Tags
Ike Skelton, who actually sponsored a withdrawal bill:
This is the fundamental dilemma we face in Iraq-our soldiers fight hard and they are showing some results, and we should take every opportunity we get to thank them for their sacrifices and work on behalf of our nation. But their efforts do not seem to be matched by the government of Iraq. When the President announced the surge, it was intended to improve security to create space for political progress.
By some measures, the heroic efforts of our troops have created some space. But there has not been any great political progress. We are left asking ourselves why we should expect this record to be different in the future and whether further American efforts will be of any effect. It is not clear to me why we should continue to move ahead with this strategy at the cost of American lives and dollars if the Iraqis are not stepping forward.
Claire McCaskill (via PubDef):
But unfortunately, I don’t think there has been enough conversation yet about something other than the two extremes. I don’t think any of us in Washington want an expeditious drawdown of all our troops in Iraq. And on the other hand, I don’t think most people in American want us to continue to stand in the middle of a civil war. I think there is something in between. I will look forward in the hearing tomorrow, I will look forward to questioning General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, as I know many other senators will, about what would be in between.
I’m really freaking curious as to what sort of answers Senator McCaskill is going to get regarding this triangulation enlightened Middle Way she’s searching for. I’m even more curious to hear her answer Representative Skelton’s question – Why should we expect further American efforts to be effective? Why should we “continue to move ahead with this strategy at the cost of American lives and dollars if the Iraqis are not stepping forward[?]”
UPDATE: This isn’t about liberal vs. conservative. Note that Skelton is a conservative Democrat. Even conservative Republican Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones voted for withdrawal in March.
Make sure you call McCaskill’s office and give her a piece of your mind (respectfully but firmly.) And call Skelton’s office and thank him for his representation. Check below the fold for contact info.
Cape Girardeau 573-651-0964
Columbia 573-442-7130
Kansas City 816-421-1639
Springfield 417-868-8745
St. Louis 314-367-1364
Washington, DC 202-224-6154
Blue Springs 816-228-4242
Jefferson City 573-635-3499
Lebanon 417-532-7964
Sedalia 660-826-2675
Washington, DC 202-225-2876
and frankly I feel used. I raised money for her. I recruited volunteers for her. And the war was the ENTIRE issue for most of those people. I worked my ass off for her. She had us going door to door telling everyone we had to get rid of the Jim Talent Rubber stamp. And she’s been a rubber stamp for George Bush on this war.
Plus she crossed over and voted with the Republicans on the FISA bill. Which in some ways is even worse.
I thought Ike Skelton was good today in the Petraeus hearings and I think he understands where the American people are on this.
Claire? I don’t think any of us in Washington want an expeditious drawdown of all our troops in Iraq. Who said anything about expiditious? How about just a date certain in the future?
If she crosses over and votes with the Republicans again – we should organize some kind of campaign to ask Harry Reid to discipline her. It’s not like she’s going to change parties. He can take away some of her perks. And he should.
I voted and volunteered for her. She appealed to me. She wasn’t afraid to stand up to her opponent. Because she wasn’t afraid of the GOP hit squad, I didn’t figure she would be afraid of the goons on the hill. Now it looks as though she is. Last week, she replied (probably canned) to a mail I had sent her a few months ago regarding the war. In it she said that she hoped they could get enough votes to change the course in Iraq. But the impression I got from the letter was that it was a sort of preemptive capitualtion. She was implying that it was really up to the Republicans to go along with it. The idea being that if it failed, they were to blame. By sending this in advance of General Petroleus’ speech and the vote, I felt she had already prepared to cave in. Today she appeared anxious to capitulate. Makes me think the whole debate is just a big charade. A few days ago Reid made public that he was willing to compromise. Of course what that means is no binding anything. Unless the withdrawal dates are binding, we will at best get another round of worthless benchmarks. Only 3 of the 18 were met the last time, and they are about to hand Bush another $200,000,000,000. Frankly, this is why we lose elections even when we have the message most Americans want. Democrats won’t stand up and fight for what they believe in, so even though they are saying the right things, people stop believing them. If we are weak in expressing to our Senator that we expect her to vote our agenda, she will stop believing it really matters to us. Here is her letter-
From her statement:
Who believes everything has to change tomorrow? Not the vast majority of people on the left, who are asking for nothing more than a date in the future when we know we’ll be finished. The “left” doesn’t think you can pull all those troops out tomorrow.
She’s comparing the viewpoint of the President of the United States with a few extremists who do not represent the majority of the left. That is utterly dishonest on her part.
These are pure Republican talking points she is spouting. She’s attacking the base of the Democratic party and calling them a bunch of nutcases.
I am truly disgusted with her.
Senator Russ Feingold has mailed his supporters a leter which I received today requesting that we contact our Senators asking them to co-sponsor and/ or vote for the Feingold-Reid bill introduced earlier. They would like a veto proof majority for this bill. This bill requires the President to begin to safely redeploy troops from Iraq within 120 days from enactment. This legislation would end funding for the war and establish a set of very specific restrictions upon which President Bush could spend any money in Iraq.
He also stated in his letter that his colleagues in the Senate heard again and again from their constituents that the American people want to end the misguided mission in Iraq. He also heard that message loud and clear in every Listening Session he attended in Wisconsin.
Claire is a disappointment for most progressive democats, I too had hoped she would not be supporting George Bush in any way possible. We do not need rubberstamps for his misguided policies.
how the Senate works.
I am hopeful that
the vote in September will bring the necessary votes to convince the
Commander-in-Chief that we must change course in Iraq.
Ah yes, she wants those magical Republican votes to appear out of … nowhere?
What we need in the Senate are 40 democratic votes against cloture on any bill that doesn’t contain a date certain redeployment and the end of the occupation. Call their bluff. But it will never happen.
And actually she understands that because she refused to VOTE for cloture on the Feingold-Reid bill last spring which DOES contemplate a date certain for ending the war. She wouldn’t even agree to an up or down vote on it.
On the war she is no better than Jim Talent. I don’t regret getting her elected though because I’d rather have a Democratic majority for control of, for example, the judiciary committee and other domestic matters. But I’d like to punish her in some way for lying to us.
The real leverage on funding is in the house anyway. Pelosi has the power. Reid is limited by Senate rules but Pelosi has the power.