When he receives the Bush Administration's $100 billion supplemental spending request for Iraq on February 5, Murtha says "they'll have to justify every cent they want." He'll insist that no money be allocated for an escalation unless the military can meet normal readiness levels. "We should not spend money to send people overseas unless they replenish the strategic reserve," Murtha says. He expects to have one hundred and twenty days to act before the Administration deploys the second phase of additional troops to Iraq. "If he wants to veto the bill," Murtha says of Bush, "he won't have any money."Larsen refuses to buy "sales pitch" on Iraq:
The strategy is the same when the White House, any White House, wants to push an unpopular plan.
First, look for the weakest link in the opposition; play to your opponents' egos by dangling "secret" information; and if all else fails, attribute the idea to a desperate ally. That formula played out recently as the Bush administration tried to blunt Democrats' anger over the proposed increase in U.S. forces in Iraq.
The first week of January, the administration began pulling in various Democrats and Republicans to private briefings in the West Wing to try out their argument for a troop "surge."
Even the highest-ranking members of Congress can be seduced by inclusion in a special briefing: Getting inside information while sitting in an antique chair in the West Wing gives one the feeling of being a VIP at a very exclusive club.
And so, looking to peel off one of the gazelles from the Democratic pack, the White House pounced on Rep. Rick Larsen. He was invited in a bipartisan group of 15.
The four-term congressman from Lake Stevens sits on the Armed Services Committee, has a sizable military population in his district, had a stronger opponent in his re-election than other Democrats in the delegation, and is more junior than them. A perfect target.
But Larsen asks a lot of questions, and despite his avuncular manner, doesn't like to be pushed. He was against the troop increase and didn't fold.
The next week, a day before Bush's speech announcing the troop build-up, the White House called over an elite group of committee leaders, including Rep. Norm Dicks of Bremerton, the delegation's dean, and Rep. Adam Smith of Tacoma.
Smith, Dicks and Larsen all voted for the war in 2002. And Smith is a new subcommittee chairman on Armed Services.
Bush proffered them special information: He said the plan for increased U.S. troops was the idea of Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who had suggested it to Bush himself in late November.
That information, if true, meant the Iraqi government was finally ready to do its part. Though still skeptical about the escalation, Dicks and Smith were impressed.
However, when reports of the plan leaked out, Larsen smelled a ruse.
Larsen told Dicks that nobody at the White House had mentioned any Iraqi-driven plan to him a few days earlier.
He speculated that the explanation had been drummed up by Bush's political advisers at the last minute to try to placate more senior members.
News stories confirmed that al-Maliki himself was denying responsibility for the plan.
Larsen, Dicks and Smith are now dug in against the escalation. And Larsen says he does not trust the Iraqis to show up to fight.
The White House "changed the sales pitch," Larsen said, adding: "I don't buy it."
Hillary Clinton Calls Situation in Iraq 'Heartbreaking':
In an exclusive interview with ABC News in Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., called the situation in Iraq "heartbreaking" and said she doubts Congress and the American people believe the mission here can succeed.
"I don't know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work," she said. "And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?"
Clinton spoke with ABC News after meeting with Gen. George Casey and Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commanders here. She is one a one-day visit to Iraq as part of congressional delegation that includes Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y.
Clinton had tough words for the Iraqi government, which she said has failed repeatedly to deliver on its promises.
"I'm skeptical that the Iraqi government will do what they have promised to do, and that I think is the concern of all of us who have heard this before," she said. "All the promises, and intentions in the world don't substitute for action and we haven't seen a lot of action."
Clinton traveled wearing body armor and surrounded by a phalanx of soldiers and security guards. The level of security, she noted, was much higher than her first visit to Iraq back in 2004.
"This is heartbreaking," she said. "This is my third trip here. I've seen the violence and security problems increase, not decrease. The first time I was here, we're not, you know, asked to wear body armor and put on helmets. We were not shepherded very narrowly from place to place. I went to Kirkuk the first time when actually Gen. Odierno was there, in charge of the 4th ID. We went into the city. We had a meeting in the town hall with people."
Instead of sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, as President Bush plan, Clinton said it is time to start re-deploying U.S. troops out of Iraq.
"That would really demonstrate to the Iraqis that we don't have an open-ended commitment," she said. "We are not going to be here providing protection for their leaders, which we do. We are not going to be here standing by and trying to be called in from time to time as they see fit. That is not in the cards."
Democrats' Strategy to Unequivocally Oppose Surge:
Washington has begun a titanic battle about whether the United States or Israel should launch a first strike attack against Iran. There are intelligence and military officials in both Nations arguing strongly against this. The stakes are deadly. The danger is real.
This is the context of the strong dissent I express here, about some characterizations of Democrats [1] in Melinda Henneberger's post. I once worked for Congressional Leaders, know many senior Democrats today. Lets understand their strategy.
It is: to unequivocally oppose the surge. To create space for Republicans to join us. To turn around the escalation. To create a vehicle to end the policy and prevent future war.
Ms. Henneberger headlines: Democrats are divided. In truth the Republicans are far more divided than Democrats. We debate tactics to reverse the escalation. Republicans are now divided and many are joining us against the President's policy.
That is the big news in Washington.
Second, of course Democrats have different opinions about tactics. That is good, not bad. We are not the Republicans, where the Decider dictates the policy and Congress kneels.
We respect the opinions of Jack Murtha, Ike Skelton, Russ Feingold, Jack Reed, Jim Webb, Ted Kennedy and others. That is a plus, not a negative. The war is four years old. The new Democratic Congress is days old. We have begun the fight effectively and well.
Next: Ms. Henneberger writes: "But couldn't we worry about the soldiers first and the blame later." Exactly which Democrats are not putting the soldiers first?
Here is my list of Democrats who are not putting the soldiers first: zero.
Next: our Presidential candidates in Congress are unanimously opposing the surge. Yet Ms. Hennenberger writes: "And I have never heard such a compelling argument for sitting out an election."
Excuse me?
Exactly which presidential candidates, all of whom oppose the surge, should inspire this contempt? Please name them. I will cite only one, the Senator from New York, who disappoints, again, by calculating and waiting.
Democrats in Congress running for President are speaking for the people when they oppose the surge. This is a reason to participate in the Presidential campaign, not to sit it out. We we should be fighting to elect a Democratic President to end unjust war and save the Supreme Court. Not insulting candidates who oppose the war, suggesting they are reasons to not participate.
Next: Ms. Henneberger writes: there is still lots of room at the front. The Generals at the front are Reid and Pelosi and for my money, they are doing a fine job. There is an excitement and enthusiasm among Democrats who are waging the fight in Congress every day.
Of course leadership will emerge with new ideas. There is always more room at the front. But criticizing Presidential candidates who oppose the surge as being excuses for sitting out the election, is suggesting that those at the front, on our side, should shoot each other, in the foxhole.
We should challenge Democrats when they fail to lead. When the Celinda Lakes make preposterous comments that the voters did not elect Democrats to solve the Iraq war, we should join that fight loudly and clearly.
But Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the House and Senate Democratic Caucus have listened to us, not them.
Leaders like Jack Murtha will create the consensus that will unite the party, from his powerful perch that he has used so wisely.
Not one Democrat should be lectured to put the soldiers first.
That is what Republicans say to Swift Boat Democrats.
Our Democrats came here to support our troops and their families. That is what they are doing. Lets fight to end the Bush policy in Iraq and prevent a Bush war against Iran, not shoot each other in the foxhole, while we fight together at the front.
No comments:
Post a Comment