartisanship into confirmation process to ensure that next SCOTUS nominee gets backing of all 100 Senators, not just 51

Schumer’s list for the Court include several Reagan judicial
appointments and a prominent Republican Senator

Schumer submitted the following names:
• Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania.
• Judge Ann Williams, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Reagan to the Northern District of Illinois.
• Judge Edward Prado, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Bush.
• Judge Michael Mukasey, Southern District of New York, nominated by President Reagan.
• Judge Stanley Marcus, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Reagan.

The only real surprise on Schumer’s short list above is no candidate from the Ninth Circus but since this was obviously an attempt to gain favor with the public and his political rivals there is no need for it to make sense. These are common characteristics of bipartisanship. In the abstract, a notion such as bipartisanship is a good thing. But like so much in the real world there is little chance those good things will ever be realized by this process.

And one last point about this particular claim of bipartisanship. The torture issue in this confirmation process is merely the primary characteristic of political camouflage.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is often helpful to look back from time to time and view the opinions and positions as well as public statements of our elected officials. We offer a copy of a press release from about a year and a half ago. This is from Senator Chuck Schumer and includes a letter to President Bush regarding the Iraq war. Although Senator Schumer’s understanding of war hasn’t seemed to improve since then, the passages highlighted in red are certainly interesting and a contrast to Democratic leadership in 2007.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 11, 2005

Schumer Urges Bush To Appoint Distinguished Delegation Of Former Military Leaders To Examine Iraqi Troop Training/Deployment And Report To Public

Today Sen. Chuck Schumer will send a letter to President Bush urging him to immediately appoint a distinguished delegation of retired military leaders to go to Iraq, examine the failures in troop training and deployment, and make a public report to the Congress and American people quickly. Schumer suggested that former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should go to Iraq to make a first hand assessment about why the President’s troop training plan is not going well. From all reports there is only one single battalion out of 97 that are ready to fight on its own in Iraq - that is only 750 troops.

Schumer said, “The lynchpin in the President’s plan for victory is training enough Iraqi troops so that they can stand up and the U.S. forces can finally stand down – so it is critical to know what is going wrong. A distinguished delegation of former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should be sent by the President to report back to the American public as soon as possible so we can fix these serious problems.”

Schumer’s letter to the President follows:

December 11, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

As you know, the training and deployment of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) capable of defending Iraq from outside influences and policing against domestic insurgents is a key objective of our ongoing efforts in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and one that must be completed before we can end our military presence. Like you, I recognize that America must succeed in Iraq and in order to accomplish that goal I steadfastly support the establishment of a competent and capable ISF.

I am troubled by recent reports that the establishment of such forces is not moving forward as well as was hoped, and by the continuing inability to obtain a definitive assessment of the current status and abilities of the ISF. These matters lie at the very heart of the length and success of American military involvement in Iraq, and it is important for the American people to fully understand how much progress we have made in helping to establish the ISF.

I am deeply concerned that the lack of this information will make it increasingly difficult to chart a proper course in Iraq and may ultimately serve to undermine our chances of success. In order to give America the best chance for lasting victory in Iraq, I urge you to appoint a senior delegation of distinguished retired military leaders to travel to Iraq, assess the situation for themselves, and issue a public report of their findings.

As you have often said yourself, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Unfortunately, information available on the training and readiness of the ISF makes it difficult to predict when this will occur. For instance, in October it was revealed that out of over ninety ISF battalions, the number of fully independent, or “Category One” ISF battalions was revised down from three to one. The fact that two battalions were apparently downgraded would appear to be a significant step backward. In order to prevent any further regressions, it is important to have full and clear accounting of the situation on the ground and an explanation as to how this occurred.

There are also important and unanswered questions as to the actual size and cohesiveness of the ISF. As of mid-November the Department of Defense indicated that there were 211,700 members of the ISF, only about 65% of the number hoped to be reached by August of 2007. If we are to be successful in Iraq, we must clearly understand whether it is possible to complete training those already enlisted, as well as recruit and train the remaining personnel before the deadline.

Similarly, information from the GAO would indicate that there is a significant chance that possibly tens of thousands of those in the police component of the ISF may have deserted. Concerns also abound that the ISF is still 18-24 months away from operational independence and lack a sufficient command structure, and are a target for insurgent infiltration. Obviously, we need to get to the bottom of whether or not the ranks of the ISF are stable and cohesive before we can certify that they have been fully trained and are ready to assume independent responsibility for Iraq’s security.

I agree with you that the stakes in Iraq and that the United States must succeed in its work there. By providing an unvarnished analysis of ISF numbers, capability, and cohesion the delegation I am asking you to appoint could provide the American people with an honest assessment of our progress, inform the Administration and Congress of the best path to take forward, and allow us to move toward the shared goal of bringing our troops home and out of harms way. I urge you to appoint this delegation as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate