Leonard Boswell had a sit-down with reporters and editors at the Des Moines Register last week. Not surprisingly, the topic of Iraq and the war came up, and here's what the Register reported as Boswell's thoughts on the matter:
The Des Moines Democrat, who is facing a challenge in the June primary, said in a meeting with Des Moines Register editors and reporters that he met with President Bush and Bush's war council in 2005.
During that meeting, which included other lawmakers, Vice President Dick Cheney, and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Boswell said, he for the first time believed the administration had no plan for withdrawal.
"It's been that way ever since. That's when I started saying this is not right. This is wrong. This is doubly wrong," Boswell said. "So, I rethought the whole situation and I think it's time for us to come out of there."
Boswell, of course, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, so his change of heart is a good thing. But questions remain, and to my mind one of the main points left unaddressed by the congressman is why it took him 33 months to reverse course on a war that had clearly been a disaster almost from the first days of Shock and Awe.
John McCain gave a speech today describing the policy he would pursue as president towards our military involvement in Iraq.
The speech, at least as it regards Iraq, is nothing short of fantasy. Of the commentary out on the web following the speech, none hits the mark nearly as well as the analysis published on the Huffington Post by none other than my original presidential candidate of choice, Joe Biden.
I found the following excerpt to be particularly on target:
John McCain revealed today that he has no plan -- none -- to get us out of the mess the president has created. Senator McCain said that it is important for presidential candidates to "define their objectives and what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity." But especially when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, the picture he painted today of where he hopes to be by 2013 is totally divorced from reality and there is zero clarity about how he would get there. It's beyond being vague: John McCain is totally silent about how he would realize his rosy vision for 2013.
It's like saying by 2013, every American will be a millionaire and there will be peace on earth. Wishing will not make it so. The last things Americans need now are empty promises. They need, and our security demands, a concrete plan of action that brings the war in Iraq to an end without leaving chaos behind.
It's good to see Joe Biden is starting to reengage in the broader political debate as we near the close of the primary calendar. His experience from years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as his devastating instinct for the Republicans' political jugular, make Biden a uniquely powerful voice in the upcoming campaign against John McCain.
Since dropping his own presidential campaign in January, Biden has remained publicly uncommitted in the nomination fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but I think that all Democrats, regardless whom they support for the nomination, can be glad that we've got Joe Biden on our side.
Tragically and unforgivably, as of yesterday 851 United States troops have died in Iraq so far this year. This total is already higher than the 849 troop fatalities suffered by US forces in all of 2004, which, up until now, had held the record as the deadliest year of the war.
Compounding the senselessness of it all is this quote from today's New York Times:
"Military officials attribute the rise this year to an expanded troop presence during the so-called surge, which brought more than 165,000 troops to Iraq, and sent units out of large bases and into more dangerous communities."
So the surge, which was supposed to usher in a new era of stability in Iraq, has only resulted in increasing the number of US troops killed there.
These casualties make it only more pressing that Democratic members of the House and Senate finally act to restrain the Bush administration's folly in their conduct of the Iraq war. Many proposals have been advanced during the past five years, but the time has come to pass measures carrying the force of law to require the administration to change course in Iraq and produce either a political solution or redeployment of US combat forces. The current strategy, or, rather, lack thereof, is not worth continuing at the cost of a single additional American casualty.
[Updated, with video and a verbatim transcription of the Q&A]
Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 463
While peace on Iraq policy was breaking out in Des Moines Friday between presidential candidates from opposite side of the aisle, a war of words was at the same time erupting between one of those candidates and a rival from his own party.
I'm talking about Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, respectively. Before Biden even walked into the room to appear with Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas on Friday, Bill Richardson issued a statement titled "No Way Forward in Iraq Unless All Troops are Withdrawn," taking aim at the Biden-Brownback-Boxer proposal. Here's an excerpt:
"Senator Biden's plan to leave troops in Iraq means his plan has very little chance to succeed. The parties will not even sit down in a meaningful way until we get all the forces out.
"Senator Biden keeps drawing an analogy to Bosnia, but he has that one backwards: the peacekeepers could only enforce the peace after the deal was made. Using U.S. peacekeepers in Iraq would turn the guarantors into targets, thus plunging any settlement back into war."
Pretty serious stuff, if true, I thought. So in the press conference following the Biden-Brownback joint appearance in Des Moines, I asked Senator Biden about it.
"Senator Biden," I began, "earlier today Governor Richardson issued a statement that I think could be fairly characterized as a point-by-point refutation of your Plan for Iraq. One feature in that release was that you have the Bosnia analogy exactly backwards: that there was peace, and then we brought in U.S. military forces. I would like to have your response to that."
Biden's face momentarily curdled into a grimace. Then he fixed me with an eagle eye and answered, "Very quickly, I wonder what he thought General Clark was doing there."
Ouch! Give that round to Biden.
Afterwards, Biden's communications director, Larry Raske, approached me and said he had seen the Richardson statement, and that the campaign was considering releasing a response later in the day. Sure enough, a couple of hours later came a rocket from the Biden campaign, titled, "Biden Statement on Richardson's Irresponsible Position on Iraq." Here's an excerpt:
“Governor Richardson’s remarks today on my Iraq plan were surprising. First, he was in favor of my plan, now he’s attacking it. First, he said he would take all of our troops out in six months, and now he acknowledges it would take a year. First, he said he would leave residual forces in Iraq, and now he says he wouldn’t. First, he was in favor of diplomacy followed by withdrawal, now he says it’s the other way around. When it comes to the single most important issue facing our country – how to end the war in Iraq responsibly – it is important to be clear and consistent. It is especially important on this issue that there be no gap between what we say as candidates and what we would do as president.
“My plan for Iraq has overwhelming bipartisan support. More and more people acknowledge that while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not enough. We also have to do everything we can not to leave chaos behind. The only way to do that is through the political solution that I put forward, which has been embraced by the Senate, the Iraqis and the foreign policy community. I suggest that Governor Richardson go back and review his record and statements and reconsider today’s remarks.”
Biden's statement then goes on to exhibit, at some length, what it characterizes as Bill Richardson's inconsistent statements about Iraq in general, and Biden's proposals in particular. Probably the most damning part of the Biden campaign's statement is this quote:
February 2003: Richardson Said he Would Have Voted to Authorize War In Iraq. Richardson said, “My view is that it is critically important that the United States not let Saddam Hussein get away with this. Had I have been in the Congress I would have voted for the military resolution authorizing war.” [CNN, Larry Kind [sic] Live, 2/14/03, emphasis added]
The Richardson campaign's response to this was a further press release about an hour later. Rather than taking up the gauntlet on Iraq, this release was titled, "Poll: Biden not top presidential choice in Delaware." The point seemed to be that although 54% of Delaware Democrats think Joe Biden would make a good president, they think Hillary Clinton will eventually be nominated, and that this should be interpreted as a strike against Biden.
I take all this back and forth to indicate several things. First, in starting this dust up with Biden, a candidate ranked below him in both polling and fundraising, Richardson's campaign is either a) shooting in the wrong direction, when by all accounts they should be focusing on overtaking an increasingly vulnerable John Edwards, or b) they're feeling heat from Joe Biden on the key issue of this campaign, and one Richardson has increasingly come to feel that he should own: Iraq. The "All Troops Out Now" policy Richardson has been espousing was supposed to lock up the anti-war netroots voice of the blogosphere with one simple - or perhaps, merely simplified - idea, and that would in turn resonate out to primary voters in general. But Richardson's policy has gotten little traction in recent polls, and the Senate's recent overwhelming passage of Biden's proposal highlights a vulnerability on Iraq that Richardson would plainly prefer didn't exist.
Second, this shows how Joe Biden has come to dominate the discussion on Iraq. Many observers feel that after the Dartmouth debate, Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all been neutralized on this issue, and the second-tier candidates are battling for advantage in light of that development. But Biden's policy proposals on Iraq have been a matter of public record for more than a year, and it's going to be hard to dislodge him from the driver's seat.
Lastly, I think we're going to start seeing a lot more of these types of sharpened exchanges from now until the nomination is decided. The "get to know me" phase of the race is clearly over now, and the campaigns are beginning to draw sharp distinctions between themselves and their competitors. I'd like to think that this will not, in turn, lead to a spate of negative personal attacks between the candidates, but who wants odds?
The weekend has passed without further skirmishes between Richardson and Biden, so we'll see whether the cease-fire extends into this week, or if things only heat up again. Time, and the in-box, will tell.
History comes at us in two forms: history in the moment when it is made, and history in the aftermath when it is written. The first is action, and the second is judgment. If we're wise, we always pay attention to the judgments of history; if we're lucky, we may get to be present on an occasion when history is made.
I had the luck to be a witness to history being made today, as two U.S. Senators and presidential candidates, from opposite parties, appeared at the same podium to campaign, not for votes for their respective candidacies, but for support of their joint plan to end the civil war in Iraq, bring stability to the Persian Gulf region and pave the way for an end to U.S. combat operations without leaving chaos behind.
Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) spoke today of their plan to implement federalism in Iraq, a system in which power is devolved from the central government in Baghdad to separate regions controlled by the three main Iraqi ethnic factions, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. Each region would maintain control of their own coinage, law enforcement, education, utilities, etc., with the central government in Baghdad responsible for border security, foreign policy, and the distribution of oil revenues.
The bulk of remarks by both Senators was aimed at refuting the notion that their proposals represent a foreign-imposed solution, or a partition of Iraq. Biden, who delivered his remarks without referring to notes, stated that those who characterized the proposals in that way either had not actually read the plan, or were deliberately misconstruing it for political purposes. Biden pointed out that federalism is at the heart of the Iraqi constitution, and that the Iraqi parliament voted in the summer of 2006 to devolve power away from the central government over the course of 18 months beginning next year. In answer to the question posed by critics of why it is the Iraqis themselves haven't done this yet if they're actually in favor of the idea, Biden made the obvious point that "they're at war. They need the help of the United States and the international community to do it." Further, federalism would not contribute to further sectarian cleansing, but rather, as a political solution, represents the only means of stopping it. "Five hundred thousand American troops cannot settle this issue" in the absence of the political framework of federalism, said Biden. Iraqis, Biden concluded, do not oppose federalism; they oppose partition, and the Biden-Brownback-Boxer proposal represents the former and not the latter. To critics of the plan, Biden asked, "very simply, what is your alternative?"
Senator Brownback then took the podium. Often reading from notes, his remarks largely echoed Biden's, but reflected Brownback's view that the U.S. military should remain in Iraq for a protracted period, along the lines of Korea and Bosnia. Brownback pointed to the Kurdish region in the north of Iraq as an example of federalism already successfully in place, and suggested that power might be similarly devolved to Iraq's Sunni and Shiite regions in phases, rather than all at once.
Brownback appeared poised and dynamic in his remarks, and gave ample evidence as to why he's an attractive choice to Republican constituents in his home state.
Having seen all the Democratic contenders for the White House at least three times this year, I can say frankly that Biden's presence and aspect on the podium on this occasion was by far the most presidential of any candidate in this campaign. Scholars often speak of the extent to which presidents grow in office as a measure of their greatness; Biden's growth as a presidential candidate since the first time I saw him back in March of this year has been astounding. Given a few breaks between now and caucus night, and a corresponding upswing in fundraising, it is not at all difficult today to combine two words in a way that would have been unthinkable, and to some laughable, only six months ago: President Biden.
The judgment of history about today's event and its significance in the sweep of the Iraq tragedy will be written over time. Whatever that judgment eventually turns out to be, let it stand recorded that on a brilliant autumn afternoon at the height of the campaign season in Des Moines, Iowa today, partisanship gave way to statesmanship, and for a rare and precious moment, American politics actually stopped not only at the water's edge, but far enough back from it to allow us, however briefly, to savor the view.
Joe Biden and Sam Brownback are both United States Sentors, and are both running for president, but from different parties. Nonetheless, as co-sponsors of a recent amendment outlining a bipartisan approach to a political resolution of the civil war in Iraq, Biden and Brownback will be holding a joint appearance this Friday in Des Moines to discuss the details of their plan.
"Joe and I might be running for the nomination of two different parties, but we agree on one thing: the American people want progress in Iraq and this represents a viable way forward to stability and success," said Senator Brownback. "Decentralizing power in Iraq offers the best chance for Iraqis to live in a peaceful, united country where they can resolve their differences. It is time to begin the political surge we desperately need to help stabilize Iraq so we can get our troops out of harm's way."
"Partisan politics must not come in the way of finding a solution to the war in Iraq," said Senator Biden. "The overwhelming majority of Americans want us to get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible without leaving chaos behind. I look forward to joining Senator Brownback next week in Iowa to explain how the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment makes Iraq the world's problem while establishing a political solution that gives Iraq's warring factions breathing room to resolve their differences."
Passage of the amendment the two senators will be discussing prompted something of a firestorm of controversy in the last couple of weeks, with the US State Department, the Iraqi prime minister and a coalition of Iraqi political parties denouncing the plan as an arbitrary partition of Iraq. However, news today that many in the Iraqi government view national reconciliation as unrealistic and contrary to the very structure of the country's form of government makes the policy of Iraqi federalism advocated by Biden and Brownback look increasingly attractive, and perhaps the only realistic way forward for the United States, Iraq, and the region.
I am, frankly, amazed and impressed by Biden and Brownback conducting a joint policy discussion - not a debate, but a discussion of common policy - on the single greatest issue facing the country, and doing it in the midst of a presidential campaign in which they are both seeking their party's nomination. It is unprecedented, and shows that, in both parties, there are people of good will who are willing to put aside politics and talk publicly with each other and with voters about a way forward in Iraq. A joint appearance by Biden and Brownback in these circumstances is as risky as it is hopeful, and it is altogether admirable.
The event is open to the public (lunch provided for $25.00). For more information and reservations, contact the Greater Des Moines Committee on Foreign Relations at (515) 282-8192.
Details of the event are as follows: WHAT: Biden, Brownback to Outline Iraq Plan WHEN: Friday, October 12, 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. WHERE: Hosted by the Greater Des Moines Committee on Foreign Relations Wakonda Country Club 1400 Park Avenue Des Moines, IA 50315
This week was meant to have been a good one for Bill Richardson. Following last week's introduction of a netroots-centric ad praising his position on Iraq, the New Mexico governor and presidential candidate announced a successful fundraising result for the quarter ending September 30 and delivered a major policy address on Iraq and modernizing America's military forces, making a strong push for his idea that the Iraq war will not, and cannot, be ended until every last American soldier has left the country. Richardson also announced an expansion of his campaign staff in Iowa, and a spate of new endorsements from activists, union officials and tribal leaders in various parts of the country, and started efforts to boost his presence in the South, addressing the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus and launching an Atlanta chapter of his "Mi Familia con Richardson" booster club.
Then came news today that Richardson's campaign co-chair in South Carolina, State Representative Fletcher Smith, has resigned from the campaign and switched his endorsement to Richardson's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Delaware senator Joe Biden. Bad enough for Richardson, but worse still was the reason Smith gave for the switch: doubts about Richardson's Iraq policy.
“For me, it comes down to who is best equipped to deal with the war in Iraq. And, over the last few weeks, it has become clear to me that Joe Biden is the only candidate with the ideas, leadership and experience to get us out of Iraq without leaving chaos behind,” Smith was quoted as saying in a press release issued by the Biden campaign earlier today. “I’ve had several members of my family, from my grandfather down to two of my siblings, serve proudly in our nation’s military so it’s especially important to me that we end this war in a way that keeps our troops safe and does not require us to send them back in the months or years ahead. I believe that only by adopting Biden’s comprehensive plan for a federalized Iraq will we truly be able to do this and reduce the overall threat to our country.”
“I appreciate how difficult this decision was for State Representative Smith and am honored to receive his support,” Biden was quoted as saying in the same press release. “I look forward to working with him in the coming months and to meeting South Carolinians and discussing with them my plan to make America stronger and more secure after years of President Bush’s failed policies.”
Representatives of Richardson's campaign could not be reached for comment.
State Representative Smith himself isn't an especially high profile figure in the overall scheme of things; it isn't as if, say, Tom Vilsak suddenly bolted the Clinton campaign and pledged allegiance to Mike Gravel. But it is certainly news whenever a high-ranking campaign official in an early primary state switches sides, and there is no doubt that this is as much an embarrassment for Bill Richardson as it is a coup for Joe Biden.
But beyond the "in your face" element of this, what will Fletcher Smith's decision mean for Biden's prospects in South Carolina, or Bill Richardson's, for that matter? Probably not a great deal. Both candidates already had their share of endorsements from current and former elected officials in South Carolina, and Smith's defection would seemingly do little to shake up the contest there. Polling on the South Carolina Democratic primary consistently shows Hillary Clinton far ahead of all challengers there; Richardson is in the low single digits, and Biden polls lower still. But, in the run-up to actual balloting, a smart campaign can use events like this to shape opinion, so we'll have to wait and see what the Biden campaign's actual mileage from this turns out to be.
In the meantime, this probably doesn't turn a good week for Richardson into a bad week. But it does end it on a sour note.
That old bromide about the weather - everybody talks about it, but nobody ever does anything about it - could just as easily be applied to Iraq, and particularly with regard to the deadlocked United States Senate throughout 2007.
That all shifted significantly today with the Senate's overwhelming passage of the Biden amendment to the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act. The amendment lays out Biden's vision for a political settlement in Iraq based on a federal system of a three-way partition of the country into semi-autonomous sectarian regions. The regions, one each for Iraq's Sunni, Shite and Kurdish populations, would have direct control over local matters like law enforcement and jobs, with a weakened central government in Baghdad controlling national matters like border security, foreign policy and the distribution of oil revenues. The arrangement would also call upon the United Nations and other Arab states to join with us in an intense diplomatic effort to bring Iraq's civil war to a close and restore stability to the Gulf region.
Biden's amendment doesn't force any action on either President Bush nor the Iraqi government, sadly, but it is nonetheless enormously significant for the fact that it, for the first time, marks out a long-term approach to solving the problems of Iraq on terms that have garnered widespread support from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Passed by a super-majority of 75 yeas and 23 nays, Biden's amendment has finally provided the United States Senate a glimmer of light in the struggle to extricate ourselves from Iraq without leaving unmitigated chaos in our wake.
This is also a huge political win for Joe Biden. Coming as it does on the very day of a debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, the timing could not have been better. Not only did Biden's bill get the support of 26 Republican senators, but it also got yes votes from Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd, two of Biden's opponents in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination (what about Barack Obama? We'll get there in a moment). This vote authoritatively establishes Joe Biden as the voice that matters on Iraq, and further allows him to claim that while the rest of the field has talked the talk about leadership, experience, the ability to bring about change in Washington and to bring people together to get things done, Joe Biden walks the walk.
With Joe Biden the big winner today, was there a loser? Yes, and that brings us to Barack Obama. Inexplicably, Senator Obama wasn't there for the vote. He just didn't suit up. What could have been the reason? Did he not understand the importance of the issue? Is skipping things he doesn't want to do, like last week's AARP forum in Davenport, becoming a habit with him and spilling over to his day job in the United States Senate? There can be no good answer here, and the result is yet another serious misstep for Barack Obama in a September that has seen his political star brought lower than at any time since he declared himself a candidate for president.
So, let's say you're a blogger. And let's say a presidential campaign calls you up one day because they've been reading your stuff, and they note that you've run some posts that, if not exactly endorsements of their candidate, more or less concur with them on some point of policy - like Iraq, for instance. And then let's say they ask you if you'd be interested in appearing in a campaign ad for their guy to talk about it.
Would you do it?
Of course you would. Like, duh. Adding our voices to the din and exerting influence in the political process is why most of us took the leap into the vast echo chamber of the blogosphere in the first place. To be individually recognized, even lauded, by one of the very campaigns you've been covering, on top of that is just gravy, no matter how many, or few, hits your site gets. No way you could pass it up.
Throw in a healthy slap at the mainstream media by way of introduction, and you've got an ad that practically writes itself.
That's pretty much he story behind Bill Richardson's new commercial, now playing on YouTube, and, in 30-second form, on televisions in New Hampshire. Featuring bloggers Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers from Open Left.com and Christina Siun O'Connell from Firedoglake.com, Richardson's ad touts his plan for withdrawing all US forces from Iraq and attacks - and that really is the only word that fits - every other Democratic candidate for not taking the same position.
So, okay. There are no easy answers on Iraq, and reasonable people will disagree on what should be done. Try asking two Army generals what they think should be done on Iraq and see what happens.
There’s something admirable about Richardson’s consistency in sticking by his “all troops out now” stance, especially since polling indicates that the percentage of the public who support that approach is roughly equal with the minority at the other extreme who think we should throw ever more troops into the war until we “win.” Those numbers haven’t moved much so far this year, indicating that Richardson’s proposals aren’t really having much impact in framing the Iraq debate. So continuing to hammer away at it regardless either indicates political ineptitude on Richardson's part or demonstrates the courage of his convictions (I'm convinced it is the latter).
But what strikes me most forcibly about Richardson’s ad is not what it says about Richardson’s position on troop redeployment, but its reflection on the electorate at large and its perceived view of the netroots and its role in setting the terms of political discussion this cycle: a mystical beast in an ethereal electronic lair, breathing digital fire upon its enemies and bestowing incalculable binary influence in the form of “buzz” to those who win its favor. The overriding message of the ad is that Richardson's got the internet mojo.
Don’t misunderstand me: in the early going, I believe that we do, in fact, have a material impact on shaping issues that will matter in the election campaign. The question is, in the frenetic campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, what does “early going” really mean?
I would argue that when it comes to promoting issues and setting the terms of discussion in this campaign, we are not now seeing the blazing noon of the period in which we in the netroots exert our disproportionate influence, but rather, are approaching its twilight. Not that we’ve stopped speaking out, and certainly not to say that we in any way should, but we’ve been weighing in on the issues in this campaign, and Iraq in particular, for a long time now. And, as evidenced by Richardson’s ad, among other things, the campaigns certainly have heard us, loud, if not always clear.
But having heard from the netroots, campaign have pretty much “priced in” our voices and formulated their strategies to court or deflect them, and are starting to move on. Does this mean that we’ve entered a static period in which candidates’ attitudes vis-Ã -vis the political blogosphere will remain more or less the same, come what may? No. The netroots will continue to exert influence, continue to call candidates to account where we think they fall short, and continue to work hard to drum up support for whichever candidate we individually decide merits our favor. And that will continue to register on candidates and their campaigns. But will we see a decline in how far our reach extends in shaping the political discussion and driving candidates to respond to us throughout the rest of the primary season? Yes. There are other fish in the electoral sea: PACs, “traditional” interest groups like the NAACP, AMA and ABA, advocacy groups, and, let’s not forget, labor unions. Each of these will only grow in importance as the campaign evolves, and, like it or not, will increasingly dilute the influence of the netroots the closer to a conclusion this campaign comes. It’s not that these groups are the enemies of the netroots; rather, and by nature, we do different things. Where we mobilize opinion, they mobilize the donors who finance campaigns and armies of volunteers who knock on doors, man phone banks, lick envelopes, and do the thousand other things that must be done to reach the constituency wielding the ultimate say in the election’s outcome: the voters themselves.
“The ad demonstrates how important the netroots community is to the political dialogue,” Richardson’s National Press Secretary Tom Reynolds told the New York Times today. “Obviously our campaign recognizes their power in communicating a message.” True enough. But in politics, as in so much of life, timing is everything, and Richardson’s ad, far from cresting the netroots wave, catches it just as its moment of decisive advantage in this campaign is beginning to decline.
Here's an email from Ted Kennedy and the Committee for a Democratic Majority about a worthwhile initiative to expand the number of Iraqi refugees admitted to the United States. The text speaks for itself, and I hope you'll click through to sign the petition and show your support. As the title of the email says, we owe them.
American soldiers aren't the only ones in danger in Iraq.
Thousands of brave Iraqi men and women work alongside our military, State Department, contractors and non-governmental organizations in Iraq, meeting a critical need for Arabic translators and supporting our effort in Iraq.
Now insurgents are hunting down these cooperative Iraqis and killing them and their families for working with "the enemy."
Regardless of where we stand on the war, the US has an obligation to help the Iraqis who have supported our troops -- and whose lives are in peril as a result.
The Bush Administration has failed this obligation and left these brave friends behind -- and that's unacceptable. That's why I'm sponsoring bipartisan legislation to make it easier for Iraqis associated with the US to seek refugee status and escape the consequences of their collaboration.
Show your support for the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act:
This issue isn't as well known as it should be, so make sure you spread the word. Here are some compelling numbers:
The State Department pledged to process 25,000 Iraqi refugee applications this year. Then they reduced that number 7,000 -- and later to 2,000.
With only a few days left in the fiscal year, fewer than 1,000 refugees have been admitted to the United States. One Iraqi translator told 60 Minutes:
"I lost everything. I lost my country, I cannot stay there anymore, and I lost all my friends. I can't see them, I lost my family, and I feel like a prisoner."
There has to be a better way. While the United States cannot resettle every Iraqi refugee, we can't ignore the mortal danger facing these brave Iraqis working with our country.
The legislation I've introduced streamlines the process for Iraqis who have worked with us to receive refugee status. It also makes 5,000 special immigrant visas available to those who have worked with our government for a year.
Too many Iraqis have already died for helping our troops. Tell President Bush to protect the people who are protecting us:
The United States doesn't have many friends in Iraq these days, and we aren't helping the situation.
As Retired General Paul Eaton said:
"Anybody who threw their lot in with the Americans deserves an opportunity for a future. And the loyalty has got to be in both directions. If we do not take care of these people, then the signal to anybody else in the future is a bad signal. And if you throw your lot with the United States, they'll use you for a while and then they will - they'll just cut you off," he argues.
Asked if he thinks it's a matter of honor, Eaton says, "I believe this is a matter of morality."
Many of us disagree with President Bush's failed war, but that doesn't mean we can turn our backs on these Iraqi men and women. Americans have paid a terrible price for this war -- but we must not forget the Iraqis who are paying a terrible price as well.
Sincerely, Senator Edward M. Kennedy
So many things in Iraq defy our ability and desire to do good. This is something we can do, and therefore have the moral imperative to do. Please help by signing the petition.
Of the major Democratic presidential candidates, only Joe Biden and John Edwards have issued reactions to Presiddent Bush's visit to Iraq yesterday. They're both worth a read, and Biden's in particular, as it concisely outlines his Iraq proposals, which I think are the strongest of any candidate's.
Joe Biden
Yesterday we learned that President Bush went to Iraq to survey the situation on the ground first hand. This is good news. The President needs to see what the rest of us have seen and know. While his plan for a surge in Iraq has had limited and temporary military success, it has not brought about the kind of political reconciliation the President and his Cabinet had hoped for.
It is my sincere hope that the President went to Iraq, not with an outcome in mind, but with his eyes open looking to learn the facts on the ground. And the facts are: there is no chance that Iraq can be governed by a strong central government no matter how many troops we have there.
We'll be hearing a lot about the "surge" over the next several weeks, but we all must remember its original purpose: to buy time for the central government in Iraq to get its act together and win the trust of all Iraqis.
That will not happen.
Absent an occupation which we cannot sustain or the return of a dictator which we cannot support, Iraq cannot be governed from the center at this point in its history.
There is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity by the government to deliver security and services, and no prospect it will build that trust and capacity any time soon.
I've been making that case for over a year. And so have more and more experts, in and out of government.
Back in November, CIA director Michael Hayden made this very point in a private meeting with the Iraq Study Group. He said "the inability of the [central] government to govern is irreversible." There is no "milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," he said. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government... that cannot function."
Two weeks ago, our entire intelligence community came to the same conclusion. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and predicted that "the Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next six to twelve months."
As everyone knows, I have offered a plan (PlanForIraq.com) that contains the possibility, not the guarantee, of promoting stability in Iraq as we leave. It's based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center.
Instead, we have to give its warring factions breathing room in their own regions, with control over the fabric of their daily lives - police, education, jobs, marriage, and religion.
A limited central government would be in charge of truly common concerns, including protecting Iraq's borders and distributing oil revenues.
The good news is: the federal system at the heart of my plan is already in Iraq's constitution and in its laws.
We should refocus our efforts on making federalism work for all Iraqis. It is past time to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own.
John Edwards
"The situation in Iraq is too serious for any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ photo ops. It's good that the violence is down in Anbar Province, but it's a homogeneous area that lacks the ethnic conflict that's plaguing the rest of the country. Iraq needs a comprehensive political solution and our brave troops deserve better than more of the president's rhetoric that clings to a failed strategy.
"Sadly, now more than ever, we know this president will stop at nothing to keep his failed Iraq strategy going. As we recently learned, the president is so confident Congress won’t stand up to him in this fall’s funding decisions that he’s actually going to increase his request to fund the surge by another $50 billion—on top of the original $147 billion supplemental he requested.
“This week, when Congress returns, they will have to confront President Bush's failed Iraq strategy head on. Enough is enough.
"When Congress comes back, they should stand firm: No timeline, no funding. No excuses."
This hit my in box from the Dodd campaign today and is just too interesting not to post on:
MANCHESTER, NH -- In response to criticism of his recent foreign policy pronouncements, Senator Obama has pointed to his opposition to the Iraq war while he was a State Senator from Illinois. However, he has neglected to mention that he said that he did not know what he would have done if he were in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote to authorize the war.
"In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time. 'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'" [New York Times, 7/26/04]
"Senator Obama's position as a state senator rings hollow in light of the fact that he himself says he doesn't know how he would have voted as a U.S. Senator," said Chris Dodd. "It's going to take leadership in the U.S. Senate to end the war in Iraq. That's why I led the fight for a firm deadline and clearly and unequivocally stated my opposition to supplemental funding for George Bush's failed policy - something that can't be said of all the candidates."
Someone in Dodd's oppo research team has certainly been busy, and they may have struck gold with this. This goes right at one of Obama's principal claims to leadership: he knows better than the other candidates on Iraq, and, by implication, foreign policy generally. It also hits Obama's credibility. As such, it's too strong a hit to let go unanswered by Obama's campaign. It will be interesting to see the response.
At 4:00 CDT today, Chris Dodd will be doing a live blog event over at FireDogLake to discuss his plans to introduce an amendment to the upcoming Defense Authorization bill that would end American military involvement in Iraq. According to a press release from the Dodd campaign, the ammendment will:
Immediately begin redeployment of U.S. combat troops.
Set a firm deadline for completing redeployment by March 31, 2008.
Provide no additional funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008.
Hold the Bush Administration accountable during the redeployment period by requiring the Secretary of Defense to regularly report to Congress on the drawdown of forces.
Institute measures that would make funding within the redeployment period contingent on the progress of phased redeployment.
Restore the readiness of the military, Reserves and National Guard by transferring portions of monies that would have been available for combat activities.
"The current policy in Iraq has left us less secure and left our standing in the world in tatters. That is why we have to continue the fight to change course," Dodd said in a press release issued by the campaign. "The Dodd Amendment will improve accountability, provide a timetable for the Iraqi government to get its house in order, and safely and responsibly redeploy our troops and bring them home. Now is the time to responsibly bring an end to our involvement in another country's civil war while rebuilding our Reserve and Guard units."
Should be an interesting on-line event, so check it out. Again that's 4:00 CDT today at FireDogLake.
Tom Harkin's phones will be ringing today. From the inbox today, this note from MoveOn.org:
"Democrats in Congress are currently working on a new Iraq bill that they're going to send to the president after he vetoed the last one. There is a lot of pressure on them right now to weaken the restrictions on the president.
Some news reports suggest that final bill may not include a deadline to end the occupation in Iraq and instead include a set of benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. We have to make clear that benchmarks alone are not enough to end the war.
It's really important that Democrats hear from their constituents today. Can you call Sen. Harkin and tell him to stand firm against President Bush and demand concrete action to end the war—not just symbolic benchmarks?
Democrats need to keep up the fight against President Bush on Iraq right now. They have the people behind them—more than 60 percent of the country backs their proposals to bring our troops home. Even Congressional Republicans are starting to abandon the president on the war. John Boehner, the minority leader in the House said yesterday that Republican support for the president would not last. While setting benchmarks to measure the Iraqi government's progress is a good step, they aren't enough to end the war. There must be consequences if the benchmarks aren't met and Congress must begin bringing our troops home from the mess in Iraq.
The voters elected Democrats to power to end the war. Now is the time for them to stand up and fight the president for real accountability on the war.
The next few days are critical. Please call Sen. Harkin and tell him that you're counting on them to stand up to President Bush and end this war.
Thanks for all you do,
–Nita, Justin, Tom, Carrie and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team"
I haven't heard that Harkin is wavering on Iraq after the veto, but it never hurts to tell public officials what you want. Give Senator Harkin a call and use the link above to report the result. It's another way to make your voice heard.
John Edwards today put up an ad in the D.C. market (and on YouTube) to urge Congress (and the four senators in it who are competing with him for the nomination) to stand up against the administration and vote to override President Bush's veto. All the other candidates have probably been thinking along the same lines about this, but today Chris Dodd came right out and said it:
"As Senator Dodd was the first candidate to support the Reid-Feingold measure, we agree that Democrats in the Senate should stand up to a President who stubbornly refuses to change his failed policy in Iraq," said [Dodd spokesperson] Christy Setzer. "We wish that Senator Edwards was still in the Senate for this important fight."
Setzer added: "If we can't get his vote in the Senate, of course we would welcome Senator Edwards ' support for Senator Dodd's plan, which would safely re-deploy our troops and bring an end to this war within one year rather than the incremental eighteen-month approach he has proposed."
In other words, Dodd is calling Edwards out for throwing stones at him (and Clinton, Obama and Biden into the bargain) from the sidelines while not putting any skin in the fight himself. All well and good, Dodd is evidently saying, to vote to authorize the war and then cop a mea culpa for it after leaving office (and any electoral responsibility for the consequences), but what are you actually in a position to do about the war, not after you're elected president, but right now?
Does Chris Dodd have a point? Maybe so. John Edwards knew before releasing this ad what everyone else knows, too: that with but few exceptions, Democrats in Congress would vote to override the veto. That was never in question, and to put up an ad that suggests otherwise was disingenuous and unfair.
But there is a larger point, and episodes like this one cause me to wonder whether Dodd, or Edwards, or anyone else in the field sees it: regardless of past actions on the war and the numerous apologies meant to assuage responsibility for them, the fight now is about curbing President Bush's ability to do further harm to the interests of the United States and the entire world. Sniping over the airwaves won't get this done. Every Democratic candidate for President should - and does - vigorously oppose this war and seeks to bring it to an end. There are different ideas about how best to do that, but that discussion must not be allowed to distract from the challenge at hand: rising above the political temptations of the moment in order to deliver a responsible way out of the historic tragedy of our Iraq misadventure. Let's keep our eye on the ball.
Skipped around the web today to find out what the Democratic candidates for President are saying in the aftermath of President Bush's veto yesterday of the Iraq funding bill. Here's what I found, in alphabetical order.
"At a time when the country needs real leadership the most, President Bush continues to practice the politics of division. There was room to work with the Democrats and Congress to give our troops the money they need and the American people the plan they expect to end the war in Iraq. But the President slammed the door shut on cooperation and compromise. The fact is - Democrats sent the President every dollar he requested for our troops and then some. And we sent him a plan to bring this war to a responsible end, instead of continuing it with no end in sight. That's what the American people want. The President's veto demonstrates that he is totally out of touch with the needs of our troops, the hopes of our people and the interests of our country. The President has repeatedly turned his back on our military. He took us to war unnecessarily without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He took us to war without a plan to stabilize Iraq. He took us to war without enough troops, without the right equipment for the troops we sent, or the proper care for those who came home wounded. Now, by continuing this war indefinitely, he is sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours; extending the time they spend in Iraq; abolishing the practice of keeping them home for a year between tours; and diverting the National Guard and Reserve from critical missions here at home. Nothing is more outrageous than the President's claim that those who criticize his conduct of the war are undermining our troops or emboldening the enemy. That's the one mission his failed policy has accomplished."
"With his veto today, President Bush has made it clear that he is standing in the way of ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. The nation is ready for the President to stop disregarding the will of the American people and to work with Democrats on a funding bill that will enable us to begin redeploying our troops. He has a chance to do just that when he meets with the Democratic leadership tomorrow. It has been four years since the President declared an end to major combat operations. It is my hope that the President will approach this next round of talks in good faith. I am also disappointed that with his veto, the President has taken us back a step in meeting the homeland security needs of our high-threat cities like New York City and vetoed $35 million in additional funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative. In addition, with his veto, the President has shirked his responsibility to address the growing health needs affecting those exposed to the toxic air around Ground Zero in the wake of 9/11 and vetoed $50 million in funding for 9/11 health, which would not only have helped provide treatment to those affected in the New York metro area, but also to responders from all over the country who are suffering from 9/11 health effects. This funding would have helped meet immediate health needs and allow 9/11 health programs to continue operating. Despite the President's actions today, I will continue to fight, along with my colleagues in the New York delegation, to secure the federal commitment and funding required to meet 9/11 health needs in the long-term. The President has also chosen to veto critical legislation that would have ended the practice of giving Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contractors bonuses for incomplete or sub-par work, thereby saving taxpayers millions of dollars."
Dodd: Nothing that I could find. Not on his campaign website. Not on his Senate website.
"Today, President Bush vetoed a bill that supports our troops and ends the war in Iraq that he declared won four years ago. "Four years ago he flew onto the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln under a 'Mission Accomplished' banner to declare victory in Iraq. Today, all the photo ops in the world can't hide the truth - the war is still raging, and the president's mismanagement of Iraq is still dead wrong. Our troops have done everything they were asked and deserve a hero's welcome. Instead, they remain in harm's way; Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists; and we're no closer to a permanent political solution than we were four years ago. But one thing has changed: The American people have given Congress a mission to end the war - but that mission hasn't been accomplished yet. Congress needs to stand firm and strong. Congress should answer the president's veto by sending him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal. And if he vetoes that one, Congress should send him another and another until we end this war and bring our troops home. There is no military solution to the conflict in Iraq - only a political solution. The Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own country. Under my plan, we would cap funding at 100,000 troops to stop the McCain Doctrine of escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in 12-18 months. Now is not the time for political calculation, it is the time for political courage. Every person who is against this war needs to speak out, so together we can bring an end to the quagmire that is Iraq."
"With one stroke of his pen, President Bush has stubbornly ignored the will of the American people, the majority of Congress and, most disturbingly, the realities on the ground in Iraq. Now we call upon our Republican colleagues in Congress to help override this veto and acknowledge what the President will not – that there is no military solution to a political conflict that lies at the heart of this civil war. Only the Iraqi leadership can make peace, and the best way to pressure them to do so is still a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat troops from Iraq by March 30th, 2008. It is time to end this war so we can bring our troops home and redeploy our forces to help fight the broader struggle against terrorism and other threats of this new century."
"The President is defying the will of the American people so it is time for Congress to take action that cannot be vetoed," said Governor Bill Richardson. "It is clear to all but the President that no military solution remains in Iraq. Mr. President, stubbornness is not foreign policy. The death of more than 100 U.S. soldiers there last month underscores the need to withdraw our brave men and women now. To continue with more of the same is not a strategy, it is a tragedy. The only solution is strong diplomacy and real political progress led by the Iraqis. Our troops have performed bravely, with honor and sacrifice, but it is time to get them out of the crossfire of a civil war. We need to redeploy all of our forces out of Iraq leaving no residual forces. Al Qaeda and other anti-American forces benefit from our continued presence in Iraq- it enables them to portray the US as imperialist occupiers- we need to deprive them of that propaganda. The truth is our enemies want us mired and bleeding in Iraq rather than fighting the real war against the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11."
There's also good read about this in today's Washington Post.
"Congress is about to send an important bill to the White House—it would require the president to start bringing our troops home from Iraq this year. President Bush has said repeatedly he's going to veto it. It's outrageous. Most Americans support a timeline and he's standing in the way.
This will be a pivotal moment on Iraq—it's not clear what Congress or the president will do after the veto. We need to make clear that President Bush is really vetoing the will of the American people. And we need to tell Congress to hold firm.
There are already more than 200 rallies planned and it's really important to turn out in big numbers to get our message across. There is one right near you in Des Moines. Can you make it tomorrow?
Four years ago today, President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Now there is a plan on the table that will finally start bringing our troops home—but the president is going to veto it. By doing so, he's vetoing the will of the people.
Congress has two options on how to respond—they can either cave to the president's pressure or stand strong and demand accountability from him on Iraq. Members of Congress are going to be gauging public reaction in the next few days to decide which path they'll follow.
There's also a fun twist to these rallies: We'll be using noisemakers to demonstrate that President Bush and Congress cannot ignore us any longer—our voices must be heard.
As Senator Feingold recently wrote:
By carrying out his veto threat, the President will mark yet another sad day in the history of this war. But that veto should be seen as a rallying cry for the vast majority of Americans who believe that the time has come to again stand up, and stand together, with one voice, and demand a policy that makes sense—one that puts our country and our national security first. A policy that makes America safer, not weaker.
Now is the time to take a strong stand against the president's reckless policy in Iraq. Together, we'll show the media and Congress that we won't stand for another blank check for the president on the war. Can you join us?
Following the House vote on Wednesday, the Senate today passed and sent to the President the final Iraq spending bill. Since the bill contains legally binding provisions for a responsible end to the war, President Bush has vowed he will veto it.
That veto will be a turning point in the political struggle over our country’s Iraq policy. With no dictator left to depose, no weapons of mass destruction ever discovered, no link between Saddam and al Qaeda ever credibly established, and not a shred of legitimacy left to the administration’s original premises for starting the Iraq war, the administration and their Republican supporters in congress have stuck their head in the sand, repeating the word “progress” – none of them speaks about victory anymore – as though the word itself will rescue them from the consequences of their own policy failures. They have simply run out of options, out of ideas, and out of time. It is obvious that President Bush’s supporters now see, with the clarity peculiar to the blind, no other recourse for themselves but to follow their leader off a cliff, and are trying to drag the next president – and the country - over the brink with them. Americans will have none of it.
When President Bush issues his veto, it will mark the crossing of the final threshold of public patience with his administration and his war. Congressional Republicans may succeed in thwarting an override of Bush’s veto, this time. But all that does is put the issue right back in play without having moved the debate once inch in the administration’s direction. And with each passing week of public anger over the war, what support the president has left for his policies from congressional Republicans will steadily ebb away, finally disappearing altogether by Labor Day. When the veto occurs, mark it on your calendars as the day George W. Bush became a lame duck in office.
