If the President doesn't follow the ISG recommendations, Congress must stop funding a failed policy.

[Clarkie1]

The administration made clear today that they will not heed one of the key elements of the ISG finding: real diplomacy with Iran, Syria, and others in the region. There are no guarantees that following the recommendations will lead to any degree of success (meaning a more stable Iraq and region), but I am of the firm conviction that if these recommendations are not followed, there is no chance of success.

Therefore, it must be resolved by the Congress of the United States that all funding for further military operation in Iraq be contingent upon the administration following the recommendations of the ISG, including the diplomacy without which all efforts are doomed to failure.

As Lee Hamilton said today, Congress has been too timid. They were to timid in the vote for the IWR, and now years later the same kind of mistake must not be repeated. It is time for patriots in the House and Senate to stand up and issue the ultimatum:

HEED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ISG, OR FUNDING FOR THIS POLICY ENDS!

[Clarkie1]

1. kick. nt

[Doctor_J]

2. Good luck with that

it should be pretty clear from the vote on Gates that nothing much is going to change.

[Lex]

3. I agree but

they will scream we aren't funding our troops and futher risking their safety.

[Clarkie1]

4. Then let them scream. The American people will be behind us.

The American people understand the bipartisan, pragmatic nature of the ISG, and they respect their findings.

If the Congress demands the administration follow the recommendations, they will have the support of the American people. It will be the administration risking the funding of the policy if they continue to follow a failed policy and not heed the recommendations of the commission.

The best thing Democrats and Republicans can do now is TOGETHER get behind the ISG report, and DEMAND it be implemented. Congress has a patriotic duty to stand up in a real and meaningful way to the executive branch.

[pdxmom]

5. All the administration has to do is call their bluff and force them to

actually cut the funding. Once that happens, the American people will turn, en masse, on those that voted to cut the funds.

Sorry, that's my opinion, because I don't trust the American people to look at anything deeper than the soundbite "So-and-so voted to cut funds for the troops" and that will make them anti-military, blah, blah, blah.

We may see it that way, but the majority of America really doesn't look that deep. And it will hurt us in '08.

[Clarkie1]

7. No they won't.

The American people will support anyone who demands the ISG recommendations be implemented. If the funding is cut they will blame the President, who will quickly change policy if Congress stands up.

[bryant69]

6. Thank goodness the media can be relied on to pass along

this story fairly. And that we can trust right wing pundits not to distort the report to suggest it's a left wing surrender policy.

Oh wait . . .

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Clarkie1]

8. We need to stop being timid and fearful. We won. nt

[Clarkie1]

9. kick. nt

[ProSense]

10. Then it ends! What's so bad about that?

KERRY: There are all kinds of things that the Senate can do. They can change the dynamics here very significantly, not the least of which, obviously, are serious accountability hearings.

Secondly, we have the ability in the Congress to pass one resolution or another or to put into law certain kinds of policies. I mean, you remember back in the days of the Contras in Central America, the Congress passed what was called the Boland Amendment and actually forbade certain activities from taking place.

So Congress has a certain power here. I think before we get into that, it would be so much better if we could sit down with the president, with Condoleezza Rice, and really talk through how we come together, both parties, take the politics out at the water's edge, and get a policy that works for America.