home

Will Domenici, Warner, Hagel And Smith Vote To End The War?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:01:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

[More importantly, will they vote to remove President Bush from office . . .]

Reacting to Sen. Pete Domenici's new words on Iraq, Harry Reid said:

Senator Domenici is correct to assess that the Administration's war strategy is misguided. But we will not see a much-needed change of course in Iraq until Republicans like Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich are willing to stand up to President Bush. . . . Beginning with the Defense Authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way too so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve...."

Iraq votes next week? Who cares, we have an impeachment to dream about . . .

Update [2007-7-6 18:54:31 by Big Tent Democrat]: John Aravosis cares. My new favorite blogger. Sorry digby.

< ACLU Responds to Dismissal of NSA Wiretapping Case | Private Entrapment? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Will Domenici, Warner, Hagel And Smith Vote To End The War? | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Poor Old Harry (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by JHFarr on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    Wake me up when any Democrat makes a statement to the effect that the United States has no business being in the Middle East and respects the sovereignty of all states in the region. Or that we've closed all the torture dungeons. Or that tax cuts for the rich will be revoked to pay for universal health care. Or that --

    Oh never mind. :-) At least I'm laughing, and I don't give a fart what Harry Reid says any more.

    Let me rephrase that... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by JHFarr on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:33:22 PM EST
    I'm sure he means well. But I'm still going back to my nap.

    Dominici says... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

    What? Come again? Is he actually saying anything? And that new strategy is????

    Oil whore, nuclear industry pawn, big-energy bedfellow Dominici is merely posturing like a peacock. Old and sick, he actually has delusions of running again, and finally notices support for the war he supported so strongly, tanking.

    This guys been around a long time and has a lot of savvy. I wouldn't take anything he says on its face.

    Yeah he is saying something (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by talex on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:50:32 PM EST
    Speaking to reporters on a conference call from Albuquerque, Mr. Domenici said his change of heart came after conversations with the families of New Mexico soldiers killed in Iraq who asked him to do more to save those still serving there.

    "I heard nothing like that a couple of years ago," he said. "I think that's the result of this war dragging on almost indefinitely."
    ...
    Mr. Domenici said he would push for legislation that essentially enacted the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which called for military operations to be shifted more to counterterrorism, training of Iraqi forces and protection of American personnel and facilities. The goal would be to allow most combat troops to be withdrawn by March.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/washington/06cong.html?ex=1341374400&en=296d2bcea8b94944&e i=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

    More about what I think about this middle road position:

    http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2007/7/5/224537/4132/27#27

    Parent

    Combat troops to be withdrawn by March (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:09:46 PM EST
    Good.

    Do you have a link to Domenici saying he'd support the Congress' setting a binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 by announcing that after March 31, 2008 (or an earlier date), it will not fund the Iraq War... instead of this fence sitting finger in the wind middle of the road position?

    Or just links to him making nice noises with no firm commitments and demands?

    Parent

    Read Aravosis' piece (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:14:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Once Aravosis latches on to something (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:26:55 PM EST
    he can be pretty nasty about it. A good match for your style. :-p

    Parent
    Not Surprised (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:27:56 PM EST
    Not giving back the ring and we're going to have a shotgun wedding to boot. Bipartisan style.

     Most of the congresscritters are Imperialists and believe in at least a watered down version of PNAC.  

    Most believe that Iraq is ours. We liberated them, so they owe us, besides they need us. And how are we going to stay a superpower without owning a few middleeast (oil) countries.

    Parent

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:31:35 PM EST
    No withdraw until the Iraqi security forces are up to par.  And our military people on the ground in Iraq say this could take 40 to 50 years, if ever.

    Debacle Without End... right up talex' alley.

    This is worth cheap gasoline? Or this?

    I think the Iraqis might have something to say about that: "Sahel".

    Parent

    Good Summary (none / 0) (#13)
    by talex on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:37:41 PM EST
    It explains why my post here today and a month or so ago says that we need to pull them over more to our side now that they are moving - and at least the are moving.

    Now that they are tryin gto stake out a middle position they will have no choice but to move more to our side when their bill fails little on be considered. It's either that or lose their asses in '08.

    From the same link as above:

    The Iraq Study Group proposal does not go as far as many Democrats would like. The leadership is planning to move ahead with as many as four proposals, including a retooled plan by the Democratic senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island that would require a withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with most troops ordered out by next spring.

    No decision has been made yet on whether the study group's plan will be considered by the Senate. Democrats are expecting votes on a plan by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, to impose new troop-readiness requirements, another to eliminate spending on combat operations next spring, and perhaps a proposal to rescind the original 2002 authority for the war.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/washington/06cong.html?ex=1341374400&en=296d2bcea8b94944&e i=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

    Parent

    Talex (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    How many repugs have you flipped?

    Hard numbers or hard percentages will do.

    Parent

    Talex... (none / 0) (#16)
    by TomStewart on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:58:37 PM EST
    You're going to get a reminder from Jeralyn to use the HTML at the bottom of the post box for your links, otherwise it skews the site. This is a pre-reminder warning.

    Parent
    Tks Tom (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:03:32 PM EST


    Parent
    ISG legislation = disaster (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:51:04 PM EST
    I called Sen. Salazar's office the day this idiot concept was announced looking for a copy of the legislation. It's a disaster of epic proportions if any Democrats beyond the existing dupes get onboard. It's a non-binding stay the course nightmare.

    Read the whole empty do-nothing bill - S.1545.

    I think Reid should label the ISG legislation the 'Shoe Salesman Bill' - it makes none of the tough decisions Chuck Hagel says is necessary and it's all about CYA for Congress.

    More.. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    This is what I wrote about the ISG legislation in liveblogging session with Maj. Gen. Batiste and Eric Massa at Daily Kos:

    As Maj. Gen Batiste said in his comment there are many good recommendations related to diplomacy and political engagement but I don't see how the ISG report recast as  a defacto Sense of Congress bill with no enforcement provisions accomplishes anything other than providing political cover to a Congress that is doing ZERO to improve things in Iraq.

    From The Hill, 6/17/07:

    The Republican leader in the Senate said Sunday that support in the GOP is growing to follow recommendations from the Iraq Study Group.

    "The president himself has spoken favorably of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which...basically involves still having troops forward- deployed but getting them off the point which would obviously reduce our casualties, and possibly reducing our numbers as well," Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

    He pointed to the September military and diplomatic report on Iraq as a critical point at which strategy and troop levels can be reevaluated.

    At this point I can't believe that this toothless bill will result in anything other than the President relabeling every US military member in Iraq a "trainer" and staying the same deadly course.

    By the time  September rolls around it will be 13 months since the Iraq Study Group visited Iraq. That's the new thinking from the Republican Party - a non-binding rehash of a blue ribbon panel that is over a year old.

    Parent

    Make sure this is understood (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:02:48 PM EST
    at daily kos please.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:01:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha ha (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:03:16 PM EST
    Nothing like a little breeze of reality.

    the legislation spells out the following preconditions to withdrawing US troops:

    1. A massive list of suggested policies need to first be accomplished before the US withdraws. These include transferring the Iraqi National Police to the Ministry of Defense, reorganizing the Iraqi security forces, upgrading Iraq's police communications equipment, establishing courts, training judges, prosecutors and investigators, drafting oil legislation, implementing metering at the oil pipelines, reorganizing the entire Iraqi oil industry, and more. But that's not all that has to happen before our troops are permitted to withdraw from Iraq. Oh no. Read on.

    2. Additional Iraqi brigades need to deployed. Meaning, the exact same policy we have now under George Bush. No withdraw until the Iraqi security forces are up to par. And our military people on the ground in Iraq say this could take 40 to 50 years, if ever.

    3. The eventual withdrawal of US forces is "subject to unexpected development in the security situation on the ground." Meaning, if things don't get better, we don't leave. That's the current policy. And things aren't getting better.

    Here we are furiously arguing impeachment or defunding, impeachment or defunding... hmmm, which should it be...

    Meanwhile our Dems are busy busy busy trying to make sure George Bush's plans for Iraq are carried on forever and US forces are legally required to never get out EVER. Just f*cking hilarious.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    But that's why I think we need to concentrate on Iraq.

    And why imnpeachment is a distraction.

    Parent

    People should do (none / 0) (#23)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    what they think best and try to develop synergies among multiple approaches. You're never going to beat back the tide of anger demanding impeachment. Better to work with it, flow with it.

    I know you're just trying to do what you see as the best thing.

    Parent

    True enough (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    But if you have seen the pooh poohing of the efforts to end the war, by the likes of KagroX and Meteor Blades, you would better understand my resentment on this point.

    Look, the fact is this, believe if you want to or not, there will be no impeachment hearings, or impeachment or removal. It won't happen.

    But the impeachmnet proponents penchant for denigrating attempts to end the Iraq War, and do not tell me they are comparable now as we have bills and votes NOW on ending the war, there is not one elected Dem urging impeachment, not even of Gonzo.

    I think they all know that if we can end the war, there will be no more talk of impeachment, because the out of control Executive can be reined in.

    I will be writing about this all this week.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#27)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    I believe there won't be any impeachment hearings. But I believe there won't be any defunding or withdrawal either. Only efforts toward both that may keep even more egregious things from happening because the population has become riled up. I'm sorry but I don't see MB or Kagro doing the denigrating you complain about. Perhaps in their comments? - I hardly ever read comments there any more - certainly not in their posts.

    Those figures I cited on the other thread in favor of impeachment - 45% in favor - remember has been without benefit of full information from the media. In fact with the media blindly pushing the GOP narrative every day. The value of impeachment proceedings to me is in the public awareness it would raise. The hearings wouldn't be able to be kept off the networks and cable outlets. It would lead to torches and pitchforks in the streets once people get a clue what's really been going on.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:27:06 PM EST
    To see both the Chimp with Iraq and the impeachniks with impeachment act just like like dogs with a bone.

    In a way the Chimp is more honest in that he doesn't reallty ever imagine winning in the mid-east, but instead knows that it is more profitable in many ways to be eternally waging war.

    Carrot in front of a mule. Lots of money moving into the military sector of the economy. Great excuse for cutting social services funds such as education, in order to pay for war.

    The impeachment crowd is supported by Rove. That is his next genuis plan.  

    voting on iraq funding (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by doubtful on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:46:28 PM EST
    Guaranteed that Domenici will vote against any Democratic bill to limit Iraq funding. He is a lifetime liar, and I have proof. All politics, all the time, right St. Pete?

    We are way beyond anything (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    the Iraq Study Group put out how many months ago?  The study was very clear that what its suggestions were needed to be implemented immediately and well, that was awhile back now and Iraq is not in the same place it was back then.  This is the most dangerous legislation concerning Iraq to date.  I hope nobody forgets about the recruiter here on TDY who informed me that when he returns to his recruiting station they begin training for draft procedures.  If this vote goes through there will be a draft and anybody who insists it isn't going to happen is kidding themselves, we don't have the troops people and if they are going to vote staying until Iraq is standing on its own there will be a draft before the fall of Baghdad....you can't vote for war without voting to man it.....look at the problem we are having doing everything possible to bring about defunding the damn thing!  Wake up people, Wake up America!

    On the Other Hand (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    Will the Sadr block end their boycott of parliment in order to quash the petroleum bill, aka PNAC wet dream.

    Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that parliament is scheduled to debate the draft petroleum bill on Saturday. It says that the Sadr Movement, loyal to fundamentalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, is rumored to be ending its boycott of parliament. The absence of those 32 MPs has helped prevent parliament from reaching a quorum in the past few days. The Sadrist MPs, however, would return die-hard opposed to the petroleum bill, which they consider a give-away to American Big Oil.

    and its 1, 2, 3 what are we fighting 4. via Juan Cole

    Defunding the War (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    A bit of forshadowing or a preemptive attack on defunding the war?  Bush is blaming the dems for defunding:

    President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.

    "Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This moment is a test."

    Obviously defunding is the one thing he is afraid of and the only power we have to stop the maniacs.

    digby

    More than a little afraid of it... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 02:18:44 PM EST
    BTD, Feb 19/07: How the Congress Can Get the US Out of Iraq
    Bush and Cheney have agreed that the Congress possesses this power:

    On congressional opposition:

    WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .

    GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .

    WSJ: You do?

    GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. . . .

    Gareth Porter, TomPaine dot Com, Jan 16/07
    How To De-Fund The Escalation

    ...setting date for complete withdrawal after which no more funds can be used to carry on the war--is the weapon on the wall for American democracy. The American people are waiting for Congress to use it. And as George McGovern himself observed before the Progressive Caucus last week, if George Bush refused to carry out its provisions, that would clearly constitute an impeachable offense.


    Parent
    subject, please? (none / 0) (#7)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    So what's this posting about, Iraq occupation withdrawal support or impeachment support?

    I'll assume the occupation withdrawal is used as a vehicle for changing the topic to impeachment support. I think you are looking a gift horse in the mouth if you put up any strong objection to support for impeachment, because without exactly that kind of righteous indignation on the part of the masses your dream of ending the occupation is hopeless. Voice your opinion that impeachment is a bad idea, but don't be obnoxious or puritanical about it, because without the demands for impeachment there could not possibly be the passion necessary to succeed in anything related.

    How's about a little (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:29:26 PM EST
    righteous indignation on the Iraq issue my good man.

    Many impeachniks are telling us that the Iraq funding votes don't matter.

    Some gift horse.

    Parent

    Subject, please? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    It's about people dying. Needlessly.

    Parent
    It's not needless... (none / 0) (#29)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 03:30:15 AM EST
    if it's good for business. Certain Repubs now see it's not good for business anymore, so they're looking to open up a whole new market base. Soon, it'll be back to business as usual.

    Parent
    Ummm.... well.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    I'm speechless here, Tom.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    Sometimes the Republicans bring out my black moods. I know I should welcome aboard, late as they are to the party, but I just don't trust them. Let's see how they vote next time the war comes up, then I might give them some credit.

    Might.

    Parent

    Hunter Thompson once said (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    he wanted to tie the president to the bumper of his car, drag him around the White House a few times, then cut him loose and dump the bleeding pile of hamburger in front of the Rose Garden.

    I think he thought it would make him feel better.

    I think he was probably right, but I think it would probably feel better now than in 1973 :-)

    At least Nixon had the good sense and morals to resign.

    Parent

    Well, Maybe Hunter had his heart... (none / 0) (#38)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 10:08:56 PM EST
    ...in the right place, but I'd hate for anything to get in the way of George and Dick serving some time.

    Ahhh, now that's a good thought. There, all better.

    Parent

    Reid's proposal: more timetables! Awright! (none / 0) (#30)
    by fairleft on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    Levin and Reid -- our heroes? -- would like those timetables to "set a goal of beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops by April 2008, unless the Iraqi government demonstrated political and security progress."

    Hmmm, a "goal" and the good old "unless" clause too?

    How about (none / 0) (#36)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:56:58 PM EST
    Okay guys, pack your bags and get ready to move in 1 hour. Tell your folks to be waiting to pick you up at the entrance to the camp.

    Worked in boy scouts...

    Parent

    Will Domenici, Warner, Hagel And Smith Vote To End The War? | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment