MCCAIN'S RESOLUTION:
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq should receive from Congress the full support that he deems necessary to carry out his mission.
Whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the United States armed forces, and deserve the support of all Americans;
Whereas, past mistakes in U.S. strategy, combined with other difficulties, have led to a dire security situation in Iraq characterized by insurgent activity and sectarian violence;
Whereas, a failed state in Iraq would present a threat to regional and world peace, and the long-term security interests of the United States are best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself;
Whereas, no amount of additional U.S. forces can effect this outcome unless the people and government of Iraq take difficult political steps toward reconciliation;
Whereas, these steps must include the fulfillment of military, political, and economic commitments that the Prime Minister of Iraq has made to the United States of America and to the people of Iraq;
Whereas, Iraqi political leaders must show visible progress toward meeting specific benchmarks, including:
(1) Deploying a significant number of new Iraqi security forces to partner with U.S. units in securing Baghdad;
(2) Assuming responsibility for security in all provinces in a timely manner;
(3) Disarming individual militias and ensuring security forces are accountable to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq;
(4) Ensuring equitable distribution of government resources regardless of sect or ethnicity;
(5) Passing legislation to ensure that Iraq's oil resources benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner, and implementing such legislation;
(6) Building an effective, independent judiciary that will uphold the rule of law and ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens of Iraq;
(7) Pursuing all those who engage in violence or threaten the security of the Iraqi population, regardless of sect or political affiliation;
( Passing and implementing new legislation that will reform the de-Ba'athification process;
(9) Conducting provincial elections;
(10) Ensuring a fair process for amending the constitution of Iraq;
(11) Expending promised funds to provide basic services and employment opportunities for all Iraqis, including a $10 billion fund for reconstruction, and ensuring that these funds reach Sunni areas, including Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad and largely Sunni Anbar Province;
Whereas, leaders in the Administration and Congress have made it clear to the Iraqi leadership that America's commitment is not open-ended and that if the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and the people of Iraq;
Whereas, the moderate states of the Middle East have an interest in a successful conclusion to the war and Iraq and should increase their constructive assistance toward this end;
Whereas, in the fall of 2006, leaders in the Administration and Congress, as well as recognized experts outside government, acknowledged that the situation in Iraq was deteriorating and required a change in strategy;
Whereas, Lieutenant General David Petraeus has been named as the new Coalition commander in Iraq, and given the mission of implementing a new strategy designed to bring security to Iraq and pave the way for political and economic progress;
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that —
Congress should ensure that General Petraeus, and all American personnel under his command, have the resources they deem necessary to carry out their mission on behalf of the United States of America; and
The Government of Iraq must make visible, concrete progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated above.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247198,00.html

More hot air or do any of our members who have been in Iraq and are familiar with the situation on the ground think this is a move in the right direction?

McCain, the man that co-wrote a bill with Dina Feinstein that stripped our 1st Amendment Rights.. Screw McCain, he is a RINO (Republican in name only)

McCain's ideas are about 3 years too late.

McCain, the man that co-wrote a bill with Dina Feinstein that stripped our 1st Amendment Rights.. Screw McCain, he is a RINO (Republican in name only)

Becaise someone is a moderate and is occasionly willing to cross the isle to get something passed does not make him a RINO.

He's a moderate, and unless someone new pops up will probally have my vote in 08.

Congressman Ron Paul has my vote for President of 2008.

Congressman RuPaul???

I simply don't understand why people think McCain is a moderate. He is a staunch conservative. If you look at his voting record its the 2nd-3rd most conservative record in Congress. He's just not an extremist, a traditional conservative so to speak.

I find his honesty and his refusal to participate in some of the far right nastiness (probably because he was a victim of Bush in the 2000 race) refreshing. I also believe he has the nations interests at heart.

I just disagree with him, and thats why I wont vote for him. But I would gladly vote for him over certain other of the GOP loonies that have announced candidacy, although I am more for Guiliani.

Ron Paul of Texas gets my vote. He's wanting to bring back the Gold Standard, make English the legal language, Repeal most of the federal laws that go against the US Constitution, and lastly bring back the jobs to America and stop the trade deficit.

Why on earth do libertarians want to go back to a weak Federal government and strong State Government. Thats the way it was in the Articles of Confederation and in the Confederacy. Both were terrible failures, in both cases all that happened was the states became independent fiefdoms and spent most of time squabbling over nothing. There was no unity in anything.

Why go back to the bad old days?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Why on earth do libertarians want to go back to a weak Federal government and strong State Government. Thats the way it was in the Articles of Confederation and in the Confederacy. Both were terrible failures, in both cases all that happened was the states became independent fiefdoms and spent most of time squabbling over nothing. There was no unity in anything.

Why go back to the bad old days?

Who is to say those days where bad.....

I mean if they hadn't happened we probably would not be where we are at today, makes it kind of circular though doesn't it....

However a large government and large standing army were what our forefathers feared....For good reason no less.... I say we issue everyone automatic weapons like the swiss....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

Back on topic....

I totally agree that certain militias in Iraq that have chosen to not be a part of the new process and instead resort to violence as a means to get there point across shall be treated in the same manner....