What Sen. Lugar Misunderstands

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:03:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In a much vaunted speech, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee, has broken ranks with the Bush Iraq policy. However, I see a fundamental flaw in what Lugar says that leaves us pretty much where we were. Lugar said:

The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy. Our debate is being driven by partisan political calculations and understandable fatigue with bad news — including deaths and injuries to Americans. We have been debating and voting on whether to fund American troops in Iraq and whether to place conditions on such funding. We have contemplated in great detail whether Iraqi success in achieving certain benchmarks should determine whether funding is approved or whether a withdrawal should commence. I would observe that none of this debate addresses our vital interests any more than they are addressed by an unquestioned devotion to an ill-defined strategy of “staying the course” in Iraq.

President Bush will not countenance any straying from staying his course. There is a reason why NOT funding the Iraq Debacle is our only hope. Because President Bush will not budge. I have heard many pretty speeches from Republicans, including the much lauded John Warner, on how we must change course. But each and every one of these Republicans has failed to confront Bush and demand binding timelines for troop withdrawal. I suspect that come September, Lugar will join the August group of Warner, Hagel and Smith and speak about change but go along with Bush. I for one, will not be fooled again. Democrats must insist on a truly binding withdrawal date from Iraq - by not funding the Debacle after a date certain.

< Not Our Kind of Rich? Is Edwards Becoming The Anti-Establishment Candidate? | Senator Harkin's Bill to Close Guantanamo >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Sen. Lugar Misunderstands | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Democrats are playing with fire (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:06:43 PM EST

they think they can make a deal in terms of rhetoric with some Senate Republicans. Durbin seems to be the ringleader. I really like him, which makes it so difficult for me to understand why he's going down the Warner-Levin-etc. road.

I like nobody right now (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:40:03 PM EST

after reading that nasty bit of a tarnished trinket. It's just the same old same old. The War is Bad so I'm just sayin it isn't my Bad but I can't unfund the poor soldiers. And when the manpower is completely defunct after September it'll be The War is Bad so I'm just sayin it isn't my Bad but I can't unman the War at the expense of the poor soldiers who are there. Yeah, the DOD is planning for a draft by training the recruiters because they are bored and have all this extra time on their hands. They decided to waste time and money and play an as if game just in case we ever did need to draft again. I feel like the whole world can KMA right now. Going to bed. CIAO all


It's Beyond Rhetoric (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by talex on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:40:48 PM EST

It's about crafting a veto proof majority which is the only way to change course in Iraq and eventually take all the troops out of Iraq.

A date certain as you advocate will not work. If you pass a bill to withdraw the troops Bush will veto it as he already has.

If you pass a bill up to a date certain and tell Bush that is the last of the money he will see so he better withdraw the troops he will veto that also.

If you don't pass a bill for anything then there is no money to bring the troops home at all and the public won't stand for that. What is it you don't understand about those three options?

So given those three options that won't work how do you propose a date certain to happen andgardner?

As for Lugar he is his own man. No Dem twisted his arm to break ranks. these guys are getting tired of what is ACTUALLY happening in Iraq. Everyone should celebrate his breaking ranks. It will make it easier for others to do.


If you want to craft something (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:48:46 PM EST

why can't you do what the rest of us do and DIY channel? Iraq isn't a Fimo and Elmers project and just in case you didn't notice your Dems are losing the political capital the voters gave them not so long ago. By election 08 they will suck as much in the public's eyes as the Republicans blow right now...so let's find some happy snapshots from our past and scrapbook. Then I'll make a nice meatloaf for Ward and Wally and Beaver.


Get out of here with your lies Talex. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:51:53 PM EST

But before you go explain to all the nice people how Bush can veto a bill that is never introduced, much less passed and sent to him for signing.

We went through this yesterday.

The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullsh*t and is completely and irrefutably debunked.


Meteor Blades gave you a butt whuppin (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:55:58 PM EST

tonight huh? So you dragged yourself back here?

What was it that MB called you? "A stupid cowardly liar?"

Sounds about right to me.


Yay, I missed that! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:57:15 PM EST

What Was It You Said (1.00 / 2) (#10)
by talex on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:05:52 PM EST

unflattering about MB? Something to the affect that 'He isn't all that'?

Well he isn't as I am learning. He's pretty thin skinned as some others I know. You read the thread and you know he is being a cry baby. Yeah and he named called. Just like others I know. That happens when he and others can't argue issues. But I spanked him back as you saw. Sent DHinMI packing also. It takes more than two or 100...


: I look forward to your next two (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:08:29 PM EST

cowardly lying comments tonight, Talex.

: Ha! (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:07:58 PM EST

Suuuure.

Did you see what Lugar said via spokeman? (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:50:25 AM EST

He is NOT changing his vote.

Will you ever learn?


Lugar, with one sentence fragment (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:43:04 PM EST

I would observe that none of this debate addresses our vital interests

gives the game away with an unquestioned implicit assumption that the US has a right to what he calls "vital interests" simply because they are what US is interested in, and by omitting mention of them, with an unquestioned implicit assumption that Iraqi ""vital interests": their property, and their lives, are nothing to be concerned about or allowed to affect debate.

I don't imagine there are many Iraqis concerned with Lugar's vision of "vital interests". Or with Bush's, or with Hillary's for that matter.

And if there are a few Iraqis on Lugar's side, there are many more who would gladly slit their throats.

The Iraqi people want their country back. And they intend to have it back. Regardless of anyone elses "vital interests".

Lugar, and Democrats as well, would be smarter to start thinking of US soldiers lives as "vital interests".

Vital interests in Iraq are vital organs (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:51:43 PM EST

and attempting to make sure you have all of yours every day! Dick Lugar is a limp slingshot!


: Lugar AND the Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:06:34 PM EST

need to start remembering that those soldiers are their vital interests. They are the sons and daughters and wives and husbands of the constituents that Lugar AND the Democrats will be begging for votes from next year.
And their first question will be "why didn't you try and stop the debacle last year"?

Riverbend explained "vital interests" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:15:58 PM EST

in Iraq best, back in February:

...as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse.
Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It's worse. It's over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq's first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.

Edward Wong explained as well, last month:

Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.
...
"No country in the world is fighting such terrorism," said Adel Abdul Mehdi, an Iraqi vice president and leader in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a powerful Shiite party, on the day he made his pilgrimage. "Every time we give more martyrs, we are more determined. This is a big battle, there is no such battle in the world."
The Shiites have waited centuries for their moment on the throne, and the war is something they are willing to tolerate as the price for taking power, said the Iraqi leader who had invited me to dinner in the Green Zone. "The Shia say this is not exceptional for them, this is normal," he said.

"No country in the world is fighting such terrorism,"

Mehdi is not talking here about what Bush would refer to as terrorists.

He is talking about Americans and Sunnis.

Sen.Lugar (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by nellieh on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:52:58 AM EST

Those in favor of the war(how can anybody be in favor of an un-necessary war?) keep beating the same dead horse with the same dead talking points while American military are dying in Iraq. If that isn't enough blood, they want a piece of Iran too. This blunder won't end favorably for us no matter when we claim victory. (whatever that is) We unleashed a blood feud between he Sunni and Shia' with the toppling od Saddam. 1200 years of pure hatred that has been reinforced by Saddam's treatment of the Shia' will not be solved by diplomacy, especialy by an administration diplomatically challenged. Can you name ONE person in this administration or close to this administration that could be CONSIDERED a STATESMAN? Or a Republican in the Senate or House? Lugar? Please. Warner? He gets respect for his military service and longevity but who listens to him? Trying to solve a blood feud politically is the same as telling an upset screaming person to "calm down." It's like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out. We screwed up starting this "crusade," and there is NO solution except redeployment to the borders out of combat and if Al Qaeda attempt to organize, strike them. Concentrating our military in Afghanistan could have and can do more to beat down Al Qaeda than anything we have done or will do in Iraq.

Withdrawal? (none / 0) (#17)
by Slado on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:33:30 AM EST

Interesting article on what we are really talking about regarding withdrawal. Makes me wonder if it's going to take 13 months there's no way we'll be out before Bush leaves office. Even if we started now.

Enjoy.

Withrawal

The improtant thing is to fix the policy (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:46:40 AM EST

Make it withdrawal as soon as possible so that the next President does not have the chance to get frightened into not withdrawing.


I hear you BTD (none / 0) (#19)
by Slado on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:55:45 PM EST

I had just never thought about what a huge operation it will be to leave.

I don't agree with you on leaving but I understand your point I just doubt anyone (repub or dem) has thought about how to actually leave Iraq considering how "well" the occupation was planned.

I'm sure the big brains at the DoD and Pentagon thought we'd have plenty of time to gather our stuff considering how well the post invasions was supposed to go.

Call me a cynic.


: It's their JOB (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:03:00 PM EST

to do contingency planning.
What do you do with someone who doesn't do their job?
They'd better have withdrawal plans scripted out to the last detail.
If they don't why isn't their boss (the CinC or and/or the Sec/Def) making sure they do?
Since they are the ones who have to take the responsibility.
Calling themselves leaders and all, you know?
If you don't have confidence that they do, how could you have confidence in them doing any other part of their job?
Then again, Iraq is a bit of a mess now isn't it? To put it mildly.

JFTR (none / 0) (#21)
by Timbuk3 on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:38:08 PM EST

My first thought was, "Bush isn't going to get his war funded come September."

That hope was almost immediately crushed.

Lugar has no intention of changing his actual vote.

Which sounds like you're saying that this is not going to change your vote.
Not with regard to support of the troops. I'm going to vote for the authorization and the appropriations. But there are many, many ways in which the Congress ultimately can influence even the president with regard to this war and we'll have to think through the most appropriate one.
Give me one -- before we let you go -- one thing that Congress can do.
Well, Congress could offer at minimum Sense of the Senate resolutions...