Should the Democratic Congress hold hearings on Bush's troop surge in Iraq?

[IndianaGreen]

Rather than give Bush another blank check for war, and to avoid being portrayed as defeatists, Congressional Democrats should hold hearings and subpoena witnesses on Bush's proposed troop surge in Iraq. General Abizaid recommended against the troop surge and, according to the Boston Globe, is now retiring early. Abizaid is not the only general opposed to the troop surge) Former generals like Powell and Zinni can give public testimony as to the dangers inherent in sending more troops to Iraq.

The American people deserve a full airing of all the issues revolving around the present situation in Iraq.

The question for this poll is:

Should the Democratic Congress hold hearings on Bush's troop surge in Iraq?

[AtomicKitten]

1. I voted 'yes' because there was no 'hell yes'

Open government, oversight.

[marmar]

2. The "surge" needs to be stopped, period.

I don't care if it takes hearings, a funding cutoff or putting him in a straight jacket. This insanity has got to be stopped. Now.

[IndianaGreen]

7. I don't want the Democrats to commit public suicide, that's why we need hearings

It will be harder for the GOP to portray Democrats as defeatists, or blame us for the loss of Iraq, if we put a lot of respected military leaders and defense thinkers on the public light expressing their opposition to throwing more good money after bad.

The hearings can also provide a rational for Congress voting to end the war and bring the troops home. Congress does have that power in the Constitution!

[napi21]

3. No hearings required! Just vote against funding it! n/t

[bananas]

8. agree - I voted "other" - hearings for impeachment, not for this. nt

[Quantess]

13. I was wondering who the heck voted NO...... (no text)

[MsMagnificent]

16. & 6 votes too

With no explanations (except maybe #3) :scared:

Wonder how many trolls there ARE here on DU

Has anyone ever done a study number of trolls at any one time
if getting the data is even possible...

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. George is running out of shovels.

The hole is getting very deep.

[David Zephyr]

5. Excellent and Timely Question, IG!

In light of his manipulation of pre-war intelligence, in light of the disastrous results of his ill-conceived "pre-emptive" war, in light of the already $300 Billion price tag of his mistake, in light of nearly 1 million civilians slaughtered and 3,000 American troops killed and 10,000 troops wounded, in light of over 1 million Iraqi refugees now fleeing to Jordan and Syria and Iran, in light of the wrath of the entire world for this war, YES Congress should "hold hearings and subpoena witnesses on Bush's proposed troop surge in Iraq."

Timely question.

Excellent question.

Instead of Reid and Pelosi and Clinton all making statements to the press about the "surge", the Democrats should do what you suggest and say:

"HOLD YOUR HORSES, MR. PRESIDENT! ANY FURTHER ESCALATION OR TROOP INSTALLMENT INTO THE CIVIL WAR THERE WILL REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT."

"SINCE THE BUCK DIDN'T STOP THERE, MR. PRESIDENT, THEN THE BLANK CHECK FROM CONGRESS WILL STOP HERE!" Tell them David Zephyr said so!

[IndianaGreen]

9. Congress held hearings on Vietnam before it escalated

The hearings did not stop the war, but those that watched the hearings sure learned a lot about Vietnam and its history, and the diverse points of view that civilian and military leaders had about a conflict in the part of the world (General Gavin's testimony comes to mind).

[babylonsister]

6. Great idea. And, if a vote is necessary, let it be transparent so we know

how Congress votes.

[IndianaGreen]

10. It should be an up or down vote

no nuances!

[Clarkie1]

11. Absolutely! Our Congress needs to start acting like one! nt

[IndianaGreen]

12. Hearings will let the American people know the folly of more troops

and the cost of the inevitable failure.

[sampsonblk]

14. Everything. Hearings on Everything!

Every damn thing Bush wants to do should be debated publicly from now on.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. ESCALATION damnit its an ESCALATION

Oh and the 'temporary escalation' part has been quietly dropped. Oh and troop strength has already been quietly raised from its former 'normal' level of 130,000 to nearly 160,000 over the last year.

Please don't use their framing.

And that was a YES vote.

[Cameron27]

17. Yes, damn yes, hell yes

and I hope that every Democrat is absolutely specific so that there's no question and no debating about where they stand on the issue.

[David Zephyr]

18. Kick!

Pushing this back up where it belongs.

[MH1]

19. Absolutely. In fact,

they should hold these hearings just for the proposed budget for Iraq/Afghanistan, regardless of what is done with troop levels.

[The Gunslinger]

20. too bad the Democrats seem to be all for it.

[Imagevision]

21. Come january 9th, (after hoopla) we'll see what the new house & senate is all about

Pelosi, I want to see some balls lady!! smack the Bush-boy down!!

[IndianaGreen]

22. Kicking it because of today's report that commanders in Iraq okayed the surge

under pressure from Bush.

There are two ways to end this war:

1. The Democratic Congress shuts down the war by voting to cutoff all funding for the surge and passes a resolution in which only funds to bring the troops home can be spend, or

2. Bush gets his way and sends our troops to a "Stalingrad on the Tigris."

Either way, the war will be over!