Tag: Iraq War

Over and over again we’ve seen a pattern from Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-Big Oil). When Democrats in Congress tried to take steps to do what the American people want and bring the troops home from Iraq, Capito called it “playing politics.” But when George W. Bush and his administration plays politics with the lives of troops, we hear only silence from her. So much for her “independence.” The only conclusion that can be reached: Capito likes it when Bush plays politics with the lives of soldiers.

Capito on March 23, 2007 regarding a Congressional bill in support of timelines:

“By giving our enemy a date-certain timeline for withdrawal, we are simply asking them to duck into the shadows and wait for us to leave.  Such timelines hog-tie the hands of our commanders in the field and essentially hand our enemy a roadmap to victory.

Yet the Bush administration reached a timeline agreement with the Iraqi government as reported on Aug. 22, 2008 that sets specific dates.

A deal between American and Iraqi officials was given fresh impetus by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s surprise visit to Baghdad on Thursday. Ms. Rice met with Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi leaders and confirmed that both sides saw the value in “aspirational timetables” to govern the continuing role, mission and size of American forces in Iraq.

She declined to discuss the timing, saying that to go into details of the talks “would be inappropriate at this time.” Instead, she reiterated the consistent American position that decisions must be based on events, not timetables.

…

Iraqi officials were more forthcoming with their interpretation of the draft agreement. In an interview by telephone in Baghdad, Mohammad Hamoud, the chief Iraqi negotiator, said that the draft contained two dates: June 30, 2009, for the withdrawal of American forces from “cities and villages” and Dec. 31, 2011, for combat troops to leave the country altogether.

But we heard nothing from Capito after Bush and the Iraqis agreed, in Capito’s own words, to giving the enemy “a roadmap to victory.”

Capito also on March 23, 2007 expressed her “belief” that decisions should be left to the commanders on the ground:

“Congress has the power of the purse, but it should not micromanage this war or any war by making decisions best left for those on the battlefield.  I want our troops to come home, but I want that decision to be made by our commanders who are basing their decisions on the conditions on the ground and in what is best for the security of our nation.”

Yet we find out today from Bob Woodward’s interviews with Bush and those very same commanders on the ground and in the Pentagon that Bush made decisions for political reasons. He took the decisions out of the hands of the commanders and made the country less safe.

At the Joint Chiefs of Staff in late November 2006, Gen. Peter Pace was facing every chairman’s nightmare: a potential revolt of the other chiefs. Two months earlier, the JCS had convened a special team of colonels to recommend options for reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Now, it appeared that the chiefs’ and colonels’ advice was being marginalized, if not ignored, by the White House.

During a JCS meeting with the colonels Nov. 20, Chairman Pace dropped a bomb: The White House was considering a “surge” of additional troops to quell the violence in Iraq. “Would it be a good idea?” Pace asked the group. “If so, what would you do with five more brigades?” That amounted to 20,000 to 30,000 more troops, depending on the number of support personnel.

Pace’s question caught the chiefs and colonels off guard. The JCS hadn’t recommended a surge, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander, was opposed to one of that magnitude. Where had this come from? Was it a serious option? Was it already a done deal?

Pace said he had another White House meeting in two days. “I want to be able to give the president a recommendation on what’s doable,” he said.

A rift had been growing between the country’s military and civilian leadership, and in several JCS meetings that November, the chiefs’ frustrations burst into the open. They had all but dismissed the surge option, worried that the armed forces were already stretched to the breaking point.

Where is Capito’s criticism that she made before of politicians making decisions instead of the “commanders on the ground”?

It was so important to her that Capito made that point the basis of another statement on Nov. 14, 2007:

“This is yet another politically motivated resolution by the Majority that would undercut the decision-making power of commanders on the ground in Iraq,” said Capito.

And yet that is what top Pentagon officials told Bob Woodward Bush did. Bush was motivated by politics at home to take away their decision to withdraw troops in order to have his escalation, his “surge” that they thought stretched the military to the breaking point and left the country with out a strategic reserve in the event of another crisis elsewhere:

The president was not listening to Casey’s boss, Gen. John P. Abizaid at Central Command, anymore, either.

“Yeah, I know,” the president said to Abizaid at a National Security Council session in December, “you’re going to tell me you’re against the surge.”

Yes, Abizaid replied, and then presented his argument that U.S. forces needed to get out of Iraq in order to win.

“The U.S. presence helps to keep a lid on,” Bush responded. There were other benefits. A surge would “also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence,” Bush said. “And it’ll help [Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki to get control of the situation. A heavier presence will buy time for his government.”

The rest of Iraq wasn’t as tenuous as Baghdad, Abizaid said. “But it’s the capital city that looks chaotic,” Bush said. “And when your capital city looks chaotic, it’s hard to sustain your position, whether at home or abroad.”

Clearly Bush was motivated by political reasons. Think that’s just my interpretation:

Pace, Schoomaker and Casey found themselves badly out of sync with the White House in the fall of 2006, finally losing control of the war strategy altogether after the midterm elections. Schoomaker was outraged when he saw news coverage that retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, had briefed the president Dec. 11 about a new Iraq strategy being proposed by the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank.

“When does AEI start trumping the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this stuff?” Schoomaker asked at the next chiefs’ meeting.

Yet where is Capito’s criticism of Bush making “politically motivated” decisions that tied the hands of the commanders on the ground?

She made that criticism to justify her roadblocking of legislation to do EXACTLY what the generals were wanting to do – to pull the troops out to let the Iraqis take over. Yet we hear only silence from her now.

She’s not independent. She’s a coward who only does what Bush and the Republican leaders tell her to do. Capito knew the surge would not work. She said as much:

However, I have grave concerns regarding the call for increased American troop numbers in Iraq and am skeptical of this new plan’s success.  I believe the escalating sectarian violence in Iraq requires a political solution, not a military solution rooted in increased numbers of American troops.

Never forget this. Despite expressing those “concerns,” Capito backed it anyway. She made the politically motivated decision to back Bush’s politically motivated surge and then she accused Democrats and Republicans who opposed the surge and sought to bring the troops home of tying the hands of the commanders in the field, when that is exactly what she supported George W. Bush in doing.

How many died since she made the decision to back the president playing politics with the lives of soldiers instead of standing up and representing the American people?

Capito shouldn’t be running for reelection. She should be hanging her head in shame.

We have a chance to elect a Congressional representative who wants to end the war in Iraq quickly and responsibly.

Here’s Anne Barth’s position:

We must focus on training the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security soon, set benchmarks for the Iraqi military, and give more emphasis to diplomatic strategies.  

The war in Iraq has had a serious impact on our military, and our brave men and women are stretched thin by extended deployments. In Congress, I will work to strengthen America’s national security and refocus on the terrorist threats around the globe that are currently ignored.

Look how closely it mirrors the exact view held by the commanders on the ground – the same ones whose views Capito said were so important and for years she ignored as Bush played politics and others paid the ultimate price.

…

More on Anne Barth here. More on Capito here.

Our West Virginia Blue Act Blue page for Anne Barth here.

Another Busy Week – Less Than 1 Day To Go!!!

I started out the week on Monday with a trip to State College to meet with the PSU College Democrats. I took the time to give special thanks to the PSU Dems for their hard work getting students registered to vote in this election. It really is encouraging to see how interested young voters throughout the district are about this election. I think our young people realize that they have to get involved and make a difference in this election.

Later in the week on Thursday, I had an afternoon radio interview on WPHB followed in the evening with a trip to Clarion for the Clarion University Young Dems Spring Unity Banquet. The Clarion Young Dems have a very involved and active group. They have had representation at every 5th District candidate event held in Clarion throughout the campaign. It was great to get a final chance to meet with them before Election Day. We also had people in attendance throughout the day at the stops by President Clinton in Brookville, St. Marys and Clearfield.  The crowd in Clearfield to see Pres. Clinton wrapped around the front of the Clearfield Middle School and wrapped around onto Mill Rd.  Everyone was in high spirits and thankfully the weather cooperated.  Our campaign stopped and talked about the issues important to citizens of the 5th District and we feel that our message was warmly received by the gathered crowd.

Friday, I traveled to DuBois to participate in Eyes Wide Open, a traveling exhibit to help educate the public on the real costs of the Iraq war. The exhibit contained several banners that describe the monetary costs of the war and compares what we could do here in the United States with the funds. The most moving part of the exhibit was the 183 pairs of military boots with the names attached of the fallen PA soldiers and civilians who have died in Iraq during the conflict. It was a very moving exhibit and should make our resolve even stronger to end the conflict and bring the troops home as soon as possible.

On Saturday, we attended the annual Blue White Game at Penn State. It was a warm sunny day and it was a lot of fun working the tailgate parties in the parking lot. However, I found 2 things: 1 – The majority of Penn State fans travel in from outside of the 5th district, and 2 – A good number start drinking the hard stuff early in the morning and have no interest in politics once the alcohol takes effect. I do want to thank State Rep. Scott Conklin, the PSU College Dems and the Obama State College Campaign Staff for hosting a great tailgate event.  One note from the blogger:  You can see more about the Blue White Game in the CDT article written by Mike Joseph.  It can be found here:although I’m not sure if I would make a good caddy.

The week ended today with a trip back over to Happy Valley to work the line waiting to attend Sen. Hillary Clinton’s visit to Penn State. It was an excited group waiting to see Sen. Clinton and their spirits were high in spite of a cold downpour that started around 5:30. I really enjoy the one on one campaigning that we were able to do both Saturday and Sunday.

I’ll close this last report before Election Day with a round of thanks to everyone who has helped with the campaign thus far. We started back in mid-January and what has been accomplished so far is because of everyone who has been involved. I also want to thank and wish the best of luck to all the Democratic candidates who are on the ballot on Tuesday. It’s been a privilege to campaign and attend events with these people.

Finally, I want to give a special thank you to my 2 fellow Democratic candidates in the 5th District race. I truly admire the way Rick, Bill and I have focused on the issues of this campaign, met with the voters and kept our campaigns positive. I’ve told several people over the last week, our party and our eventual nominee in the 5th district will be stronger because of the positive campaigns all 3 of us ran. Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, we are tested and ready to take on the Republican candidate in November. I have a stronger opinion today than I did in January when I started the campaign – a Democrat WILL be elected in the 5th Congressional District in 2008.

One final note: Please tell as many people as you can – Support Mark B. McCracken for Congress – #1 on the Democratic Ballot.

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

Posted Wednesday night at West Virginia Blue.

I went to the peace vigil in Shepherdstown tonight. Five years of the occupation already. Some have been at it since before the Iraq invasion and occupation.

The event was moved to O’Hurley’s General Store due to the rain.

I saw many familiar faces from other peace events and political campaigns and I saw new faces as well. There were about 80 people in all in the large room where music and dances are sometimes held.  

It was a good mix of young students from Shepherd College and gray-haired veterans of the Vietnam War and of Vietnam War protests.

It had been cooler during the day, but had warmed after the rain stopped and a fire in the stone fireplace had died down to smoking embers. On a wet day, the wood-smoke made the room seem cozier.

A good friend who I had traveled to Fairmont with to canvass in the last days of the 2004 Kerry-Edwards race was at the entrance collecting money for Central Asia Institute. We hugged and I made a donation and got a couple of sugar cookies and a cup of tea.

There were a pair of guitarists singing. Then I saw Anne Barth, our WV-02 candidate for Congress, standing in the back of the room. She greeted me warmly. She really is a very nice woman. I was surprised to see her there not because she’s not a strong advocate for peace, but because I hadn’t seen any announcement of her attendance. She was there not to politic but to show solidarity with the others who want to support the troops and bring them home from Iraq.

She hadn’t planned on speaking, but one of the singers asked between songs if she would say a few words. Barth kept it brief. She introduced herself and said she remembered the day when Senator Byrd spoke out against the war and how the fax machines buzzed with people agreeing with him and others opposed to him. (Read his speech here.) She said she still gets chills thinking of his speech when he was one of the few voices with the courage in Congress to speak out in opposition before the war.

“Senator Byrd was right,” Barth said and people applauded. “I want to end this war and bring our troops home.”

Barth said she wanted to go to Washington and join him in his efforts to bring the troops home.

“The troops have served honorably. It is time they were brought home,” she said.

When she finished to loud applause, two more singers, a young, college age woman and a grayhaired man did a lovely duet of John Lennon’s Imagine.

It was a good event, solemn yet friendly with people united in purpose.

Afterwards another canvassing partner, JBdem4usa, took me out and bought me a beer, Mountaineer Stout, just like he said he would.

Cross posted from 21stCenturyDems.org.

As I reflect on the Take Back America 2008 conference, I’m thrilled 21st Century Democrats was a partner organization at the event.  We are proud to stand with other great groups like Campaign for America’s Future, Progressive Majority, ACORN, People for the American Way, the Center for Progressive Leadership, and many others who are working hard to change the direction of this country from the disastrous policies of George W. Bush.

For me, one of the highlights of the conference was the roll out of “A Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq” by Darcy Burner, Chellie Pingree and several other Congressional candidates. Darcy explained how a the Bush Administration’s top down approach to ending the war in Iraq has failed to stem the violence and that’s why she drafted the plan and organized fellow Congressional candidates to take a bottom’s up approach by putting forward a plan to end the war.

One of the most important points made during the rollout was the need to change the frame of the conversation about the war from whether the surge is working to what we should be doing to make our country safer.   To shift the conversation we need to get more people involved in this debate. We must talk to our neighbors, friends, family – and most importantly to the candidates where we live – and ask them to sign on to the responsible plan to end the war in Iraq.

We in the progressive community have asked for leadership on ending the war, and now have Darcy Burner, Chellie Pingree and several other candidates who have put themselves on the line by not only standing up against the war, but by providing a detailed plan of how the United States can bring our military engagement in Iraq to a responsible end and take steps to restore the checks and balances in our government to make sure we do not make the same mistake again in the future.

You can endorse the plan here. You can also show your support the candidates leading this effort by donating to Darcy Burner, Chellie Pingree or the slate of Congressional candidates who have signed onto the plan.

The Netroots community has been drifting.  In many ways the unity of purpose and mission that comes from an election cycle has been lost in the ruckus surrounding both the Presidential Primaries and the duels over contrasting strategies on how to best end the War in Iraq.  However there is clearly no better way to force the President to change course than to override his veto.  Already the Republican Minority Leader John Boehner is discussing the possibility of re-evaluating the issue come September. He should not be allowed to wait.  But how can we tie Republican hands..  We can force them by electing Jim Marlow to Congress on June 19th or in the subsequent runoff election.

The vote to override the President failed by roughly 70 House votes.  The Republicans in Congress, so far with rare exception, have looked at Iraq in primarily political terms.  Stick with the President, paint the Democrats as abandoning the War on Terror, and other such calculations. They tend not to see the 2006 Election as a repudiation of the War in Iraq, but as primarily about corruption or spending or other transient or fixable things. Although Iraq may have been the dagger in the Northeast, this was a region Republican members of Congress had been considering abandoning for some time. “Safe” Republicans need to know they are vulnerable too.  To gain the 70 House votes we need to override this President, we need to pick up 60 Republican votes. However there are only 49 Republicans who represent districts in which George Bush  got 55% of the vote or less in 2004.  Right now roughly 2/3 of the Republican Caucus is sitting pretty, thinking my seat could never belong to a Democrat.  Therefore why risk alienating my President and, judging from Thursday’s debate, the next Nominee, by admitting that the Democrats are right about Iraq.  This is where Georgia 10 comes in. More Republican members of Congress, particularly Southern members of Congress need to feel Iraq could be the issue that costs them their seat. Of the 49 swing districts held by Republicans, only 6 are in the South.  If business as usual prevails in GA 10, i.e. a safe Republican seat just returns to the Republican Party, then no national polling, or debate or rally or phone call will come close to forcing Republican Members of Congress  to accept the Political reality of Iraq, let alone the policy reality. However, were this seat, in the one state in 06 to trend slightly GOP.,  lost to the Democrats  or even if Jim Marlow were to come close, the political foundation for folks such as Mitch McConnell or any of the other Southern Republicans Leadership would crumble.  Now there’s no doubt that we could lose this race in catastrophic fashion and the Democrats could lose three more Georgia House Seats, and still merrily expand our  House and Senate Majorities and capture the White House. But in the meantime nothing will create the divide between the White House and Republicans in Congress needed to End the War, like a loss in Georgia Ten. Let’s get it done.
On the Web
http://marlowforgeor…
http://brandeis.face…