Yesterday Chris Dodd had a conference call with reporters and bloggers to discuss Iraq. As I posted earlier, Dodd questioned the relevance of the Patraeus testimony to the overall debate on Iraq saying:”But even more fundamentally, I question the relevance of a report on the merits of a particular tactic when the underlying strategy – that there is any military solution to the civil war in Iraq – has failed.”
Most of the conference call was spent reinforcing that idea. The real news is when the Senator spoke about troop withdrawal, namely how many troops would be left on the ground after a redeployment had occurred.
Dodd:
You know Dave, I’m not sitting here going to pick numbers for people, what ever is from your embassy personnel, some other functions here, we’re talking about a relatively small number compared to the 160,000 or 130,000 after a surge number, so it’s a relatively small number. I don’t have a number specifically in mind, I’ll leave that up to the experts to tell you what you need, but the fundamental presence of a military presence in Iraq would be over with.
Today Dodd went even further, critasizing his Clinton and Obama for their own willingness to compromise.
From Dodd’s statement via MBH at the Dodd Blog:
I was disappointed that Senator Obama’s thoughts on Iraq today didn’t include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Senator Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn’t have such an enforceable deadline.
It is clear to me – especially after yesterday’s testimony – that half-measures aren’t going to stop this President or end our involvement in this civil war. I thought it was clear to Senators Obama and Clinton as well after they finally came around to supporting the Feingold-Reid measure and voting against a blank-check supplemental spending bill this spring. If ‘enough was enough’ then, why isn’t it after the bloodiest summer of the war?
Last time Dodd was able to successfully pressure Senators Clinton and Obama. Hopefully he can shame them into it again. What’s sad is that someone has to. Americans don’t want nonbinding goal posts. We went our troops out of harm’s way. That’s why we voted in Democratic majorities in 2006.
When it comes to Iraq Senator Dodd is right on. He’s right about troop withdrawal, and right to put pressure on his fellow Senators. Now all we need is for Clinton, Obama, and other Senators to follow Dodd’s lead. Again, Americans spoke out loud and clear in 2006. It’s time for Cognress to act.
19 responses so far ↓
I think it’s funny, and a little sad, that you thought your efforts to elect a Democrat Congress would change anything with regard to Iraq.
According to their campaign rhetoric, we should be put of Iraq right now, and yet our troop levels are at their highest in history.
They have really held Bush accountable!
Yeah, Bush’s stubborn continutation of his failed Iraq experiment is funny!
Kind of like the way amputees, widows and grieving mothers are “a little sad”.
If Bush weren’t such an ass, he would have gone along with the Iraq Study Group’s report, and we’d be withdrawing troops right now.
Instead we’re playing “kill the clock”, just so the nation-building mess can be passed on the next President.
Funny, funny, ha-ha…
IF we want our troops out without complete destruction on the way out, the US needs to convene a regional conference with all of Iraq’s neighbors, Iraqi factions, and other interested parties to guarentee safe conduct,stop the infiltration of insurgents, amd end the Sunni-Shia battles. I don’t see that happening under the current president no matter what Congress does.
Democrats told naive people like CGG that they would hold Bush accountable and bring the troops home if they took control of Congress.
The Democrats haven’t lived up to their end of the bargain, and poor souls like CGG must feel like fools.
[quote comment="19003"]Democrats told naive people like CGG that they would hold Bush accountable and bring the troops home if they took control of Congress.
The Democrats haven’t lived up to their end of the bargain, and poor souls like CGG must feel like fools.[/quote]
People like UnionThug, apparently, just enjoy being jerks to other people and trying to start fights. Well done.
Are you seriously calling everyone who voted Democrat in congressional races in the last election a naive fool? That would include me, by the way.
TrueBlue, you removed all doubt as to your objectivity with this series of posts:
[quote comment="18950"]I think it’s only half-time. With so much crap going on, and such a few % of Bridgeport actually voting, I think Caruso has a duty to the people of the Park City to give them a choice come November.
The 4200 people who voted for Finch represent but the fringe, Dem crony element within Bridgeport.
Honest to God. Finch won with less than 52% of the vote. And less than 1 in 14 Bridgeport voters actually voted….[/quote]
Even though Lamont won the 2006 primary with less than 52% of the vote. Hmm.
[quote comment="18987"]But the circumstances surrounding the election are soooo murky, and the margin so close, that one could argue that Caruso won the election, then the machine stole it via typical B’port shenanigans.
Anyway, Lieberman has showed everyone the way, and all Carruso has to do is create his own party. Still hope for Bridgeport?[/quote]
The circumstances weren’t murky in 2006? They weren’t close? Or was that “typical Bridgeport shenanigans”?
[quote comment="18994"]I support a “sore loser” law, which should have been a no-brainer following the 2006 CT for Lieberman farce.
In terms of B’port? My feeling is that Liebercrat Bill Finch seemingly has no problem with “do-overs”, so if Caruso appealled to the greater B’port populace in November, I think the correct term is poetic justice.[/quote]
Ah. I see. You support a “sore loser” law, everywhere except Bridgeport, and except for those who supported Joe Lieberman’s victorious (in case you forgot) 2006 Senate campaign. With your support, shouldn’t it be called “Sore Loser’s Sore Loser Law”?
[quote comment="19001"]Jim, it’s not personal revenge. It’s keeping score.
CT Dems tried hard to send a message to Washington, D.C. by ousting our war-mongering Senator. After we won the primary, most Dems in leadership positions supported the party’s nominee.
Bill Finch could have simply sat things out. Instead he thumbed his nose at people like me, and continued to support Lieberman. He and his network went out of their way to damage Lamont within his district.
So yeah, I hold Finch responsible for Lieberman’s second term. And when I see Joe Lieberman celebrating 9/11 with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, I can’t help but remember those “Democrats” who helped him get re-elected.[/quote]
I see… it’s not personal revenge, it’s about “keeping score.” What’s the difference? Anyway, how was Lamont’s 52-48% victory an example of “CT Dems try[ing] hard to send a message,” but Finch’s 52-48% victory is just “Bridgeport cronyism”? We’re used to you making it difficult to take you seriously. Now you’ve made it impossible.
Will you wear a “Caruso ‘07″ button next to your “Lamont ‘06″ and your “Dean ‘04″ button?
Indeed….they will be worn to the very next State Central meeting…
>>Kind of like the way amputees, widows and grieving mothers are “a little sad”.
And for those people you have done…..?
We donated $1500 to the American Legion’s Hero’s to Hometown fund at tonights fund raiser (which raised a total over 5000) to help equip cars with hand controls; build ramps, in short to do what ever needs to get done to help our returning, and wounded troops . The VA does a lot, but tends to work slowly – it’s up to *citizens* to step up to the plate for these brave souls.
Others do nothing but feign concern and wring their hands while blaming Bush or worse claiming it’s all the fault of so called “neo-cons”. No heavy lifting for these folks, no sireee; they just want to whine and fuss and don’t give a **damn** about those serving in our armed forces.
Next we’re seeking a change in town codes to expedite zoning and building permits…then hopefully a state statute to the same end for wounded returning service personnel.
We already shipped 6500 pounds of stuff overseas; collected over 1000 coats for our vets. (30% of the homeless are vets – but since they’re undoubtedly “neo-cons” we should just (in the words of the famous Kos) screw them, right?
Aside from whining and fussing TBCT, what have you personally done?
Seeing as this is widely read site; and thus a good place to post details of upcoming events and I suspect if were involved in any such efforts you would post it here and you never once have…….apparently you’ve done Jack S***.
Juan Cole, Prof of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan, has some comments on withdrawal on his site:
“If the Democrats cannot prevail in withdrawing before Bush goes out of office (and they cannot), and if they then rapidly draw down the troops on taking office in 2009, they face the real prospect of a “Gerald Ford meltdown” of the sort that occurred in 1975 when the North Vietnamese and their VC allies took over South Vietnam.”
Juan Cole is certainly no conservative, and his blog has quite a following.
One must wonder why the Senate approved of having General Petraeus in his current role. Given the determination that so many of the Senators have to call General Petraeus a failure despite the facts, you would think that those same Senators would have simply denied him from serving in his current role. I, for one, certainly have no more respect for Senator Dodd.
Juan Cole knows a lot more about the situation there than any of us do–and he’s always an interesting read.
[quote comment="19011"]>>Kind of like the way amputees, widows and grieving mothers are “a little sad”.
And for those people you have done…..?
[/quote]
ACR there is no arguing with this guy on this. Of course he has done nothing to support our troops. He uses their injuries and deaths as political tools. He doesn’t know soldiers who have been there first-hand like we do. If he did, he couldn’t possibly write what he does.
He might say he supports them by “getting them out of harm’s way” as another poster recently said… which shows a gross misunderstanding of our soldiers.
Soldiers are not a victim’s group to exploit the way liberals exploit most victims. They want to get their job done over there. Libs like TB will never ever see that what they have done back home hampers their efforts over there.
ACR – God bless you for your support of returning troops. But ACR’s and HH’s “logic” is comical:
Preventing death and injuries to thousands of troops and civilians in an unjust, unnecessary, and counterproductive war and occupation = exploiting the troops
Endorsing continued death and dismemberment of thousands of troops and civilians in an unjust, unnecessary, and counterproductive war and occupation = supporting the troops
And you might want to instead lecture your Republican colleagues on the need to support disabled troops since they routinely score absymally on the Disabled American Veterans scorecard as compared to Democrats. (And Nancy Johnson had was one of the most anti-veteran legislators in the nation, with a score of 25%.)
Any dweller of the “pseudo-liberal coalition of the willing” – have a take concerning this editorial?
A fragment from today’s NY Post Editorial:
Meanwhile, the Times’ own complicity in the despicable slur turns out to be even worse than imagined: Not only did the newspaper agree to run the libel, it apparently subsidized the hard-left sewer rats who wrote it.
To the tune of more than $116,000.
MoveOn yesterday confirmed that it paid just $65,000 for the full-page missive – compared to what a Times spokesman said is usually $181,000 for such ads.
So, we wonder: Will the Times report the $116,000 difference as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic National Committee – or to Hillary herself?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/postopinion/editorials/sen__clintons_slur.htm
Respectfully,
Bo ItsHaky
Bo, I just saw that a few minutes ago as well. I hope that the New York Post and various websites are effective in making sure that the contribution by the New York Times is properly reported. It’s obviously an in-kind contribution.
[quote comment="19019"]
Preventing death and injuries to thousands of troops and civilians in an unjust, unnecessary, and counterproductive war and occupation = exploiting the troops
Endorsing continued death and dismemberment of thousands of troops and civilians in an unjust, unnecessary, and counterproductive war and occupation = supporting the troops
[/quote]
More prattle. We all know that’s how you guys see it through those tinted John Lennon granny specs.
You guys sell yourselves as for the troops because you don’t want anyone getting hurt. Well, that’s admirable… no one WANTS people killed or maimed, especially US servicemen and women.
And further, I am not saying that I think the occupation has been prosecuted properly. I would rather see us go Roman and end it instead of this piecemeal crap.
But why is it I never hear anyone from your side talk about victory? Why are Democrats so opposed to giving these soldiers the tools they need to finish the job?
Why don’t you ask a soldier who is there now what they would prefer? To run away with our tail between our legs or stand and finish the fight? You’d rather see us leave, lose, and dishonor everything that those who died there fought for.
Incidentally, this would be a perfect thread for me to post a couple of my favorite Chris Dodd quotes:
[quote comment="19007"]
Are you seriously calling everyone who voted Democrat in congressional races in the last election a naive fool? That would include me, by the way.[/quote]
Certainly not, Genghis.
Voters across the nation had a variety of reasons to vote for Democrats (or perhaps more appropriately, against Republicans). I’m referring to those true believers that the Democrats continually lie to.
These unfortunate people worked their tails off to elect a Democrat Congress, and I take my hat off to them. But when it came time for those who they worked so hard to elect to do what they promised to do, they predictably folded.
By saying that “Dodd gets it on Iraq,” CGG is implying that his Democrat colleagues do not.
And that is what I think is funny, and a little sad: the fact that she, and others, thought democrats would do anything different.
And this gem:
You must log in to post a comment.