What Bean, Duckworth, Hare, Laesch, Seals and every Democrat running for Congress in Illinios should tell us
Is where they stand on Sarbanes statement below. He's running for Maryland's 3rd District.
"The Democratic leadership in Congress must take action immediately – that means today – by petitioning the President to deliver to the appropriate committees in Congress within thirty days two proposed disengagement plans for Iraq: one that would bring our troops home within six months; the other that would bring them home within twelve months," says Sarbanes, a lawyer who is the son of retiring U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes. "In making this request, Democrats should make it clear that they will use all substantive and procedural leverage available to them to force delivery of the plans, including resisting the President's budget priorities. As long as the Pentagon and the Defense Department resist providing concrete scenarios for disengaging our troops, it is impossible to evaluate the risks and benefits of any particular course of action. The Bush Administration must get its head out of the Iraqi sand and offer the American people a meaningful plan for bringing our troops home."This I'd like to know.
21 comments:
Why shouldn't Republicans be required to comment on that issue?
Why just Dems?
They can... they should... but it's the Dems for the most part who are foggy. That's why Sarbanes calls on the Dem leadership to stake it out. We know were the Republicans are.
"We know were the Republicans are."
Sending someone else's kids into the meatgrinder.
"We know were the Republicans are."
Trying to memorize Rove's talking points.
Bill:
Why did you throw Laesch's name in there with the serious candidates?
7:57
Because I got an email from Church about putting a sign for him on my lawn.
Somebody out here takes him seriously.
re: SCAM and the meatgrinder... if there is one thing we owe troops, it's to be clear and decisive. If you send people to war, the goal is to win... if you think the war is wrong or immoral... then cut and run makes a lot of sense..
It's the folks in the middle, who tell you one thing, vote one way, and then afterwords tell you gee they were bamboozled, that I think to the most dishonorable thing...
I feel pretty strongly about that. Democrats really need to come clean with voters and Sarbanes has some guts here.
What facts do you have to support your claim that the Democrats are "foggy" compared to Republicans?
You keep tossing that one out, but never have anything to back it.
That Sarbanes felt a need to pin his party down like this.
SO does that mean Sarbanes is a spokesman for the entire party? Does that mean whatever he does, every democrat should follow? Your logis there is comical. Just because this guy in a state over a thousand miles away beleives something, what does tha thave to do with Illinois? If I made a claim that all republicans hated the handicapped, would you then demand that all republicans come forward with their position on thie issue??? I know what your going to say... Another absurd anology!!! But it fits because you are constantly finding these obscure things to try and tie to every democrat out there. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh... The reason I hate Rush is because he blames EVERY problem in America on democrats... unemployment -> democrats. terrorism -> democrats. poverty -> democrats. He has absolutely no perspective on the issue, he jus tinherently blames the democratic party. You do the same thing. You find obscure things to talk about and then don't let it go. Just like your argument to tie Duckworth to that vet thing. If democrats were the cause of everything wrong in America why is half of the population still democrats??? I feel like you really sit teh fence on that issue BB, I demand your response! And in the immortal words of Bill O'Reilly, 'if you dont agrre with me, your a coward.'
Or something like that...
I think it's a good idea for Congress to demand some kind of withdrawal plan since, in Sarbanes' words:
"As long as the Pentagon and the Defense Department resist providing concrete scenarios for disengaging our troops, it is impossible to evaluate the risks and benefits of any particular course of action."
In other words, if you are a thoughtful legislator, wouldn't you want to know what an exit strategy looks like before you have to vote on it?
Sounds smart to me. In fact, I'd be wary of voting for anyone who opposes looking at an exit strategy.
I think it is fine for Bill to call on every Dem to announce where they stand on the issue. What frustrates me is that claling for options and having disagreements between the exact implementations is seen as disunity and weakness.
Look at what Sarbanes is calling for:
He wants the MILITARY to draw up plans for disengagement from Iraq. So that we can have civilians start evaluating them.
Bill explain to me how that is cutting and running?
First it terrorifies me that the Pentagoon hasn't already done this. We have enough military planners that people should constantly be making and revising plans. Remember it was Bush who said that a nuclear strike was still on the table in Iran. Now I have no problem with this mainly because I believe we should constantly be evaluating as many plans as possible.
But to call evaluating plans cutting and running, lets see what thee military assessment is of such a plan, then maybe run it by various people at the state department. If the military and the state department think it is the right thing to do. Then we should probably do it.
We have enough money to fund some pretty far out research ideas (which as a researcher I support because you never know what you get from thinking outside the box) but somehow we don't have enough resources to draft ideas for solving one of the most expensive problems to ever face this nation.
If democrats were the cause of everything wrong in America why is half of the population still democrats??? I feel like you really sit teh fence on that issue BB, I demand your response!
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
And you can fool all of the people some of the time.
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
-Bill Baar, 8th grade class of 68, Lincoln School, Oak Park Illinois
SO does that mean Sarbanes is a spokesman for the entire party?
No, and in fact I hope not.
Does that mean whatever he does, every democrat should follow?
No, I hope they would speak out against him.
Your logis there is comical. Just because this guy in a state over a thousand miles away beleives something, what does tha thave to do with Illinois?
It's Illinois' war too; not Maryland's alone. Nothing comical about it.
I never said the war was comical BB, but thanks for showing your lack of reading skills. They go well with my lack of typing skills. :-)
The reason I said your logic was comical was that you somehow beleive that Illinois candidates should have to answer up to things that Maryland candidates say. Sarbanes isn't running for congress in my district, or your district, so what does he have to do with our candidate debates.
I could see if you were interested in where your candidates stand. But your not, you are merely interested in trying to flame democrats. You say that their the ones with the undefined positions, but isn't it the republican party that has recently started changing its' tune? Were they not 100% for the war up until recently? But now they finally have some dissenters. SO wouldn't it be just as prudent to ask them if they are joining the candidates that finally are speaking out? But yet you don't care, because that wouldn't help you smear democrats.
BB are you implying that you invented the quote about fooling people? That's the impression I get. You better not be trying to pawn off other people's lame ass cliche's!
Three more Baar posts, but none of any evidence of "foggy" Democrats.
I assume that Bill is refering to the June vote reported in a very partisan way here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0623/p01s02-uspo.html
But I don't know what is fuzzy about putting forth 2 different positions and then having every member in the senate vote on them.
There are 44 democrats in the Senate. 39 want the president to take leadership in making the mission to get the troops home. 11 wanted a 1 year timetable. So every current democratic senator is on the record. Our Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00181
Durbin - 1 year time table
Obama - No-time-table
Note that Sarbanes voted against the 1 year time table. So once again I ask if anyone out there really believes that Sarbanes position is cutting and running. Sarbane's position is the majority democratic position and one that I really hope gets adopted sooner rather than later.
BB are you implying that you invented the quote about fooling people?
It's famous quote from Lincoln. I attended Lincoln school as do a lot of kids in Illinois.
As far as cut-and-run goes. I don't think it's a pejorative really. If America isn't goint to stick it out with Iraqi's for the long haul, I'd have a hard time arguing not to cut and run.
I think it was Kerry (someone correct me here if memory failing me but I have a vivid image of him saying this) who testified to Congress after Winter Soldier, how do you tell the family of the last soldier to die in Vietnam it was a mistake? He was arguing for immediate pullout.
I actually worked with some of the last guys out of Vietnam. Read Frank Snepps book Decent Interval and look in the index for Jim Brown with Defense Audit Service. I worked with him 6 years later in DoD and heard all about our last days there.
I have a hard time with the middling positions on Iraq, Afgainistan, and our whole deployment in the world for GWOT.
If we aren't going to stand with the Iraqis who voted, then maybe we should cut-and-run and give the world notice we're with Rockefeller when he says Iraq would have been better off with Saddam today.
If it's all a mistake, and we know it today, Kerry asked a hard question we shouldn't forget.
Ok I just read a snippet off of Frank Snepp's website. I don't think I'll read the book, mainly because I agree with you and what I have read so far.
I'm ignoring your quotation of Rockefeller's statements about Iraqi's under Saddam and now. Because it is a stupid thing to consider. Of course, people are both better and worse off as a result of war. If you are judging materially, they are probably worse off at this point as their infrastructure has been largely destroyed. Then again people are better off as various ideas of freedom and hope exist in many hearts and minds. I have no desire to get into a cost benefit analysis of this. Ok I guess I did not ignore Rockefeller's statements.
The main thing to me is lets talk about what is a win and what is a loss after that. What is a win and what is a loss to the people we are "standing by". Who are we fighting, what is a win for them and what is a loss. Then if we can reach some kind of an agreement there, lets pursue those as with all of our energies. We need well defined rules of engagement that our military commanders agree will allow us to do our job. Are we going to ignore the UN and International Law? that is a decision we need to understand. I know very few of these answers right now and I have spent lots of time trying to figure it out. What defines a win for Bush? (Permenant US bases and a strong "democratically" elected puppet government) What defines a win for Prime Minister al-Maliki? (Unification with Iran? given the historically close military, ideological, and financial ties with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, it would not be out of the question). Who are we fighting? What is a win for them? The problem is good luck getting any of this information compiled in a manner fit for CNN, 24 hours of breaking news, it is tough to get an assessment out there when NEWS IS BREAKING....
Who are we fighting? How do we win? What are our techniques? Do military personal want different techniques in order to win?
BTW, I have a middling position in that I think the war in Iraq is wrong and immoral. Yet I still pay my taxes, I swear I read Walden at some point in my youth and am now acting cowardly. Or am I acting with respect for law, accepting another's decision that I believe to be wrong.
Sorry I am on vacation and one of the things I like to do when away from my job is really try to figure out what are the important issues. Furthermore as a scientist/researcher/grad student what pieces of evidence would force me to change my opinion/beliefs, and in this case I am not sure. But answers to the questions of who we are fighting for and with and what they believe to be victories and defeats could sway me.
BTW, I have a middling position in that I think the war in Iraq is wrong and immoral. Yet I still pay my taxes, I swear I read Walden at some point in my youth and am now acting cowardly. Or am I acting with respect for law, accepting another's decision that I believe to be wrong.
I might carry this one over to my blog... the middling position is a tough one and how one should state it is worthy of more thought then's done here.
Interestingly, drudge is reporting James Baker has been going back and forth in the middle east...if there was ever a guy to find the middling option... it's got to be him.
I'd like to know when we're leaving Iraq too Bill.
Action plans for redeploying our troops to where they're needed most to protect America (as opposed to Iraq) is common sense. Why do conservatives have a problem with common sense redeployment plans?
Bill earlier repeated the famous remark that you can fool some of the people all of the time and even fool all the people, some of the time. But that you can't fool all the people all the time...
To which I say: This is why so many Americans are tired of being lied to by Republicans and poll after poll is showing dissastisfaction with the GOP and a preference and identification with the Democrats.
Americans don't like being lied to, by either party.
Focusing on the 6th Congressional District race in Illinois, see http://republicansforduckworth.typepad.com/blog/ for a candidate's debate that made it clear why Duckworth will win: Iraq.
1. She wants to get us out of Iraq.
2. She's a veteran and her bland opponent has no service record at all.
3. The District has changed. 60% of Americans, including us here in DuPage county, are opposed to the war in Iraq.
4. She has a natural appeal for women voters and people of color. Her opponent is just another balding white lawyer.
5. She wants to get us off foreign oil and into bio-fuels and flex cars that can run on any fuel.
6. Her opponent has been lying his ass off in direct-mail flyers and getting nailed for his falsehoods in the Illinois newspapers.
Post a Comment