Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Vindication for Ken Salazar on Iraq?

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:26:42 AM MDT


The Denver Post's Politics West blog reported on Friday:

Sen. Ken Salazar's proposal to end the war in Iraq is gaining steam with the U.S. Senate's top leader, according to the Washington Post.

The newspaper reported that a bill co-sponsored by the Colorado Democrat and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., is being re-considered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a way to forge a bipartisan compromise on the Iraq conflict.

The Salazar-Alexander proposal would transform the recommendations of the Iraq study group into official U.S. policy.

Released in December 2006, the Iraq study group report called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq and dialogue with Iran and Syria as part of a new diplomatic push in the Middle East...

Relax, we're not going to gloat. What we will do is remind our readers of all the hell we caught for having the temerity to defend Sen. Salazar against some of the most bitter criticism we've ever seen leveled against a Democrat by other Democrats. We saw this summer how well the anti-war left's uncompromising, unrealistic notions for ending the war flew in the real world -- they didn't. Harry Reid pandered to them and got burned. As the Washington Post notes:

Reid's unwavering stance this summer earned him critics who said he was playing politics by refusing to bargain with antiwar Republicans. In the interview, he said that his goal remains an immediate return of U.S. troops but that now is the time to work with the GOP...

Will antiwar liberals allow the grownups in the Senate to work out a bipartisan solution to Iraq with a meaningful chance of success, or do they plan to keep squatting in Democrat congressional offices, accomplishing nothing while alienating friends and foes alike?

It's put up or shut up time as Congress resumes the debate today--and say what you will about him, Ken Salazar has a strong hand to play.
Colorado Pols :: Vindication for Ken Salazar on Iraq?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vindication for Ken Salazar on Iraq? | 64 comments
Question
Do you really believe that its "antiwar liberals" who are the only adults who want us out of Iraq as soon as reasonable possibe? Was it "grownups" in the Senate who allowed this incompetent administration to have their way in what has been called by other grownups the most reckless, dangerous and stupid foreign police debacle in history? Politicians react to constituent pressure. Would you deny this? Are you saying that protests like "squatting in Democratic congressional office (certainly not representative of the full blown anti-war protests seen around the world for years) is accomplishing nothing? Puhleeeze!

"In short, we eat oil" ardy39

Wanting out of Iraq...
does not automatically mean agreeing with far-left/antiwar left ideas for how to go about it.
And let's not ignore the fact that the movement does have its share of shrill broken records who criticize everything but are awfully short on actual ideas.
Short on actual ideas ?
the only way the US salvages any success and dignity in Iraq is to withdraw in conjunction with a broad implementation of the "Model Communities" approach. 

And that approach originated with a Democratic candidate for CD-5 in Colorado. 
/

[ Parent ]
Tell us how you really feel
You are much to subtle in posts like this :)

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!
The working draft...
referred to 'shrill self-rightous screamers', but I decided I didn't need the redundancy, or the alliteration for that matter.
[ Parent ]
If the "grownups" are in the Senate are going to save us then we are truly screwed
This post was in itself juvenile and ridiculous.  Us antiwar liberals have every right to be pissed off and livid that our country was taken into a war that has robbed us of our generation's military, economy, future prosperity, and reputation around the world.  Don't you dare be condescending towards those of us who support antiwar protest and actions.  Forget ColoradoPols - this is one Colorado blog that will be very easy to leave and never read again.  There are other CO blogs that do not demean their reader's beliefs and value critical thinking.  Or perhaps ColoradoPols is just channeling the guilt that babyboomers have for screwing over all the future generations of Americans - way to go!
You're right
Don't forget, the anti-war liberals have been right on this disasterous mistake since the beginning. But politico's and the media are still talking to the wrong talking heads every day, as if they will once say something correct. Well, it's been over 4 years and they're still wrong.


"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole
[ Parent ]
Salazar's answer is a variation on "stay the course."

what patriotic American could support that ?
/
[ Parent ]
Being honest
In the area of warfare, we as a nation excel in the area of bombing others into the stoneage.  We really suck in the area of boots on the ground.  Japan and Germany were successes due to brutal bombing campaigns and the number of enemy combatants left that were still willing to die.  Most "grownups" in the senate are as clueless as Salazar when it comes to presuming American righteousness on any battlefield and most especially in presuming that American technology trumps everything, unless one counts Grenada, Panama, or any other imaginary "great Republican victory." The closest Ken Salazar came to seeing the folly of war was the day he laid his uniformed father to rest.  Regarding his bonafides, one might begin and end with his embarassing assessment of Alberto Gonzales and realize that some men are limited by the company they keep and the men/women they admire.  Lay down with dogs (Alexander or any other Republican) wake up with fleas. 

"To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?" Mark Twain 1906
Kiss Ass Ken Strikes Again
Will antiwar liberals allow the grownups in the Senate to work out a bipartisan solution to Iraq with a meaningful chance of success, or do they plan to keep squatting in Democrat congressional offices, accomplishing nothing while alienating friends and foes alike?

We've had pleanty of "bipartisan adulthood" from Kiss Ass Ken already. The only thing he accomplishes is dividing the Democratic caucus and getting mugged by the GOP. Google "Stockholm Syndrome." Pathetic, really.

We'll see what happens
The Democratic Majority as a whole has failed to do anything substantial to end the war. The fact that any Dem is getting together with any 'pub to do something is heartening.

Keep in mind political reality, folks. You need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. Do you think you'll get the necessary GOP support by making My-way-or-the-highway demands?

I'm not ready to give Salazar credit for moving forward - we need to see what plan actually moves forward, and see what he put in and what he gave up - but it's encouraging.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

good post...
I'm with you. It's frustrating but without 60 votes we need to  have patience. It's not easy but that's the reality.

That said I will never vote for Ken Salazar again. Anyone who is comfortable with dismantling a right guaranteed since the Magna Carta is not fit to hold any elected office in the land - from US Senator to local dog catcher.

[ Parent ]
forget 60 votes

I want my Senator to vote consistently in favor of what's best for the country,
and that does not include any variation on "stay the course."
/
[ Parent ]
Please keep us updated
on the success of the ISG recommendation vote. I'm waiting to see which gay Republican senator filibusters the bill so Preznit George Bush's Glorious Terrist Killing Surge™ can succeed. Any day now........:
SANCHEZ: All right.

Michael, if this is an unsatisfactory report card, the question to you has to be, you are on the ground. You see things with your own eyes and ears. Does what you see on the ground jibe with what this report says?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely.

In fact, anyone who has had to endure this war day by day, be they Iraqi or non-Iraqis, knows what's in that report is patently fact. We don't need yet another report, like a broken record, during this season of pre-September 15 reports, to tell us this.

Militarily, yes, there's some successes. The surge is the surge. The real success is coming from the tradeoff with the Sunni insurgency. But, politically, it's an absolute disaster.

I think you guys need to stick with which county commissioner is trying to recall which.

The "Liberalism is a Sickness" user is an Ignorant Asshole

Just Because Other Dems Are Captiulating...
I love how it is considered "vindication" when one Senator potentially gets his other Senate colleagues to capitulate. That is "vindication" apparently - even though not a single person has said that Salazar's bill actually does anything at all to end the war.

What a sad, cynical way to frame things - really. When you are so obsessed with the political game, and don't care that people are dying every day in Iraq, that you call a potential capitulation a wonderful "vindication."

Bipartisanship = moving forward
The Dems are weak and have low approval ratings now because they can't find a way to bring the troops home "immediately".  Besides being logistically impossible, an immediate withdrawal would make the situation worse.

Antiwar liberals have every right to be pissed, but must realize that Dems win if they work with the Republicans. Over the last year we've heard the antiwar liberals' rhetoric about withdrawing troops.  We've heard the rhetoric about speaking to other Arab nations. Now Salazar wishes to make these points part of policy, and the liberal Dems do what they do best - whine.

Dem leadership has stalled in Congress. Dems who wish for leadership are more likely to follow Senator Salazar than Reid.

Moving Forward?
Shall we use the Republican model displayed prior to 2006.  Can't think of a thing to compromise about, Republican ideology is so out of touch as to make compromise seem nothing less than a deal with the devil. "Dems who wish for leadership are more likely to follow Senator Salazar than Reid"  Is this a typo meaning to read, "Republicans who wish for leadership are more likely to follow Senator Salazar than Reid?"  It certainly makes more sense to me, just give Salazar a couple more years and he will likely pull a NightHorse Campbell.  I seriously doubt a Democratic primary victory (There will be one in 2010), that would most definitely require the love of your own party.

"To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?" Mark Twain 1906
[ Parent ]
You prove my point
Great line: "can't think of a thing to compromise about".

I can:
- troop withdrawal timeline
- benchmarks for withdrawal
- countries to include in Iraq future planning

Those are just off the top of my head.  Republicans and Democrats are out of touch and need to find a way to move forward to get us out of this war.

If you see working with Republicans as 'dealing with the devil' than you're too far left to make anything happen.  If Republicans follow Sen. Salazar than the logjam in Congress could break and there could be steps towards ending the war.

But antiwar liberals won't do that. They're right, everyone else is wrong. End the war now, no other option.

[ Parent ]
$600 Thousand Million for Defense? ***
***I use "Thousand Million" for the math impaired, which very much afflicts most "US Americans" in the USA, especially as demonstrated by Miss Teen South Carolina, no doubt a future Republican "Trophy Wife" We have been desensitized to the true value of a $ billion dollars, thanks to our bloated and incompetent military, the fattest hog at any trough in the known universe.

Pentagon can't even secure its own computers
(Not to mention the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11)

Submitted by Rick Perlstein on September 4, 2007 - 12:24pm.
And these people think they can neutralize Iran?

The Chinese military hacked into a Pentagon computer network in June in the most successful cyber attack on the US defense department, say American ­officials.

The Pentagon acknowledged shutting down part of a computer system serving the office of Robert Gates, defense secretary, but declined to say who it believed was behind the attack.

Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the People's Liberation Army

"To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?" Mark Twain 1906

[ Parent ]
Troop Withdrawal?????
Isn't that "surrender?"

Apparently you haven't read the GAO assessment regarding benchmarks, with only 3 of 18 being made.  The only WH admission to a problem was "setting the bar too high"
"- countries to include in Iraq future planning" Why not use the KISS Formula and let IRAQ be the only country to include?  After all if you are not part of the solution, you are most definitely part of the problem.  "Freedom's on the march"  LOL

"To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?" Mark Twain 1906

[ Parent ]
"immediately"?
You put the word immediately in quotes, but you don't say who you are quoting.  I don't know these people who want to leave "immediately".  I know people, including myself, who want to start immediately on the planning necessary to get out of the war. 

[ Parent ]
not quoting
I wrote 'immediately' because we can't leave right away. I wasn't quoting anyone specific.

Yes, let's immediately start planning to get the troops home. But personally I don't want to withdraw troops if the conflict will be expanded in Iraq. My opinion only, which is quite unpopular with lefties here.

[ Parent ]
Who gets the final say?
So, who gets to say if the conflict will worsen in Iraq if we leave?  At this point Bush has fired any general who's been kind enough to point out that Iraq wasn't planned well and wasn't working out, so I wouldn't trust most of them; I certainly wouldn't trust anyone in the Administration.  That doesn't leave a lot of people to trust on such an evaluation.

And what constitutes worsening the situation in Iraq?  Is that a month of increased violence?  A year?  An overall delta between leaving them alone vs. staying?  It is almost certain that initially conflict would worsen; that is probably true were we to stay another decade.

Enlighten me, please...  I'm a big supporter of our obligation to a nation we invaded, but I'm not being convinced that our current policy is best fulfilling that obligation.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
Everyone's entitled to their opinion...
I recently came across this one. Brian Fishman is an anti-terrorist trainer at West Point. I don't think he's a "leftie":

BRIAN FISHMAN: I wrote last summer and I stand by it that I think we need to be moving troops out of Iraq-- soon. And I think that what's very important in my mind, and this has been bandied about a little bit in the media recently, is that it's not good enough to leave 20,000 or 30,000 troops in Iraq because that's not going to do it. Because if we haven't established an Iraqi government that can control territory on its own, then 20,000 or 30,000 Americans isn't going to be able to control that territory either. And those 20,000 or 30,000 Americans are going to remain a sticking point and a propaganda tool for al Qaeda around the world. So I really worry about this option of drawing down to 30,000 or 40,000 troops. I think if we're going to draw down that far, you've got to go all the way.

http://www.pbs.org/m...

[ Parent ]
I don't want an immediate withdrawal
I want 6 to 8 weeks to hand over control to an authentic indigenous local leader who will secure his community. 
After that, our troops have no business hanging around.

Not for US interests.

maybe for Chevron interests ?
/

[ Parent ]
We hanged that guy......


"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
there is no longer a nation Iraq
I mean, we hand over town by town, neighborhood by community
[ Parent ]
General reply
If our tone didn't signal it, we are growing impatient with the hard left--present company exlcuded--and their apparently shameless partisan maneuvering on the Iraq war. The fact that Harry Reid is willing to listen to Salazar and his bipartisan proposal now is a sign of realism, not weakness. In all the anger expressed at us over noting this story, where is your response to the basic point--that the Senate Majority Leader is taking a second look at Salazar's proposal?

We await an explanation why all these people are dissing the Iraq Study Group plan when they loved it in December 2006. We haven't seen a satisfactory one. Could it be that some voices are just as determined to exploit the Iraq war for partisan purposes as the Bush administration was in 2002 and 2004? The fact is they are wrong (now, they weren't before) about the ISG report, which candidly supports the case against continuing the war and plans for a quick exit from Iraq and diplomacy to heal its lingering wounds. We are at a loss to explain the vitriol directed at Salazar over his ISG bill other than to view at as cynical posturing in advance of the 2008 elections. How do you, gentle reader, respond to the charge that many liberal Democrats don't want the GOP getting any credit for a solution to Iraq, and are willing to obstruct, temporize, even flip-flop (as seems to be the case here) in pursuit of that goal? You can't insist on unrealistic solutions and then throw a tantrum when nobody listens.

To address a larger point about some national blog firebrands (not necessarily David Sirota), we're not sure about their motives anymore concerning the Iraq war. We know how powerful many of them feel after Ned Lamont and 2006 in general. What concerns us is that they now look around and all they seem to see are Joe Liebermans. It's a little Robespierre and frightening, and we hope they pause for some introspection before it's too late.

We support, just like Mark "Immoral Coward" Udall supports, ending the Iraq war, and we look forward to retaining our credibility on the other side of this important debate.

Exploitation in General
........is over rated.  Regarding the ability to look into the future and see where Iraq is headed was made abundantly clear by the Vietnam analogy being used at this stage.  Very similar to blaming Bill Clinton for a problem started by Geo. H.W. Bush, e.g. the Afghan/Russian deal with the Bin Ladens not to mention his sordid involvement in the Vietnam war, especially the wonderful idea of drowning over a quarter million North Vietnamese CIVILIANS by bombing the dikes.  The most named enemy by the Republicans from the Vietnam war is a WOMAN by the name of Jane Fonda, not Lt. William Calley, not Colin Powell or a general named William Westmoreland who makes Tommy Franks look intelligent.  The question for Colorado Pols is this, after all the incompetence and especially all the immorality displayed by our military as well as the private contractors, what makes you think we have any credibility left?  We are patrolling the streets with Abrahms tanks, 50 caliber and M-60 machine guns, men are dressed in battle armor that makes Chicago cops look like pacifists.  When comparing the future with the present, how on earth could the Iraqis fare worse than they already have. Spend a little time on Google Earth and look at some of the scenes in Fallujah.  Regarding Ken Salazar's leadership ability, you've set the bar pretty low, no?

"To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?" Mark Twain 1906
[ Parent ]
General Response
I probably I am not the best person to respond to your questions, becuase I have turned on Salazar for his complicity in the Bush administration's dismantling of the Bill of Rights, and not for the softness of his position on the war.  Nonetheless, a few points:

(1) I agree it may be better to work with Republicans to the extent necessary to get 60 votes instead of holding out for an ideal bill.  Not letting the perfect get in the way of the good, as my wife would say.  However, the bill with concessions has to have teeth; it has to have the force of law and not just urge or call on the administration to consider something or do something.  We all know this administration will not listen.

(2) Working with the other side can be done out of good intentions (e.g., furthering the national interest) or out of political expediency, just like standing on a supposed ideological principle.  Based on his performance to date, I don't trust Salazar to act out of principle, and I don't trust him to sell out (i.e., agree to something with no teeth)if that's what it takes to get something passed that allows him to claim credit as the great statesman.

(3) I will not trust Salazar on this issue until he strongly, openly, and unwaveringly advocates for passage of a bill that will carry the force of law.  I have yet to see him do that.

(4) By and large I thought the commission recommendations made a lot of sense when they came out a year ago.  The administration ignored them.  By the time anything could pass now giving them the force of law, a year would have passed.  A year is a long time in this context.  Steps that may have had a chance of mitigating a disaster a year ago may not have that chance now.  Unless a compelling case can be made that keeping significant US forces in Iraq for another year while implementing the commission recommendations will have a real chance of significantly improving the ultimate outcome, I do not think a thousand more American lives should be sacraficed for the sake of a politically expedient compromise.

(5) I have yet to hear Salazar or anyone else make that case since last winter.  Until I hear him make it, I am inclined to believe this bill is about seeking the politically expedient compromise and not about doing what's best.

[ Parent ]
Amen.

[ Parent ]
Where to start...
Why don't we like the ISG proposal?  Perhaps it's precisely *because* it was on the verge of dated in December of 2006.  The conclusions of the ISG were barely doable back then - they were based on analysis from 6-18 months previous; since that time, things have deteriorated, changed or otherwise made about half of the ISG proposal completely outdated.

Perhaps we see that our troops are completely and totally overstretched, their equipment is still not being properly supplied and/or maintained, and that we simply, statistically, cannot maintain this pace for the length of time that even the most optimistic view of the ISG plan would take to implement from Iraq's current situation.  Your own assessment notwithstanding, the ISG report - and in particular Salazar's implementation of it - does not contain a strict (or even mostly strict) withdrawal schedule.

I have no objection to the GOP getting some credit for ending this; in fact, the only alternative to that eventuality is the Democrats not caving to Bush when he next asks for $200b or so to continue the war. 

Finally, I don't know how you expect to maintain any credibility when you haven't accepted a basic premise of this debate: the GOP has not and will not deviate from their instructed path.  Last year, several GOP Senators stood up briefly against the war, but when it came time for the vote, they all withdrew under Mitch McConnell's watchful eye.  When push comes to shove, do not expect Lamar Alexander to continue to stand with Salazar - or if he does, expect him to stand with fewer than 9 of his colleagues as the GOP once again filibusters the vote.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
I'm as frustrated with Salazar
and the Dem leadership as anyone, but our hold on the Senate is still pretty much just a technicality that gives us committees, investigations and subpoenas, not 60 or even 51 votes. The best way to get to a real start on real change in Iraq prior to January 2009 is to find a way of giving a significant group of Republicans something they can feel willing to sign on to.  In light of that reality, I'm inclined to mostly agree with ColPols. 
[ Parent ]
No. Don't give the GOP weasels cover.
make them vote against US interests, again and again.
/
[ Parent ]
So it IS all politics for you?
Your preoccupation with sticking it to the Rs over any concern for getting ANYTHING done to bring some troops out o harm's way sooner kind of illustrates Pols' point. 
[ Parent ]
the Iraq Study Group is about "stay the course"
and providing political cover to Bush,
so he can gradually withdraw and say it is all part of his geo-strategic genius plan. 

the ISG plan is a slow bleed by soldiers to prevent any damage to the GOP.
/

[ Parent ]
Bottom line - We can't win in Iraq
Ok, I'm pretty moderate and I'm old (almost 52). I try to listen to both sides and I remain hopeful for the future of our country.

I also read a ton of history. Probably 2 - 3 books/month. This does not make me an expert per-se but it does give me a rather large level of knowledge on what has and has not worked before.

And the bottom line is unless we are willing to send 700,000 - 2,000,000 troops to Iraq and are willing to be absolutely brutal imposing a reign of terror, we can't win. I'm not sure we ever could but clearly at this point we cannot.

And for anyone who syas there is a way forward for us in Iraq - give me a single example from any conflict in history that is somewhat similiar and was successful. The closest was when we went into the Phillipenes and we were incredibly brutal there.

- dave

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

Love history as well
Moving forward, IMO, does not mean military gains.  Moving forward means getting out of Iraq.

Salazar is showing leadership by presenting a bill that puts into policy the ISG's recommendations. Too little too late, but if the Dem leadership hadn't jerked around so much we would be further down the path.

If the Dems can't bully the Administration or the Congressional Republicans into doing the right thing, they must find another way.

Is Salazar's way the best? Probably not, but it does offer an opportunity for Republicans to show they are interested in leaving Iraq without embarrassing them.

[ Parent ]
Someone remind me...
Just what exactly does the ISG and in particular Salazar's proposed legislation do to actually get us out of the civil war in Iraq?

'cause the last time Salazar's proposal came up, I believe the analysis was: it did NOTHING.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
Other than giving the Salazaristas a chance to bellow about what a bipartisan, team-building kind of guy he is...
you're right: it will do nothing.
[ Parent ]
yup, you and Canine are right
The bill would not get us out of Iraq.

Neither has anything else the Democrats have come up with, thus far. 

So, if I understand correctly, antiwar liberals discount Salazar's bill because:

1) they don't like Alberto Gonzales,
2) they don't like wiretaps,
and
3) his bill won't end the war tomorrow.

[ Parent ]
We discount the bill...
because IT WON'T DO ANYTHING USEFUL.  What's to like about a bill that might make people feel good without actually doing anything to solve the problems we've created in Iraq?

The new Vatican-sized U.S. Embassy in Iraq is opening and our bases are already established; neither of those says "the U.S. will leave eventually".  We're pushing - yes, even a number of high-profile Democrats - for an "oil sharing agreement" that's nothing less than a Western corporate rape of Iraq's oil, and not at all helping us to set the new Iraqi government on its feet.

Simple statement, take it or leave it: until we radically change our policy toward Iraq, we will not even begin to solve the problems we face there.  Salazar's bill won't get us there.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
As a follow-up...
If you're looking for something that can be done right now - short of having a mass Republican Conversion - I suggest you look to a proposal that the Democrats actually managed to pass back this Spring (and then caved when Bush vetoed it...):

Don't continue to allocate funds towards the prosecution of the war.

A budget bill cannot be filibustered and the consequences of the President's veto are simply that he's decided that no money is better than money with conditions.  Are we really that scared that the President is such an egomaniac that he'd rather cut off funding to the troops rather than accept an alternative that doesn't include continued prosecution of this occupation?

The Democrats can pass a supplementary budget that allocates funds for the orderly withdrawal of troops from Iraq, including any slow draw-down peacekeeping arrangments that need to happen to get the bill passed and to Do The Right Thing - as much as that is practicable given the situation.  If Bush doesn't like it, well, the alternative is that BUSH abandons the troops and we can see how many GOP Senators are willing to cross the line to override the veto rather than go down with the GWB Titanic.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
Yes!


Amazon tax? Bad Idea!
[ Parent ]
Here, Here!
Thanks, Phoenix.

"In short, we eat oil" ardy39

[ Parent ]
reply to the follow up
What has changed in the last three months to make you think that the Dems would do this?

Bush vetos the bill and the Dems look bad. Dems lose on the funding issue. Americans see the Dems as the ones who are cutting off funds to the troops, not the other way around.

Dems cut funding. Bush vetos.
again, again, and again.
A great way for Americans to restore their faith in our politicians.

Here's an idea on how to Do The Right Thing,

work with the Republicans, set policy that allows the politicians cover when they return to their districts next November and you'll get your votes necessary for a veto override.

[ Parent ]
Faulty premise...
Why assume that the GOP wants to act rationally for the common good? At this point they're a party of pure ideology and don't want to join the reality-based community. Engage with them and get mugged. Period.
[ Parent ]
Who says the Dems look bad?
Immediately after they caved, they lost a huge chunk of their approval rating.

Dems only looked bad when they looked in the D.C. "inside-the-beltway" mirror. If they try to pass a bill that supports the troops with the funds necessary to plan an orderly and peaceable withdrawal, and add in "rebuild our Army" funding to replenish our depleted supplies, then they will have few problems selling the plan.  Bush can't complain that they're not funding the troops, only that they're not funding his war.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
what's another 1,000 soldier deaths between friends ?

[ Parent ]
I believe that is the patriotic, America-first option.
cut of the megalomaniac. 
[ Parent ]
What Salazar's bill could give us
Correct me if I'm wrong on this Phoenix.

Salazar's bill would put into policy the ISG recommendations which would allow the Dems to say, "Here, we have specific policy recommendations that we are going to use to measure the funding". As of right now, these do not exist in law, do they?

What is wrong with taking one step forward when all the Dems have been trying to do up 'til now hasn't worked?

Will it stop the war, no.  Will it solve the problem, no. Will it allow some Republicans some political cover so that maybe next time there is an appropriations bill the Dems will have the 60 votes necessary? Possibly, yes.

[ Parent ]
We already have that.
We're already in "Magical September", as Kos likes to call it.  In a few days we're going to get a fluffed-up progress report that "everyone agreed" would be a measure of future funding support.  Only it sounds like all we'll get is stonewalling; at least the GAO was honest and pointed out that we and the Iraqi government are completely failing to meet 11 of 18 "benchmarks" (and partially failing others if I read things correctly...).

So, what do we get again?

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
report versus law
Again, putting the ISG recommendations into law allows politicians to do what they do best, use the law to back up their decisions.

Last I checked an Army General's report isn't the law of the land.

[ Parent ]
Since the Salazar bill is non-binding...
Then neither would it be "the law of the land" - more just a sense of the Congress that Bush could waive away with a signing statement, veto, or one more trumped-up feel-good (lying) report.

Sorry, you're not convincing me.  Republicans don't need cover; they haven't needed it for 4 years and running, and if this gets them to the election next year, they won't care about it afterwards, either.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
and the law you propose has no teeth

[ Parent ]
Should have stopped there.
The bill would not get us out of Iraq.

Neither has anything else the Democrats have come up with, thus far.

Yes, exactly.  Other reasoning is speculative.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

[ Parent ]
Please explain
Please explain, roughly, how Salazar's plan will end the war in Iraq.  Just a general outline of what will occur, with a rough timeline.

Because contrary to the thrust of your post, I didn't oppose Salazar's plan because I am a left wing kook who can't stand the idea of compromise.  Rather, I opposed it because I could not see how it would end the war.

Exactly Right
Salazar has discovered that there's a double political benefit from appearing to want to do something while doing nothing. Dante has a special place in hell for these critters.
[ Parent ]
It's a tautology, Emma.
You oppose Salazar, therefore you're a left-wing kook.  What about CoPols' ironclad logic don't you understand?

:-)

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

[ Parent ]
ColoradoTrolls...increasingly shrill
The DLC types are trying to shout us down because they know they're on the low-integrity end of the argument. Yet another thing they've learned on their bipartisan adventures.
[ Parent ]
Empire of Stupidity
Good read

http://www.tomdispat...

"To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?" Mark Twain 1906

[ Parent ]
What it coes down to...
...is a question of comparative destructiveness. In 2010 the choice will be between electing a junior senator from the minority party (the GOP, the brand having been destroyed by Iraq, administrative incompetence and an ideology that begets market failure) or a senior senator with a pattern or undermining his party at critical moments and dividing his caucus (Salazar). At this point I'll probably be voting Green. If the Repug gets elected he'll not be in a position to do as much damage as Salazar, and the defeated Salazar becomes an object lesson about betraying one's friends.
[ Parent ]
Reading about LBJ and Vietnam
I'm reading "At Caanans Edge" which is the last of Taylor Branch's trilogy on the civil rights struggle and Martin Luther King. This last part is as much LBJ and Vietnam as MLK and civil rights.

LBJ was a brillinat president (and did more for civil rights than any other president except Lincoln). He wanted to eliminate poverty and discrimination and fought his own party and the various interest groups to do so.

And he knew Vietnam was a disaster. He talked to his advisors about how nothing they would do could win there. He understood that it was a morass. And yet he felt powerless to stop it and escalated it into a giant war.

This is what I think we are facing today. Those that understand it best realize that the best we can do is just get out - which is still a terrible option. It's just the least worst. But many of those same people also think we cannot leave.

That is why we must continue to push as hard as possible for a quick exit. Because this is too important to reduce to the politically easy.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

You're right David
It isn't a decision that is left to political considerations. It is a moral issue that requires great courage. Fear of what might happen should not stand in the way. The ball is rolling downhill. But it will hit bottom. Better to remove our military from its path. Sad. It didn't have to be this way. 

"In short, we eat oil" ardy39

[ Parent ]
Vindication for Ken Salazar on Iraq? | 64 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 18 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network




















Stay home if you have flu symptoms. Visit www.cdc.gov/h1n1 for more information.


RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Relevant Links

Back Roads to the White House

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

Denver Post

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political Gravy

Politics West

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Rocky Mountain News

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

State 38

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Washington and the West

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox