Denver, Colorado - Today, Senate Republicans blocked an up-or-down vote on a resolution condemning the President's escalation of the War in Iraq and his refusal to offer a new direction that the American people demanded in November. While 70 percent of Americans disapprove of President Bush's misguided strategy in Iraq, both Democrats and Republicans have voiced opposition to the escalation. Yet, Senator Allard is still clinging to the same "stay the course" strategy that continues to be advocated by President Bush.

Colorado Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak issued the following statement:

"Every day Colorado's brave men and women are serving our country in the war in Iraq. This is the most important issue facing our nation. The people of Colorado have made it clear where they stand, now they have a right to know where Republicans like Wayne Allard stand on the President's escalation of the Iraq War. Yet, Senator Allard today joined the rest of the Republicans in Washington in giving a green light to the President's plan by blocking an up-or-down vote on a resolution condemning the President's plan to escalate the Iraq war.

"Coloradans and our brave men and women deserve a new strategy, not more obstruction by Republicans who insist on clinging to a failed, stay the course strategy. That is why Democrats like Senator Ken Salazar voted to hold President Bush accountable for his plan to continue to escalate the war in Iraq by forcing our troops to police a civil war.

"By sending more troops into the middle of the Iraqi civil war, the President is not just ignoring the will of the American people, he is ignoring the lessons of history, the advice of military experts and the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. I call on Senator Allard to join Democrats in calling for a forward looking plan in Iraq that turns over the country to Iraqis and gets our brave men and women out of the crossfire of their civil war.”

The Military Opposes an Escalation in Iraq

General Colin Powell: Surge Will Not Work. Powell said, "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work." [Face the Nation, CBS, 12/17/06]

General George Casey: Skeptical of Troop Escalation Plan. Casey: "It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term." [New YorkTimes, 1/2/07]

General John Abizaid Thinks More Troops Will Only Keep the Iraqis from Taking Responsibility for Their Own Future: In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said, "Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." [Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony, 11/15/06]

Joint Chiefs: "Unanimous Disagreement" to a Surge. A Washington Post article, using anonymous White House sources, reports that "White House officials [are] aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." [WashingtonPost, 12/19/06] General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps: "We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers-just thickening the mix-is necessarily the way to go." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN 12/18/06]

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley K. Clark: More Troops Will Not Deliver a Win. Clark wrote, "Will [a surge] deliver a 'win?' Probably not. But it does distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved." [WashingtonPost, 1/8/07]

Oliver North: North said, "A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in US troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more US combat troops is simply sending more targets." [Human Events Online, 1/5/07]

Major General Don Shepperd, USAF (Ret.): I Would Not Even Consider Increasing Troop Strength in Iraq. Shepperd, who works as a CNN military analyst, offered his analysis of what should be done next after he was briefed by members of the Iraq Study Group. He wrote, "I would not even consider increasing troop strength in Iraq." [CNN.com, 12/11/06]

Michael Vickers, Former Special Forces Officer: "All The Forces in The World" Won't Change Security Situation in Iraq. Vicks said, "The security situation is inextricably linked to politics. If you can solve some of the Iraqi political problems, the security situation becomes manageable. If you can't...all the forces in the world aren't going to change that." [The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, 12/12/06]

Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense: Korb said, "we had a chance in the beginning to send the right number of troops. We didn't, and now I think it would only make the situation worse and it would make the Iraqis more dependent on us" [Talk of the Nation, NPR, 9/18/06]

Robert Gates: Skeptical of More Troops. "According to two administration officials who asked not to be named, Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in Iraq on his first day on the job, December 18, at a Pentagon meeting with civilians who oversee the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines." [New YorkSun, 12/27/06]

Foreign Policy Experts Oppose an Escalation

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke: 40,000 Troops Would Make Little Difference. "[Some people are] saying that 30,000 or 40,000 more troops would make a difference. I respectfully disagree. With the tooth-to-tail ratios of the military -- that is combat soldiers versus cooks, people who run the PX's and the bowling alleys and so on -- with the fact that the first thing they have to do is build barracks, which are bullet, bomb-proof to protect themselves, any military guy you talk to will tell you that 40,000 troops will not make that kind of difference." [Charlie Rose Show, 8/14/06]

Michael E. O'Hanlon, Brookings Institute: Call for More Troops Repeats the Mistakes of Vietnam. O'Hanlon, said McCain's proposal to send more troops to Iraq "would just repeat the mistake of Vietnam," by sending an extra 100,000 troops. [BostonGlobe, 10/24/06; New York Times, 11/14/06; WashingtonPost, 11/16/06]

Richard Haass, Former Bush Official and President of The Council On Foreign Relations: Even Doubling Troops Might Not Stabilize the Situation. "It's not clear to me that even if you double the level of American troops you would somehow stabilize the situation [in Iraq]." [Today, NBC News Transcript, 11/30/06]

Jessica Matthews, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: More Troops "Merely Palliative." "Sending more American troops should not divert the US from recognising that they are a palliative. Iraq cannot be pacified by military means alone. Without a new political plan, adopted quickly, the violence will grow and eventually overwhelm everyone involved." [Financial Times (London, England), 4/21/04]

Andrew Bacevich, International Relations Professor at Boston University: Surge Effects "Slim and None." Bacevich said the "chances that adding 20,000 or so US troops for several months would stabilize Baghdad are 'slim and none'." [AP, 12/19/06]