Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - North Dakota delegation skeptical of Bush Iraq proposal

North Dakota delegation skeptical of Bush Iraq proposal

Jan 10, 2007 - 04:02:16 CST

By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - North Dakota's three Democratic members of Congress say they are skeptical of President Bush's expected plan to send more troops to Iraq.

A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush's new war plan, a senior defense official told The Associated Press on Tuesday. The plan was criticized by many congressional Democrats.

Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and will be prepared to deploy under the president's plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.

All three members of the North Dakota delegation said they want to see the details of Bush's plan, to be announced Wednesday night, before making a final judgment. But all said the United States is increasingly entangled in a civil war that will be hard to resolve.

"I just think it's a mistake to have United States forces trying to referee that kind of a dispute," said Sen. Kent Conrad. "Our role should be to train Iraqi forces that can take over the defense of their own country. They are going to have to fight for their own democracy, just as our forefathers did for ours."

In 2002, Conrad voted against authorizing force in Iraq. His North Dakota colleagues, Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Earl Pomeroy, voted to authorize force.

In a floor speech Tuesday, Dorgan said Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, had testified in November that the number of troops deployed to Iraq should not increase or decrease sharply.

"I am very skeptical about this issue of deciding that we're going to surge additional troops into Iraq even as the top military commander in Iraq says that should not be done," Dorgan said.

Pomeroy said the missing element in resolving the war is a commitment to peace among warring factions.

"I've been to Iraq four times and I'm convinced that the United States can't bring peace when the parties of Iraq don't want it," he said.

Pomeroy said he views Bush's expected plan "less as a surge than an open-ended escalation of the troop commitment we have had there."

He said his vote to authorize force was based on the thought that Iraq was a direct threat to the United States.

"An imminent threat to the United States was a fact driving my vote to authorize force against Saddam Hussein," Pomeroy said. "Those facts have not been borne out."

News > State

Printer friendly version North Dakota delegation skeptical of Bush Iraq proposal

Comments

Peace wrote on Jan 28, 2007 5:05 PM:

" To Jim S, Bush lied, 1000's died! Need I say more? "

Disabled Vietnam Veteran wrote on Jan 10, 2007 1:20 PM:

" Vietnam all over again! President Johnson decided to throw more troops at the problem in Vietnam - consequence was - more dead U.S. soldiers - no increase in jurisdiction over the North Vietnamese. A losing battle in Vietnam, just like we are now experiencing in Iraq. A "blunder" from the beginning and it still is today. A delusional President producing devastating results. A little "common sense" goes a long way! "

Non Partisian wrote on Jan 10, 2007 11:30 AM:

" Dear Jim, Bush and his administration deserve the full brunt of critisism for selling the war in Iraq by cherry picking the intelligence and preying on a nation traumatised by 9/11 (which Iraq had nothing to do with). Our senators were virtually forced to go along with this because of the sentiment of the American people and not because they believed this action was just! As a result of Bush's lies and subsequent mis-management of this debacle (among other things), he will be remembered as the worst president of all time. The American people spoke this last election by voting Democrats to the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Clearly this is a mandate to change course in Iraq and is a No Confidence vote against Bush's handling of the war. Lay off....not a chance....If anything we should turn up the heat and hold Bush and his administration accountible for his actions. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 10, 2007 8:23 AM:

" I like this. We have two of three of our congressmen voting in support of what Bush is doing. If this is the norm, 2/3 of congress, this should take some of the burden off Bushy. Everyone thinks Bush just does what Bush wants. It looks to me like all parts of our government gets involved. People need to lay off the President. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.