Lawmakers now question Bush's Iraq policy

[diplomats]

WASHINGTON - Once wary of criticizing a popular wartime president's handling of Iraq, members of Congress are shedding their inhibitions.
Returning to Washington this week after a summer break, some are questioning whether President Bush could do more to get help from other countries to secure and rebuild Iraq, whether he has enough U.S. troops there and how much the war will cost in U.S. lives and taxpayer dollars.
Frustrations over Iraq have increased in Washington and around the nation as the American death toll has risen. Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike also have been concerned about the speed of setting up an Iraqi government and restoring basic services such as water and electricity.
"I'm not discouraged, but I'm disappointed," said Rep. Henry Hyde, the House International Relations Committee chairman. "I think there was less thought given to the postwar, or the post-combat, aspect of the war than should have been."
A strong supporter of Bush, Hyde said in an interview that the United States should be willing to cede some authority in Iraq if needed to attract military help from other countries. The Bush administration has indicated it might be willing to get the United Nations involved, but only if all military forces remained under U.S. control.

I'm no fan of Henry Hyde, but his quote about the lack of postwar planning is one of the smartest things he's ever said (of course, it's a no-brainer, but he's a Repuke so that's progress).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=10&u=/ap/20030902/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq

[wryter2000]

1. I guess you're right, diplomats

Especially for a repug and former Bush supporter. Still, I'd like to see much more of an investigation for his "evidence" of why we had to go to war in the first place. Even the dems who went along are now claiming that he misled them by telling them war would be the last resort after all other options hadn't worked. I don't really believe that, at least not from all of them. But, it would still give them room to investigate him.

Of course, the post-conquest occupation has been planned and handled with utter incompetence, but I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we never should have gone in the first place.

Nice to see that we no longer have inhibitions about questioning a "popular" president anymore.

[Kolesar]

2. Maybe Hyde and the Goops are afraid of going down in flames with *

This war could lead to an election like 1974 after the scandal of Watergate. Fifty GOP seats were lost in the House as the voters retaliated against Nixon's party. (I think it was fifty).

This could be Hyde's pathetic attempt to distance himself to save his pathetic electoral career.

[LuminousX]

3. Especially in Illinois

Where more and more voters are voting Democratic, even in Hyde's normally very conservative district.

Hyde needs to distance himself from Bush to survive.

[BeFree]

4. Poor Planning

This is a major crack. It's all well and good to continue to lay out the fact that the invasion was based on sexed up information, but this remark of Hyde's is something we can push to the limit without ever having to look over our shoulder.

The poor conditions in Iraq is the result of a lack of planning.

The reason Iraq is such a mess is because of the lack of a real plan.

Troops are dying in Iraq because there was no good plan for how to handle a defeated and crushed Iraqi government.