[As always in Blue America threads, please stay on topic and be polite and respectful of our guest. Any off-topic comments should be taken to the prior thread. With that, please help me give Rep. Joe Sestak a warm FDL welcome - and let the conversation begin. -- CHS]
Helping to elect Joe Sestak to Congress last year was one of Blue America's triumphs. Congressman Sestak has held up his end of the bargain, not just by voting the way he promised but my supplying the intellectual heft and energy on the issues he told us were most important to him. Today he makes his first visit to Firedoglake since he banished 19 year incumbent Curt Weldon in November.
Yesterday we began the discussion, focussing on the vote Rep. Sestak cast for the Supplemental. I suggest you read the comments in preparation for our talk with him today.
When Congressman Sestak's office called and told me he'd like to come over for a talk, he was very aware that many of us do not agree with the way he voted. I know when I look at the list of the 86 Democrats who joined the Republican House caucus to approve the bill, I see a list of reactionaries who I neither like nor trust. Overwhelmingly it's a list of the worst of the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic Party, from the Rahm Emanuels and Steny Hoyers to the Jim Marshalls, Collin Petersons, Gene Taylors and Melissa Beans.
And then there's Joe Sestak, a congressman who doesn't belong on the same list with that batch of barely better-than-Republican pond scum. The other Blue America freshmen on the list I had already written off as lessons learned — Kirsten Gillibrand, Chris Carney, and Ciro Rodriguez — based on their overall voting records. Seeing Joe on there broke my heart. This is an admiral who got to congress and immediately introduced a bill to end the occupation of Iraq. This is a congressman who looks anyone in the eye and tells them why a "date-certain" end to this catastrophe is essential.
A couple days ago we talked on the phone and he explained his position to me. It's not my position but I believe him when he tells me his rationale and I respect not just him, but what he did.
He's getting 350 calls and letters a day and plenty are from constituents who are disappointed. After all, in the end, that vote is the same vote Curt Weldon would have cast. The context isn't though. And instead of playing it safe and voting with the 278 Democrats who knew the bill was going to pass, he asked himself what he would do if he was the deciding vote, if the yeas and nays were equally divided and he had to make the decision whether or not to call Bush's bluff in his heartfelt quest to end what he called on the floor of Congress a "tragic misadventure."
When I asked him what he thought his most important accomplishment has been since taking office he said it was helping to move the Iraq debate to change from Stay the Course to what is the best exit strategy. He told also me he thinks the way the Democrats in Congress need to end the occupation is thru an authorization bill rather than an appropriations bill. I'm going to ask him to explain that to us today.
One of the points that so enamored me of Joe's campaign originally was his approach to National Security.
It goes well beyond a military approach to include health care, education and economic well-being. How can anyone expect to have long-term national security without a healthy, educated, economically prosperous population? Here's an Admiral elected to Congress who seems as passionate about Head Start as he is about anything else — and he's introduced 3 amendments, each of which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, to help fix No Child Left Behind.
"Getting children in a good academic environment when their cognitive reasoning is just beginning to develop is key to their future achievements."
As vice-chairman of the House Small Business Committee he's been working diligently to unbundle large contracting procedures that have given advantages to huge corporations at the expense of small companies. His focus in the committee beyond that priority has been to champion women's business centers and veterans' outreach centers, exploring plans to help small businesses with health care costs for their employees, and encouraging clean, energy-efficient technologies.
You can contribute to Joe's re-election campaign on his website either through ActBlue or by sending a check. He's going to be with us today for an hour and then he has another appointment. We'll use the second hour of the session to talk amongst ourselves about Blue America.



340 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Congressman (Admiral) Sestak, I applaud you for coming here. A lot of people in this community, myself included, put enormous faith in Howie’s opinion. Since your election to Congress, however, Karl Rove has again made a laughingstock of the Democrats and moderate Republicans in the sound byte war over Iraq. You and other Democrats are repeating KKKarl’s talking points for him. Iraq is not a war, it’s an occupation. Once you call Iraq a war, you give it a standing it does not deserve and at the same time cheapen the memory all the other real wars that the U.S. has fought. Please review the Hunt Report on the history of U.S. occupations. It’s still taught at West Point. Please begin holding Bush accountable for ignoring the Hunt Report in Iraq. Please begin to hold Bush accountable for ignoring the Powell Doctrine for the use of military force. Ambassador Joe Wilson was asking this back in December at FDL: “Based on current US deployments to Iraq, what are the troop to task ratios and the force protection requirements?” There’s no excuse for any legislator of either party to issue a sound byte on Iraq without including those questions. Bush will continue to respond substantively as long as you let him. As Ambassador Wilson also stated back in December, the way things are going, our troops will eventually have to fight their way out. The sound bytes you are currently providing do not account for that increasingly likely possibility. Bush’s policies are creating exponentially more national security problems than they have any hope of solving. China is lending us the $270,00,000/day that it cost to fund the occupation before the “surge.” That’s completely unacceptable given our debt and trade imbalance. Also, our combat posture in Iraq does nothing except make Russia and Iran more dominant in the region. It also forces the former Soviet republics into an even closer orbit around Moscow. That’s all equally unacceptable.
As you are well aware, our ground forces are trained to fight integrated battles supported by artillery and close air support. Forcing them to fight unsupported by our technological superiority in urban combat is like planning to insert them into “BLACKHAWK DOWN.” It violates every tenet of military science.
Thanks to Bush, Iraq will be a failed state for at least the next ten years. The real “benchmarks” only apply to the extremely fragile stability of the Middle East. That stability can deteriorate very quickly, because 25% of the world‘s crude passes through the two-mile wide Straits of Hormuz. Based on some of your votes, you can depend on your Republican opponent in 2008 to hold you responsible for Iraq and the regional instability it caused. That’s what the Republicans did to the Democrats on the Congressional Intelligence Committees. You’re handing them the brush to paint you into their corner.
OT, we need comprehensive campaign finance reform. If you continue to let Halliburton and other oligarchic corporations engorged from massive war profiteering turn around and used those illegal profits to buy Congress, it’s on you and your peers.
should I?
Welcome Admiral Sestak:
While I think your vote was dead wrong in terms of substance, I’m sure that others will be challenging you on that point. My concern is the process that brought us this bill.
The day after the Bush veto, there were press reports that the Democrats had caved to Bush’s demands – reports that were vehemently denied by the Democratic leadership, and those of us who empowered those leaders with our votes breathed a sigh of relief. That leadership then went behind closed doors, and subsequently emerged with the bill in question – then immediately scheduled it for a floor vote without hearings, denying the vast majority of the American people who are sick of this war an opportunity to organize in opposition to the bill.
To me, this kind of corrupt backroom double-dealing was an even worse offense than the bill itself – and IMHO your vote for this bill was a tacit endorsement of the kind of loathsome and unprincipled political manipulation that we had come to identify with the GOP. The financial support that you received from people like me was meant to help put an end to this kind of politics – it certainly was not meant to afford you an opportunity to ingratiate yourself with the likes of Hoyer and Emmanuel by “going along to get along.” Please explain why someone like me should continue to support you when you won’t stand up against this kind of political manipulation that not only betrays the people who put the Democrats in charge, but denies us the chance to mount an effective opposition in the face of this betrayal..
Hello everybody, this is Joe and I’m looking forward to our discussion!
Hey Howie! Welcome Adm/Rep Sestak! Thank you for speaking with us today.
The Iraq mess is, always, an emotional issue for all of us. Tough questions are expected and appreciated, but so is listening to Rep. Sestak’s answers. Personal attacks are not appropriate. That said, a robust conversation of the issues involved is a very good thing — and something that is needed. This is a plea to watch your tone (something we discussed earlier here), but certainly not a request to stifle a tough discussion which I am looking forward to along with everyone else. Thanks!
Should have been: “Bush will continue NOT to respond substantively as long as you let him.”
Welcome, Admiral Sestak! It was a privilege to be one of your supporters in the ‘06 election. Thanks for coming to talk with us.
Some are concerned about an attack on Iran by the U.S. Is their concern valid?
Welcome back to Firedoglake, Congressman Sestak. Can you explain to us what you mean when you say that the way to end the occupation of Iraq is through an authorization bill rather than an appropriations bill? I thought Congress’ only real power here would be the power of the purse. What would an authorization bill do to stop these madmen?
Joe Sestak was one of the finest military officers of his generation, who, after a well deserved retirement to do other things, sacrificed his personal life once again as he saw his country in distress.
I had the high honor to speak in support of Joe’s candidacy several times, and more importantly, to listen to him articulate his vision for the future. He is one of the finest people it has ever been my pleasure to know. Go, Joe, go.
Do you see a regional war in the Middle East as possible?
Rep. Sestak — I heard an interview yesterday with Rep. Tim Walz on NPR. He talked about his vote on the supplemental which mirrored yours, and his rationale for the vote. One of the things he said struck me and I would love your thoughts on this — as a former master sergeant in the national guard, he said in his experience budget cuts would have come from national guard and reserve units which are already being bled dry with battered equipment issues and under-staffing, rather than sacrificing readiness on the front lines. I’ve been thinking about that ever since, knowing the situation with the WV guard and reserve units where I live, and I’d appreciate any thoughts you have on this from your experience. And whatever thoughts you have on how to move all of this forward — because the nation and our nation’s soldiers and their families cannot continue to prop up this failed mess on their own backs to salve George Bush’s ego — none of us can.
Howie Klein, Joe Sestak, Joe Wilson… geez this is such celebrated company, at this point I’d not be surprised to see Madonna show up. ;)
Welcome back, Congressman Sestak. Thank you very much for being willing to be here today and talk with us about the vote. The respect you show in doing so is much appreciated by our community.
Hey Joe!!! Great to see you here again! Many of us have the exact same feeling about Joe that you do– which is exactly why it came as such a shock to see him voting with the Republicans and 85 faithless Dems (the Rahm Emanuels and Steny Hoyers and Jim Marshalls and Gene Taylors). It came as a complete shock after his sterling record. That’s why we’re all so eager to hear his rationale.
John Casper @ 0
Thank you. Understand that the day I entered the race, I’ve never deviated that a date certain was the only strategy that we could redeploy and leave behind an unfailed state in Iraq I still believe strongly that a specific date to redeploy changes the structure of incentives for Iraq’s politcal leaders to beigin stepping up and assuming responsibility for the tough political decisions of accomidation amongst themselves; and that it also changes the behavior of Iran and Syria, who are incvolved destructivly because we are bleeding…and they like that. If we nnounce we will not be there, and then leave with confidence, diplomatically with them, we have the only strategy that can bering them to the table constructively. Because they do not want the millions of those Iraqis dislocated from their homes are are still not overflowing their borders completely to do so, nor to have a proxy war between Sunni Syria ans Shi’a Iraq as they support different factions. We have an opertunity to redeploy without an unfailed state, which is why a date-certain is important to do that by changing the strategy. We can leave Iraq an unfailed state, if we change the strategy.
p.lukasiak @ 14
I’m here, jus’ always lurking. ;)
Congressman Sestak at 9:09 am
I’m extremely grateful for your response.
Hello Joe and welcome…..
I would like to ask why the plan for withdrawal did not include a plan to pull back to the perimeter of the country first to guard the boarders of Syria and Iran to keep foreign fighters from coming in and fueling the civil war? Doesn’t that make more sense than just pulling out?
Also: Why was it so critical to get the troops the money that they didn’t need for another two months or so? You could have kept fighting and America was on your side….
(This is all very much like when Kerry and Edwards said they were going to fight for our votes after the ‘04′ election and they never did….You guys said you wouldn’t back down from a timetable and you did back down…)
Rep Sestak:
Permanent bases (and presence) in Iraq or not? Where do you and your colleagues stand on this? What will you be doing to ensure that ALL US troops, all of them, are removed from Iraq in our very near-term lifetimes rather than “down the road”?
I think what p.lukasiak said up a bit is spot on. (p.lukasiak says @ June 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 am) and really deserves a forthright answer.
plukasiak’s comment (my emphasis)
Congressman Sestak, how do we force the Dem House leadeership to deal with us in a truthful and honest fashion. Instead of honesty, we get Rahm Emmanuel trying to spin the funding vote as a great victory in holding the President accountable and protecting the troops. It is the treatment of us as idiots that is as distressing as anything to me.
Do you think it would be acceptable if a stable post-occupation Iraq included significant roles for Iran and Syria in maintaining order and security?
Congressman Sestak….
With the Presidential power of the Military Commissions Act giving President Bush the right to label anyone an enemy combatant and have them arrested, along with the new COG Directive he issued on May 7th of this year does it not threaten our very government?
I mean with those two powers he can on a whim declare Martial Law and have members of both Houses arrest as a threat to America during a time of War for trying to rein him in.
p.lukasiak @ 3
I can’t help but respond to this. I have been on the front lines of US policy towards Iraq since the first Gulf War, and, of course was one of the loudest voices against the second gulf war.
We are all sick about what happened and serious people are looking at how best to extricate ourselves from the mess without sacrificing our core strategic interests in the region. There are three: Growth of terrorism;access and ability to protect the strategic oil fields; and an obligation to serve as a guarantor of Israel’s territorial integrity. All three have been terribly compromised by the administration’s misguided adventure in Iraq, but a hasty withdrawal will not make our ability to defend those interests any easier. Joe supports a definite timetable. I oppose any debates on policy that come on the backs of our armed forces as the last several have. There is only one legitimate reason to have troops in harm’s way right now and that is to leverage their presence and firepower in support of an international political reconciliation effort involving not just the belligerents but also their foreign backers. Their efforts will be in vain unless the President and Secretary of State actually exercise leadership to bring the warring factions to a conference table. That is where attacks on the administration ought to be directed. Rice ought to be before the relevant committees monthly to explain where the political process is, and the President ought to be asked daily how many foreign leaders he has consulted with to forge a consensus on a peace conference.
But votes that use the troops as a political football are,in my humble opinion counterproductive and when we allow ourselves to eat our own because we didn’t like the outcome, we play right into Karl Rove’s hands. The above comment is right out of his talking points.
Mr. Sestak, I spent three years in Iraq as a private contractor. I travelled from one military base to another and was shocked at the extent of the military presence. The huge ultra-bases include two-story gyms, multiple swimming pools, baseball fields, football fields, beauty parlors, massage parlors, movie theaters, etc … My lifestyle in Iraq and the food I ate was much better than in the USA.
Obviously we are building mega-mega-American colonies to control the area for centuries. It is plainly obvious to anyone who sees these American cities.
What would you tell the Iraqi people about these American cities inside their borders. And what would you tell the Iraqis immediately outside the razor wire who are begging for water and dressed in rags? Inside the base we ate baskin robbins ice cream along with twenty other dessert selections every day.
Joe, do you think if we left Iraq that the military posturing against Iran would also disappear, or ar they totally separate diplomatic disasters?
Also, does Cheney as VP have any power to determine or command military strategy?
When I asked him what he thought his most important accomplishment has been since taking office he said it was helping to move the Iraq debate to change from Stay the Course to what is the best exit strategy.
Well, Joe, then you should have voted AGAINST the bill.
Given the fact that Bush has stated several times since the vote that he has no intention of leaving Iraq EVER – and given Georgie Ann Geyer’s reporting of him “pounding his chest” and asserting he was going to do what he could to ensure no future president could get us out of Iraq – how will you vote on the NEXT bill that proposes a troop withdrawal?
And please – no waffling about “it depends on…” Will you vote YES or NO on TROOP WITHDRAWAL when it comes up again?
Rep. Sestak @ 16:
I agree. Especially if we leave them in control of their $21 TRILLION dollar oil and gas resources, and the ability to unify the separate regions (without our ongoing sabotage of this effort) into a strong Sunni/Shia/Kurd central government.
The above comment is right out of his talking points.
wow, if I didn’t have such enormouse respect for Joe Wilson, I’d be getting medieval on his ass right now for that comment! :)
As I wrote yesterday and would like your response today.
You voted to give George Bush carte blanche in Iraq for 4 more months. Your vote did not protect our soldiers but keeps them in danger in the middle of a senseless, unjustified, and stupid war. You gave Bush the dollars to get several hundred more of our soldiers killed and even more maimed. And you think that’s supporting our troops? I am so tired of all these equivocations. The crux of the matter is this: Voting to get more of our troops killed is not supporting them, period.
p.lukasiak @ 31
Yeah, I’m a little taken back myself!
p.lukasiak @ 2
I have never changed from a date certain, but I ran the Navy’s 70 billion dollar program as an admiral. The operations and Maintance account of our military will run out of funds in July; even the congressional research office states that. That is how the gas, bullets, etc, are provided for men and women in battle. We are presently taking money from the gas, etc, of those troops training in America and using that money until it runs out in July for troops in Iraq (by law, you cannot shift money between procurement accounts into money to operate and provide supplies to our troops; there are legal firewalls preventing that). It took us 6 months to redeploy from Somalia safely after Black Hawk Down. With alot more troops (140,000) and thousands of US civilians, it will take at least that long to safely come out via the roads or by limited flights from Iraq. There was no back room deal. This is one purely where we would would run out in July of the resources needed to protect our troops. There would be more causualties than one might imagine, if we tried, in the next 40 days, to get everyone out.
That is why I have been persistent that a date certain (my bill says 31 december) with sufficient time, is not only the right strategy to leave behind an unfailed state, but is also one to protect those we, America, sent to war, while doing so. Even if we all disagree with that war. I will never, ever, play chicken with the sons and daughters of America, and put them in greater danger by voting for a bill that gives them no funds to protect themselves in the next 5-7 weeks. I understand if you disagree, but these are Americans we sent in harms way, and I will never vote to make them less safe as I work to redeploy them in a timely and safe manner.
Dale @ 26
Could you please explain this to us?
Mr Sestak,
Will you stand opposed to the hydrocarbon bill that the US (Bush AND the Congress) are trying to force down the Iraqi government’s throat? That is, the bill that would require Iraq to basically hand over ~70% of their oil fields to foreign companies (read that to mean Exxon/Mobile and the others for which we are fighting and dying in Iraq as we speak). Do you support FORCING the Iraqi government to give up control of their own resources for the sake of SUVs and oil company CEO profits?
when we allow ourselves to eat our own because we didn’t like the outcome…
No one’s “eating their own” here. Sestak raised substantial money from people who specifically wanted an end to the war. He then voted to continue it. It’s that simple.
Please explain why someone like me should continue to support you when you won’t stand up against this kind of political manipulation that not only betrays the people who put the Democrats in charge, but denies us the chance to mount an effective opposition in the face of this betrayal..
Supporting Sestak or whomever may be important. And his betrayal to contributors may be important. But to me it is the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians-mothers and children- who will undoubtedly die in the next few months that have been betrayed by his vote. There is little or no humanity in voting to fight a war that no one wants except for the Bush/Cheney axis of evil. If the Middle East is supposedly a volatile mix, all we have done in the past 4 years is pour more gasoline on it. One hundred billion dollars is a lot of money that could have done humanity some good. It is a fool’s wish that it will serve any good now.
Rep Sestak,
As I was walking today it occurred to me that I have become just as bad as the rock-ribbed republicans that vote their team regardless of the content of their message or their failures.
Me, I still carry my uncle Don Jones DNC card in my wallet (it was his wallet) and I spoke to both George McGovern and Tom Daschle who called Donnie on his death bed (to his great delight)
That said, I can no longer truck with a Democratic party that still allows Lieberman to chair a committee, will not impeach Bush and Cheney, and refuses to get us out of Iraq.
Your Kabuki dance is disappointing, but it clarifies some hunches that I’ve had for a long time: That the two party system is a leg-hold trap on democracy.
Shame on you and your vote–I will not give money to you again, and I will seriously consider any ANY opponent that runs against you for my money in the next go round (let’s hope there is a good one)
Admiral Sestak, I think Joe Wilson’s comments regarding the need to hold Dr. Rice accountable are on the mark. What are you and your colleagues doing to make this a reality?
It appears that the first diplomatic contact with Iran, this past week, produced nothing substantive. How long will it take to establish an ongoing, productive dialogue with both Iran and Syria?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 8
While I am concerned about Irans persuit of a nuclear capability, we are not even close to ever having to consider a military option. We should engage in Iran– with financial and economy consequences–to dissuade Iran from persuit of such a capability. I can never guarentee what the administration will do, but I will always work with the approach I just mentioned, with regards to Iran.
This statement here, to me, is more like Republican talking points than what the questions, which I tagged along onto, asked.
Growth of terrorism? Access and ability to protect ’strategic oil fields’ – the most absymal “reason” of all – ‘Israel’s territorial integrity’. How about the territorial integrity of say, the Iraqi people?
Joe W. at 25
“Their efforts will be in vain unless the President and Secretary of State actually exercise leadership to bring the warring factions to a conference table.”
But with Cheney shadowing Rice around the world, and undoing any semblance of diplomacy in her wake, what good is the diplomacy in the first place?
Is Cheney doing this as a pure rogue, representing the weapons industry and it’s assorted tentacles?
Or is there a concentrated and well-organized “good-cop/bad-cop” game being played out by this administration’s manipulators right in front of our eyes?
This administration is starting to look a bit bi-polar; either they have two personalities, or they have one very devious strategy.
Joe Wilson @ 26
And all your three points taken together, Sir, sounds to me like you think the USA own the Iraq.
Re Joe Wilson @ 25:
I heartily agree with Mr. Wilson’s comment. My question for both Mr. Wilson and Congressman Sestak, however, is this: Has the current administration’s utter incompetence and mismanagement of our affairs in that region bred a level of mistrust amongst the leaderships of those countries so as to make it virtually impossible for them to orchestrate such diplomatic initiatives?
Congressman, below is a comment left on the thread that announced your appearance here today. This comment received a lot of “amens” from FDL regulars:
TeddySanFran @ 31
The various factions in Iraq have hated each other for centuries and will continue
to do so. Our invasion simply uncorked the bottle and they will fight and die to the last man whether we leave this week or a year from now or 10 years from now. We are going to end up leaving Iraq as we left Vietnam – just ahead of the posse.
Please forgive the off-topic. CNN and MSNBC are both reporting: “Three suspects have been arrested in an alleged terror plot aimed at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport” as breaking news headlines. Nothing further as yet.
[Mod Note; let’s keep off topic comments on the previous thread. Thanks.]
I have to say, at this point, I’m not interested as much in explanations as to why any given member of congress voted the way s/he did on the most recent bill as I am in hearing what they think needs to happen next. So, Rep Sestak, I guess my question is “what now?”
The Republicans tried, and succeeded (with the help of many Democrats), in getting a bill they wanted passed. But that’s done. What’s the next step? What do we do now that will lead us towards the path of ending the occupation of Iraq?
Joe Sestak @ 41
We have a madman sitting in the Peoples House who don’t care about human life. What makes you believe he won’t attack Iran or cause an incident where we will have no choice but to engage Iran in a military action?
Welcome, Rep Sestak. You’re availability is very much appreciated. And hello, Ambassador Wilson, always a pleasure to see you.
Good lord, I can’t continue to greet all the dignataries!
My concern over the funding bill is that it was a tactical blunder. Come September, when general Petreaus tells us they need more time and troops, it seems increasingly clear that some (if not many) Republicans, only our of political expediency, will publically turn against the war.
By voting for a bill without a timeline or date certain, the Dems gave away the moral high ground, and became, in my view, complicit. Worse, the Republicans will bray this autumn that a date certain was their idea, and the Dems were all smoke and no fire.
If there was some concern that the President would have let the troops starve or run out of gas and bullets, the point should have been forced, at least until it was obvious that the man should be carted off to the Haig.
Despite our differences, I wish you well, and very much appreciate your service and willingness to communicate.
Mr. Sestak
you are not my congressman. My congressmen are republicans, so I knew exactly what to expect from them. But I feel completely betrayed by the democrats who caved in to the President and his stubborness. I feel like Pat Buchannan who said “the democrats do not have the courage of their convictions”. It didn’t take a genius to see that Americans are screaming to get out of this blood for oil war, and yet the very people we counted on to get us out, to show George Bush that he doesn’t have a “rubber stamp” congress anymore, betrayed all of those Americans. The liberals, the independents and the republicans who could no longer support this illegal war.
You and your colleagues failed us. You were afraid of republicans using the vote against you in 2006, but what you didn’t count on is now you have the liberals, the independents and the dissillusioned republicans using THIS vote against you!!!!!
You and the other democrats who voted for this BLANK CHECK are Benedict Arnolds. Not willing to stand up for the American people or the American military. You democrats who voted for this bill, instead of sending back the same bill to George Bush, over and over and over again to reinforce in Americans minds who the real obstructionist is, are cowards and much too leaky of vessels to put any faith in.
Quite frankly, you blew it. You caved. You met the enemy and surrenedered to the tyrant.
I am furious with what I now refer to as the “blank checker” democratic congress.
You failed us, and worse than that, you failed us before you even tried to fight for us.
Joe Wilson @ 26
Why? Why is this one always carved in stone, regardless of Israel’s actions?
unfortunately, neither Admiral Sestak nor Ambassador Wilson saw fit to address my actual concerns.
So let me try it this way — Admiral, why was this whole thing done behind closed doors, and presented as a take-it-or-leave-it fait accompli? If these options were being considered from the moment Bush vetoed the first bill, why weren’t they sent for consideration to the Defense Appropriations committee, where the American people could judge the various rationales being offered for this course of action — a move which possibly could have resulted in something other than the carte blanche you voted to give President Bush.
JEP @ 28
Read Vice : Dick Cheney and the hijacking of the American presidency by Lou Dubose & Jake Bernstein. It’s enlightening.
“There would be more causualties than one might imagine, if we tried, in the next 40 days, to get everyone out.”
What is your specific proof of this? With the understanding that the Iraqis have specifically not been given the superior weaponry that we have. We never trusted them and they know it. Every weapon their troops have is like a child’s toy compared to our unbelievable array of tools.
Mr Sestak,
We have seen several questions now about the HUGE military bases we are still building in Iraq. Part of the blank check money you and the rest of Congress gave to Bush just recently will, no doubt, be used to continue this disgrace. What will you do to ensure that there are NO permanent US bases, NO permanent US presence in Iraq? What will you do to prove to us that this is NOT an act of a conquering empire?
Are you prepared to state that the US does not, and cannot, claim ownership to ANY other country’s natural resources? Are you prepared to state that the US does not have any inherent right to any other country’s natural resources beyond what ANYONE else has (at the behest of the fully independent government and peoples that actually possess those resources)?
dave @ 37
Nobody is questioning the need to end the war. A lot of people are working hard to do it in such a way that it does not further compromise our core interests, and jumping up and down when there are tactical errors (and in my judgement every debate that puts the troops in the middle of the political war at home is a tactical error)obscures the larger issues and makes it more difficult to fine tune shifts in policy that should be executed so as to stop the freefall of our position in the region. This means that we need to focus our attention on the President and not on the troops.
Rainer Vogel @ 44
Not at all, but we do have interests in play in the region.
So, we can’t fix it (unless Bush and Rice get brains) and we can’t get out?
“Date Certain” should have been yesterday at the latest.
If the supplemental made no sense as a vehicle to put the brakes on this mess, then WHY was it ever “sold” as such to the people???
Thank you for being here to discuss this but frankly, my keyboard is getting wet and salty hearing all this. People are dying.
I applaud you Congressman (Admiral) Sestak for coming here.
You’ve shown serious courage by explaining the situation here.
howieklein @ 9
I have always strongly felt, like at the end of the Vietnam war, the congress should vote onan authorizationlaw that forbids any appropriations for funding for forces in Iraq after a date-certain. That is what my authorization bill did when I submitted it in January…no monies to be used for U.S. military forces in Iraq after 31 December. This way, the law accomplishes (in what is called an authorization bill) our goal of establishing a date-certain, beyond which no money can be appropriated (in a separate appropriations bill) for forces in Iraq; at the same time, it permits the moneys supporting the safety of our troops to continue to flow for their safe redeployment, till that date-certain. Therefore,anauthorization bill never places the troops safety funding between us and the president. That is the bill we also voted on, that Rep. McGovern that 171 Representatives voted for. That should be our strategy: Date-Certain in an authorization bill, cutting off the funds in a authorization bill, providing the right strategy to bring the Iraqis, Iran, and Syria, to the diplomatic table to leave an unfailed state…while still appropriating moneyuntil that date in an appropriations billfor the safety of our troops
It’s done–you voted wrong. Why you guys did not simply put the same bill as before forward or filibuster or simply let the deadline lapse i don’t know. It’s sad.
And i hope you know that even if you hadn’t funded Iraq just now, and even if you withdraw authorization, or anything, Bush would not have withdrawn any troops–he’s not going to–it’s clear–nothing you guys do short of impeachment will bring our kids home. He will gladly go to court til he leaves office rather than stop this horror.
Now–stop the trade deals, repeal the Patriot Act, stop the spying on us, stop the immigration mess of a bill, stop the judges Bush is still pushing, get Gonzales out of office, get Rove under subpoena testifying in public, Ashcroft too, etc…
“and put them in greater danger by voting for a bill that gives them no funds to protect themselves in the next 5-7 weeks. I understand if you disagree, but these are Americans we sent in harms way, and I will never vote to make them less safe as I work to redeploy them in a timely and safe manner.” -Joe
With all due respect Congressman….
Wow that sounded like a Republican response, an adamant tone of your reply to the question Joe…
obviously you and the rest of,,Oh Hummm…”AMERICA”…don’t want to put our troops in any undo harm, but!!!!
That reply is deserving of skepticism because you and the rest of the democrats came away with nothing after all the tough talk you all spewed..
Next time, don’t talk for months and months about time-tables and benchmarks and then do nothing to achieve them,,,and knock off the rhetoric of there is a “new Congress in town”….
Congressman Sestak,
Thanks for coming to FDL. In your press release you wrote:
Since Bush is pouring more troops into Iraq as we speak, how is the situation in September going to be any better than it is now?
With more and more American lives at risk, doesn’t avoiding a showdown play into Bush’s hand?
With all due respect, sir, it seems to me that your argument allows Bush to hold our troops hostage to his insane policies.
Joe Wilson @ 10
Mr. Amabassador, good to be talking with you!
Dale at 56 — I don’t know if you have read Steve Gilliard’s work on lack of exit strategy by military commanders in Iraq — but there is no realistic plan for it. And at the moment, our supply lines are very fragile. Go back through some of Gilliard’s older posts and read his analysis on this — it is spot on, and precsient because I’m talking about posts from a year or two ago.
“I will never vote to make them less safe as I work to redeploy them in a timely and safe manner.”
How do you rationalize this? If we immediately sent 3-400,000 *MORE* troops to Iraq as well as multiple nuclear warheads and 24-71 warships, wouldn’t that make the troops safer? If each soldier was outfitted with state-of-the-art armor and several high-tech weapons that are only provided to special forces – THEIR LIVES WOULD BE SAFER. Why are you denying them these further safeguards? Sure, the additional cost would be 5-7 billion dollars, but how can you put a price of the precious life of our courageous American heroes? Why are you denying them safety by witholding these enhancements?
Mr Sestak,
I am a Reservist. I am an officer. I will NOT serve to support an empire. I will NOT be an imperial stormtrooper. I will NOT fight for oil or any other resource that is simply not ours to possess. I see absolutely NO danger to the Constitution at all in Iraq. I didn’t see any such danger before the illegal invasion.
I am going to quit the military because I cannot bear what the “leadership” has turned it into…and it doesn’t help that you and your colleagues are helping to perpetuate the empire nonsense by continuing to fund this occupation.
I will NOT serve empire!
Sierra Volk @ 53
It has been accepted by both political parties for a generation now. I agree with Richard Cohen of the Post when he says that we (the US) shouldn’t let friends (Israel) drive drunk, but this administration has been awol on Israel and the Middle East Peace Process since it came into office, with predictable results.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 11
I believe in the utmost focus must be places upon the underlying tension in the region: The Palestinian-Israili situation, and reengage where Pres. Clinton left off, persuing the Roadmap for Peace. If we can work towards that, we can diffuse much of the agitation for conflict in the Middle East.
Echoing foolme1ns thoughts: What I need to understand is why the Democrats felt they had to give in. The new Democrats (unlike Bush) were in fact elected with a clear mandate: to get us out of Iraq. While Bush clearly positioned himself to make it look like the Democrats would be responsible for the failure to fund the troops, the truth is (obviously) that his failure to sign a bill is just as big a block as the Democrats not giving him a bill he wanted to sign – which they ultimately did. Perhaps I’m being naive, but why not do as foolme1ns suggests – keep sending him your bill, over and over again. The public already demonstrated during the elections WHICH SIDE THEY WOULD PICK. Can you explain why we did not hold HIS feet to the fire?
Congressman Sestak:
I would like to know if you discussed your appearence here today with any members of the Democratic leadership and if you are, as my cynical self suspects, simply here in some kind of boneheaded attempt to pacify the dirty masses.
Also, and since Howie brought up “economic well-being” in the intro I don’t feel it’s off topic, I would like to know how you will be voting on the middle-class destroying trade bill and the immigration bill with it’s wage killing “guest worker” provisions that were negotiated in secret by the Dem leadership with George Bush.
Thx for your time and I appreciate your honesty…….
I am only going to say this once more: polite tone please. Tough questions are not only appropriate but also appreciated. But rudeness is not something that I am going to tolerate with a guest — we do not flamethrow here, and we are not going to start today.
Twain @ 46
Twain – you may be interested in this article’s take, which contradicts the (overly-simplistic, in my opinion) conventional wisdom viewpoint you cite in your comment:
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/52135
I donated to you last year–i’m really sorry i did now–i don’t have a lot of money to give and spread it out among 10 new candidates, and thought at least new people would bring leadership to Congress and progress–and not caving in. How many more have to die? How many more will hate us for our actions?
Joe Wilson @ 25
To respond to your points, 1) Our presence in Iraq is increasing not decreasing the terrorist threat, 2) Production from Iraq’s oil fields has fallen because of our presence in the country and we retain a strategic presence in Kuwait, Qatar, and elsewhere in the region, 3) Israel is a nuclear power with a military second only to our own in the area. They can protect their own borders.
As for “I oppose any debates on policy that come on the backs of our armed forces”, it’s a little late for that. Bush has been using the backs of our troops to foist this war on us from its inception. It’s taboo to say it but their deaths have been in vain. I just don’t get the allure of “They died bravely in a stupid war.” If we honor our troops, we should not dump them in and leave them in quagmires. We should be getting them out of Iraq. Joe Sestak voted to keep them in this mess, a mess they have been mired in for more than 4 years. If it isn’t time to say enough is enough now, when will it be? Sometime next century?
and the commenter up higher is right–Bush is holding our soldiers hostage and you’re letting him do it.
Praedor Atrebates @ 68
Hear! Hear!
Congressman:
One of the United States greatest assets in international affairs–moral standing–has been destroyed by this administration’s use of torture and denial of habeas corpus.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement, and if you agree, how would you propose to restore that asset?
pow wow @ 74
Should have said “some” of the people.
Sorry
You could take the $100 billion and bribe each citizen of Iraq. They would each get thousands of dollars. Why is it so difficult to apply a little common sense capitalism when engaging in foreign policy? All the $100 billion does now is enable a war machine. And as someone upthread said, Joe Wilson’s talking points make it sound as if we own Iraq.
With regards to preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state:
1) Is this really possible, at this date in history? Can anyone put the Balkans back together?
2) Even if it is possible, can we possibly claim to be contributing to the process of putting Iraq back together? We supported the Shah, then when he was gone we supported Saddam, now we are supporting Maliki and opposing Iran. Does anyone remember the story of the sorcerer’s apprentice?
To clarify point 2, what I’m saying is our hands our so dirty with regards to Iraq, no one can trust our motives. And the people in charge, the executive branch, are clearly the worst of the worst. If you want to help Iraqis, you figure out how best to stop Bush and Cheney. If your vote does that, I’d like to hear how.
This means that we need to focus our attention on the President and not on the troops.
I agree, and by allowing the administration to frame this vote as a vote on “supporting the troops,” the Democrats made a big mistake.
And Sestak (among others) bought into it hook, line, and sinker.
(BTW, can I mention how thrilled I am to be arguing with Joe Wilson? You magnificent bastard – I read your book!)
Wordsmith @ 42
Actually, the territorial integrity (and I suppose you also mean a less violent outcome than the one Iraq is trending towards) is what an international conference would help restore and the only reason to continue to have troops on the ground is to leverage such a conference, but it will not happen absent Presidential leadership which is clearly lacking.
Rep Sestak,
The President does NOT have war-starting powers. He never ever has. That is as clear as fine crystal. YOU and your Congressional colleagues alone hold the ability to make war. You MUST prevent/punish any attacks on yet another sovereign nation (Iran…it is really time to get over the fact that they didn’t like the government of the Shah that we imposed upon them for a generation). Impeachment is the appropriate response to illegal and unconstitutional actions by the President, Vice President, AG, etc. Don’t ignore your Constitutional duties nor the tools by which you can carry out your oath.
Joe Wilson @ 57
Mr. Wilson….
The President, Vice President, Karl Rove, I Scooter Libby and others in this administration committed Treason and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors and have yet not been held accountable.
If the House and Senate won’t impeach those responsible for those crimes than how can we make this President bring our troops home before any more die for OIL and LIES?
Joe Wilson @ 26
Bah, how do you differ from the Republicans on this? Not much I’d say.
First, the oil belongs to the folks living on top of it. Not us. Further, for a fraction of what we have spent in the region ’securing’ our access to this stuff over many decades we could have rebuilt our infrastructure to greatly reduce our dependence on oil. But we have not. This is just plain stupid and you and the rest of the ‘oil’ party are going to find out when Peak Oil hits…perhaps in the next decade.
Second, ‘Terrorism’ what a sick joke that is thanks to ‘The Decider’ and you we are producing terrorists in Iraq faster than we can kill them. Explain how that’s going to change now that the Iraqis, thanks to your vote, see that the only way to reclaim their country is to…
Kill all the Americans within it’s borders which action the latest casualty reports indicate they are already taking.
As to ‘votes using the troops as a political football…’ who is doing that if not you sir. The troops have indicated, most recently to your ‘good’ colleague Joe ‘The Liar’ Liebermann that they want to come home. An astounding perspective from American servicemen in the field as you very well know from your service Admiral. Yet you advance the Republican meme that to deny the obviously, I say again obviously, deranged President his ruinous requests for yet more money to pour down the rat hole we here call The MeatGrinder will deny the troops the ’support’ they need. I’ll be frank sir this is a Republican lie. What are you doing advancing it as ‘justification’ for your vote?
No, Sir I well remember listening to you at YearlyKos 2006 speak of what you planned to do once elected and thinking ‘yes, this guy get’s it…’
Sadly, I was wrong.
As for the meme that we must ‘protect’ Israel…How long are we going to let that fester? Another sixty years? Sir we need leadership not more ‘going along to get along…’ This statement perhaps more than any other by you shows that you don’t understand the nation’s need for that quality.
We voted for you to change things.
We did not vote for ‘more of the same…’
Christy Hardin Smith @ 12
I agree. I have always said I’m not anti-war…I’m pro-security. This tragic misadventure in Iraq has hurt our security: there is no army unit at home, active, reserve, or national guard, that is in a state of readiness to deploy to any contingency elsewhere around this world. Afhganistan has become prey to terrorists, as the Taliban moves into the southern provinces, because we shifted our focus away from the real front of terrorism is. One of the many reasons we must redeploy is to focus properly throughout this world, engaging to bring about a more peaceful world…while we bring the remainder of our forces home for a high readiness level. There is much more in this issue from equipment we are buying for the wrong type of war (which some call occupation), rather than the correct type for future strife, as well as not having the funding to invest in our education, heath and economic security.
My apologies if someone has already asked this question…
Congressman Sestak, can you tell us anything about the firing/replacing of six Navy commanders in as many weeks that was recently reported? It seems like an alarming story, given the president’s intent to keep on putting on the pressure…
Thank you very much,
- Karen M.
in your district
link
dave @ 84
Isn’t democracy great. That is why we have to restore it in our own country. Thanks for reading the book.
This is Congressman Sestak’s show so I am going to quit muddying the waters and take my kids swimming. Bye all.
George A. at 86 — Somehow, I think Amb. Wilson is more than aware of the egregious consequences aspect of this Administration’s illegal and nasty conduct, don’t you? *g*
NorCal @ 60
I agree, but I also hope you read all the comments carefully, because just because we respect you personally for engaging us does not mean we respect your vote.
The Purse equals The Power to these book-cooking no-bidders, and as a Congressman, it is your only tool for change.
And please, next time you get a chance to debate the issue, would you at least question how much of the money you voted to send “for the troops” will really end up in some Halliburtonish bottom line, or as shoddy, even non-existent construction, or as a $100,000 bonus to some private security guard, who is getting paid 10 times what our loyal, hard working soldiers get.
And maybe you could find out how much we spent on that Disnelyland Embassy in Baghdad?
Could you do that for us?
Thanks…
I am going to quit muddying the waters and take my kids swimming.
So does this mean I win??? ;)
FWIW, From George C. Scott in his Oscar winning performance of Patton about Irwin Rommel: “you magnificent bastard, I read your book.”
Isn’t democracy great. That is why we have to restore it in our own country.
And I agree 100%.
Do the Iraqi people have interests lieing within the borders of the USA? What level of intervention should be allowed of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to take advantage of the interest they have in our resources, culture, and territorial access? Do the Iraqis have a right to create Islamic Iraqi encampments inside the USA in order to take advantage of the important interests they have in the region? Can the Iraqis then fortify their Islamic cities within the US and protect them from the danger of Christian intruders?
What are you guys doing about the permanent massive bases there already? What can you do?
And have you seen this: The Generals say either 100,000 troops or 130,000 troops still in Iraq when Bush leaves office, and they’ve already decided they’ll be reporting progress in September no matter what — http://abcnews.go.com/WN/IraqC…..amp;page=1
Rep. Sestak -
Do you know what the extra $66 billion in the supplemental funding will be used for, above and beyond the $33 billion presumably intended to fund the $2 billion a week “operational” ‘burn rate’ of our Iraq occupation for June through September?
dave @ 94
I think you know me well enough to know I never quit. See my most recent letter to the SSCI on NOQuarter.com.
But I also take great joy in being a father to two demanding 7 year olds.
Ambassador Wilson, your statement about both political parties being behind our priorities concerning Israel gave me a bit of pause. There are many things both political parties believe in that people here are trying to change. Blue America was, in part, a reaction to many of the entrenched positions of our own party. I’m sure there are reasons for taking Israel’s side, no matter what, but I think we have to get beyond the rationale that the party leaders agree, so it must be okay.
Karen M @ 90
I’m curious about this also.
Ambassador Wilson:
Have a great time with the kids…I’m still a huge admirer of yours…even after the “Rove” crack! ;)
Congressman:
I would like to know if you have discussed your appearance here today with the Democratic leadership. I don’t feel the question is rude or out of bounds. Thx.
Hello Congressman,
I know Iraq is the hot topic, and I am sorry to see our boys continue to be killed and the Iraqi citizens dying. I hope we are out soon. If your date was Dec 31 is that now March 31?
My question is about the DOJ and the judicial appointments Bush has been making. Do you agree with Ginsberg that the decisions are more politically oriented than oriented toward constitutional justice and interpretation?
Thanks
Wow, this is such s civil and nice discussion. It makes me f*****g sick. This guy took your money and then voted against your interests, and all you can do is fall over yourselves because the turn-coat came to your website to talk about how he stabbed you in the back. Great job net roots!!!
[jakethesnake — You will follow the rules and keep your discussion on the merits civil. Or you will not be commenting. Are we clear? I will not tolerate that sort of bad behavior with a guest. This is not a mud-wrestling pit, these have been our rules with guests from the moment we started having them. You will either discuss these issues on the merits, or your participation will be limited accordingly. I think that is fairly clear — everyone else has to folow the rules and you are not so exceptional that they don’t apply to you. Capice? — CHS]
amberglow @ 97
The link is broken and goes to a “no longer exists” page…
Rep. Sestak — While I am thinking about it, do you have any thoughts about the recent revision of the disaster protocols via executive order from President Bush (as discussed this morning by Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe)?
ren @ 19
I actually worked to remove from the first resolutions a portion of it that would have us remaining in Iraq to “defend the borders.” We are having a challenging time doing that for U.S. borders. To be successful in that would mean over 100,000 troops. To your point, immediatly after the war, if we had not disbanded Iraq’s army and taken all Baathists out of government, there may have been a potentials to not have been in the morass of civil war we presently are. That poor planning and excecution assuredly did us in… with regards to your other question, some monies have to be placed on contracts; more, how long do we wait if there is a sudden hightening of battle and extra bullets and gas are needed suddenly? the pace of warfare… which our troops are in… determines how fast the monies are used. I believe we should be cautious about our troops safety. Again, this is why an authorization bill, cutting off the funding by legislating for a date-certain cut-off, not actually appropriated money flowing to our trrop safety, is the best way to do it
Joe Sestak @ 61
Would this authorization be part of the annual defense authorization, or is it a separate authorization? That is, is it a bill that must pass for the war to be funded, or a bill without which the current authorization of the war will continue unchanged? And are you laying the groundwork for how to put the onus on the president if he vetoes it regardless of the danger to the troops and our security, like he did with the appropriations bill?
I ask because unless it is a bill that must pass to continue the war like the appropriations bill, it seems like it’s a losing battle in the Senate like every other measure to directly end the war. And if it is must-pass, it’s vulnerable to the same kind of propaganda as the appropriations bill fight.
Again with all due respect…
I think Joe and Joe are underestimating the insanity of this administration…..
Anyone remember the recent story of “The Decider” Beating his chest repeating “I am the President” in a meeting with Texas conservatives?
I knew this President was going to get us into deep sh!t in Iraq and he did,,,I was hoping the dems in Congress were going to start getting us out so we wouldn’t be going into Iran!!!! I was hoping we were going to stop Bush’s insanity but no… Now the President is more empowered by our laying down and letting him get his way…
He’ll probably read all this as a signal to go into Iran…(Congress wanted me to when they gave me the money),,,this is just sad…
SaltinWound @ 101
I don’t disagree with that at all.
1. Why does no one in the Congress ever even mention the fact that it is a widespread tenet in the Muslim faith that Muslims have a duty to drive non-Muslim armed invaders from a Muslim country – not just their own country, but others as well? As such – no one recognizes the religious based fuel to chaos that is lent by our presence. Of course their will be sectarian divides and the feelings of the French resistance towards the Vichy gov is magnified by the existing religious tenets that the Maliki gov is not only working as a puppet government, but is also violating the faith as it keeps US forces surrounding it. The fact that we never pulled our Saudi bases – all of these things are never addressed.
2. Explain how it is that you could have sent a bill to the President that funded the troops and yet required redeploymetn and you didn’t – - based on the argument that you didn’t have enough votes to override his veto. You knew this was a problem when you sent the first bill and the thing that is not addressed is that you would have the SAME PROBLEM WITH THE VOTES. The votes would have locked in your defunding – which you say you won’t do if the President won’t go along. Well, if you sent a veto proof bill, then what? If he didn’t withdraw, you would be defunding. That is the exact same issue you have now – if you sent a bill he didn’t like, he’d ignore it you fear and so the troops would be defunded.
That’s all kabuki. You had no different underlying situation if you had the votes. You still would have had a President that could leave troops there, defunded, by refusing to redeploy – just as you would have had a President who might have vetoed a bill and left the troops there, defunded, if you had sent him the same bill.No difference – you are basically telling us that your position if based on a fear of the President and the votes make no difference.
Our Congress is there to avoid challenge to an imperialist President and bury democracy.
Praedor Atrebates @ 20
I believe there should be no permanent bases in Iraq. Again, I believe the best strategy is setting a date-specific, and leaving it to the military how to safely redeploy by then. Congress is a blunt instrument, and we should be cautious about mandating how many by month, where we might unwisely be affecting the safety of our troops. Let’s set a date-certain, and have our troops out by then, understanding it is also a change in strategy that can actually bring the region to the table to work towards an unfailed state. particularly Iran with its influence on extreminst elements.
Since the Iraqi people and the Iraqi parliament have voted several times and overwhelmingly want the US to leave, why are we disprespecting them? Are the Iraqi people so childish and ignorant that we must ignore their demands that we leave? Also, will a ban be lifted on polling the Iraqi people since these results became public? What are you doing to reduce the amount of US tax dollars being spent on propaganda in Iraq (Rendon group, and others)?
oops—they took it down?
here’s Americablog on it last night: http://www.americablog.com/200…..going.html
Joe Wilson @ 85
Mr. Wilson, you undoubtedly have a cooler head than I.
This Iraqi debacle has pissed me off & continues pisses me off no end, from the very beginnings of this illegal invasion to those yellow vinyl ribbon slapped on SUVs. We have no business there!
However,
– perhaps. You are correct: there’s no presidential leadership. What I see as that which happened, hope was placed in the Democratic leadership and they failed us as did all those who were voted in because of the lack of presidential leadership
Joe Wilson @ 84
Good day Ambassador. I agree with your conclusion about ‘Presidential leadership…’ Which is why the lack of same from Congress is not only disappointing but extremely dangerous. If the combined ‘wisdom’ of the 536 members cannot figure out how to stop the mushrooming disaster in Iraq I have a suggestion:
Impeachment.
And yes I know the votes are not there but….
I believe introducing the articles on the floor of the House would have a salutatory effect on the Republicans as it would allow the nation to open a debate on same.
And believe me sir when I say that there is a lot of grassroots support for removing the deranged ‘Decider’ from office.
Before he can bomb Iran of declare martial law in the U.S. and please, before you reply that I need a tinfoil hat answer me one question.
If Bush were to bomb Iran or declare martial law here….
Who would stop him?
I see no one here or in Congress that would, as far as I can tell, every try.
dakine01 @ 103
ABC yanking the story is now itself the subject of this at RawStory.
Praedor Atrebates @ 69
I left the Air Force in 1984 after eleven years as a Russian linguist and analyst in SIGINT, when Ronald Reagan was reelected. I could no longer in good conscience be a part of the shit that he was pulling.
Sometimes it’s worth throwing away a career to just say HELL NO!
Admiral, bear in mind: my family has a long history of military service, stretching back to the Civil War. I broke with the tradition over Reagan’s policy. This illegal war that is sapping our nation’s lifeblood is the best possible insurance that my 12-year-old son will not grow up believing military service is an honorable or even necessary choice. It will be another generation, at least, before anyone will join the military out of anything but fiinancial desperation.
Congressman:
Moqtada al Sadr said that he wanted to make peace with suni Iraqis.
Why are there (to my knowledge) no feeler sent out diplomatically if a deal could not be struck with him, with appropriate concessions that he harbor no terrorist groups and not become a continuation of Saddam?
I do agree very much with your approach, Rep. Sestak, of setting a future date certain for leaving Iraq, and funding through that date for that purpose. [I also support a repeal of the AUMF.] What I don’t see is how this gets achieved going forward this year, unless the FY 2008 House defense authorization bill (which is finished already?), as well as the Senate’s, includes a ‘forward-funded’ date certain end of the occupation.
I think a lot of people thought that the supplemental bill approach was a version of that idea that could work, and/or we don’t see how the insufficient support for the McGovern approach you laud will suddenly materialize into strong majority support in September. Thus (among other reasons, including apparently that Israel’s national security takes precedence over our own, in Congress) the conclusion we draw: we won’t be leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, in spite of all the rhetoric pretending to claim otherwise…
Dale @ 95
I guess the question here for Admiral Sestak is how much he believes in manifest destiny and the projection of American power. We have some 700 military bases overseas. Yet if one foreign country asked to have a military base in, say, Kansas, most Americans would go through the roof. Perhaps the congressional vote was tactical. And perhaps Sestak and Wilson are correct on how to proceed in the near term. Chalmers Johnson has made the point that we may soon become a failed state. And we can either give up our freedom for the empire (like Rome) or our empire for our freedom (like Great Britain). I would like to hear Admiral Sestak speak on where he thinks this nation will be in 20 or 30 years. That 100 billion dollars could have brought prosperity and relief to a lot of people in the world. Instead it has further enabled a war economy that Eisenhower warned against.
p.lukasiak @ 103
I did not mean it personally but we need to be clear that whenever we are in disarray (and complex issues always provoke passionate, and passionately different views from intelligent people) clever simpletons like Rove fan the flames, then accuse us of not having a coherent alternative. Sad but true. Make no mistake about it, I relish the debate and fully subscribe to the Will Rogers observation that I don’t belong to an organized party, I am a democrat. If I wanted to live in 1939 Germany, I would be a republican. But I don’t.
And this really is my last comment.
Indeed. I have re-read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I have also re-read the military officer oath. No where in any of the documents is there any tie-in to Israel. In no location can I find that Israel gets to control our Middle East policies and that Israel is to receive 100% US support no matter what they do. I just can’t find it.
Where is this rule that Israel’s interests are the same as America’s interests? Where is the rule that Israel can never ever do anything wrong that would result in a reduction of support?
We are not adequately providing for the troops now … and never have. It’s having it both ways to NOT provide the equipment that is needed AND to claim that we must continue to support the war to support the troops.
PLEASE explain to me how an authorization bill that puts a date certain for the end of funding does not fall to the same faulty thinking. I can hear it now: “we cannot have a date certain because we cannot defund the troops.” It’s absolutely the same conversation, isn’t it???
It seems the level of anger over the war (justified IMHO) has only gotten more focused, and will continue to escalate as long as progressives see results like the subject vote.
When I was an active duty Marine, it was a given that there were things that were worth fighting and, if needed, dying for. So my question is this: Can you not see, Adm Sestak, that since the reason you, and many like you, were elected was to speak out and fight AGAINST the occupation of Iraq, why we would be disappointed and frustrated by your vote? Why we fell almost betrayed that you would not fight, at EVERY opportunity? What we’re asking for now are LEADERS, men and women who are not afraid to shine truth. The troops would understand, and make do, just as they’ve always done. They want out too!!
Fascinating discussion! I am going to have to go back and read many of the comments more carefully, but here is my question:
Now that the supplemental (temporary by nature) has been passed, what next? What happens when this money runs out? What is the Dem strategy to prevent this kind of stop-gap from becoming a long term policy?
Can you force the pres to submit a real military budge with a real plan that he has to hold too? And what room would there be for negotiating in that framewoork?
Woodhall Hollow @ 126
This is the question for me. We’ve been told, “In September, you’ll see a real bill, something demanding real accountability.” September is getting closer by the day, particularly with a lengthy summer recess coming up. What will we see in September that will be any different than what we’ve seen in the last two bills?
dakine01 @ 22
As I said during the campaign, I ran as an idependant representative, of my district, while believing in democratic principals. On the other hand, the leadership of the Democratice Caucus weighs what they believe is the best strategy for the Caucus to accomplish myriad goals of this challenging issue, conscious of competing voices within the Caucus. I must vote, however, in what I believe is right for me and my constituents…conscious that others will at time disagree; but that is why I am on this site, wrote an editorial on my vote, and why I also met with several hundred costituents last night to listen, and to explain how I voted because of my experience, and how I view the situation that we might have placed those who wear the cloth of this nation in overseas.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 107
Christy…
I’ve ask this question a few times here and was hoping one of the legal eagles would do a post on it.
That’s why I ask Congressman Sestak about a threat to our government when you take the Military Commissions Act into consideration with that new Directive.
Thanks for asking the Congressman about it.
Joe Wilson @ 70
Sir, with all due respect, “accepted by both political parties for a generation now” does not necessarily equate with rational or wise. At 52, there has literally not been a single time in my life when Israeli/Arab tensions have not had us perched on the sword’s edge. Now we are flinging more fuel on the fire. I repeat the question, for a substantive answer: why is Israel sacrosanct to us? Having grown up in a fundamentalist household, i understand why it is sacrosanct to christianists. But why to U.S. foreign policy?
Representative Sestak:
If you had not described your rationale for voting for this horrible bill in a way that made those voting the right way seem unpatriotic, you would have done the nation a great service. Representatives voting in accord with the wishes of their constitutuents to force timetables on Bush were not voting to endanger the troops. You can disagree with them without smearing them.
p.lukasiak @ 23
If you saw my previous answer, absolutely. This is the key of a date-certain strategy: to lead with confidence, diplomaticaly, to bring others with interest in stability to the table.
“I believe there should be no permanent bases in Iraq.”
This is stunning and seems blatantly dishonest. We have invested billions in huge multi-storied structures, huge theaters, prisons, giant cafeterias, and on and on and on. The bases are literally like cities. And we are currently expanding them every day with tons of contruction by Turkish contractors and many others. Do you actually for one second think we are going to give up these American cities? If so, then why are they being currently EXPANDED at an accelerated pace?
ren at 111 — You know, that’s funny that you think that Amb. Wilson does not have a clear understanding of the ability of the Bush Administration to do whatever it deems is necessary to achieve its ends justifies the means policy initiatives. Honestly, given what he and his family have been through the past few years, both publicly and privately in the nasty environs of the DC Beltway?!?
Congressman, thanks for coming to FireDogLake to face the music, and thank you for your service to the United States.
My question is: should your Defense Authorization amendment fail, will you ever vote against an Appropriations Bill?
I ask this because, if I follow your logic, you see the Authorization bill as the only correct vehicle. By your logic, no Appropriations bill can be used to cut off warfunds, since that will “hurt our troops in harm’s way.”
Thank you.
125 and 126 pretty much tie it up with a bow.
Joe Wilson @ 26
Mr. Wilson,
As to your three interests I have a couple of questions.
1. If the growth in terrorism parallels the growth of direct US military involvement in the Middle East how do you propose to reduce terrorism without the US military completely removing itself from the area?
2. The territorial integrity of Israel pre or post 1967 borders? It’s quite clear the Israelis have no intentions of giving up any land and are willing to enslave a population in order to further their expansionist aims. Why should the US be a party to that enslavement?
3. If the US military is in the area to protect oil supplies then why isn’t a surcharge being placed on each barrel of oil in order to finance the protection? And also, when did it become the job of the US taxpayer and the US military to offer this type of protection to private property from which we derive no direct profit? What kind of capitalist society are we running where those who assume risk have no prospect of profit?
nannerb @ 126
Exactly, nicely put
George A. @ 24
I need to relook at how far this could really go, but I do know that I have written a bill on hapeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, and will be working to pass it, among other efforts to override executive abuse.
Sir,
Your vote was your vote that is not the major issue as I know you will not gamble or use the troops for politcal purpose. My beef is that you knew the the president would veto the bill and you knw the there was no way repubs would vote to override the the veto so why did you wait till now to explain instead of standing up before your latest vote and explain the situation and why you would vote for funding? I think more people would have understood why you did what you did. The problem with explanations and apologies after the fact is for me a loss of trust. Tell me like it is up front and then we can work to deal with it. I can only hope the you and other vets in congress will stand up and the people the facts before and not after.
With the cost of this this war reaching well over 300 billion bucks, much of it being thrown around like candy, it is a shame to see so many unworthy beneficiaries get the lion’s share.
So why not make a concession for the ages, and use some of this easy money to send every soldier home with a serious grubstake?
It would help them AND the economy, not to mention the housing market, which is where most of it would end up.
So, before I go, I just have to say, if we took 30% (30 Billion Dollars,)of the latest bundle of tax money “they” just gave away to the neocons, and we gave every former and current Iraqi veteran $100,000 when they returned to the US, think what it would do for the economy…
Just a thought…
…and thanks to Christy and everyone at FDL for putting these live-blogs together, it can be quite revealing.
Later…
I think you know me well enough to know I never quit.
What the- you said you were leaving!
You’ve been hanging out at Kos too much…
Dale @ 133
Why dishonest? He didn’t say that he thinks that’s what the Bush Administration thinks. Obviously, they plan to have permanent bases — you can tell because they give shifty answers when they’re asked about it. But as long as we have a democracy, we can change our government and leave the bases. The fact that the current administration is wasting billions on an insane project that does not contribute to our security doesn’t mean the next will continue throwing good money after bad.
Dale @ 26
We truly have approached this war entirely wrong. Not only what we do, but how we do it, is so important. We should never forget, there is not only the power of our military and the power of our economy, but there is the power of our ideals. We have let that atrophy over the past few years. Please understand, we may disagree on our approaches, but I hope that at the end of the day, we are all striving towards the same ideal in how and why we need end this tragic misadventure
allan_in_upstate @ 119
ahh–i wonder if the WH called them? (and they’re cowards like our Congresspeople if they caved too)
dave at 144 — Amb. Wilson was clearly referencing fighting to make things right in the foreign policy arena and not ending discussion on those issues, and not leaving here to take his own children swimming. Let’s not get off-topic on a tangent that doesn’t even really exist, shall we?
Rep. Sestak,
It is a breath of fresh air to have a congressional representative not hide from a particular vote or position they have taken. Do you think there is anything that can be done to restore the Congress to the deliberative body it is supposed to be?
This conversation is a joke. I believe the responses we are getting are from an aide to Rep. Sestak. Simply talking points. It saddens me that I was tricked into supporting Democrats In Name Only.
To all:
This period was scheduled for an hour…unfortunatly too short, and I would love to come back. But I need to depart because I am on a panel on Cheyney University, and as you probably know, the oldest historically Black college, for a discussion on racial issues.
Please invite me back. I’d be honored
Warmly,
Joe
a trivial (and late) question:
Do you prefer to be addressed as Congressman Sestak, or Admiral Sestak?
Thanks for coming by today Congressman. I told your office that one hour was way too short, even under normal circumstances. But we felt the need to get the dialogue going. As you can tell from the comments, we’d love to have you back for more discussion. Let us know and we’ll make time to fit your schedule. I hope you found some value here today. I think I speak for many of us when I say that I certainly did.
Thanks for putting up with us admiral/congressman. Have a great day!
141 – I hope your bill at a minimum incorporates everything Dodd has in his, because habeas is only one small slice of what is wrong with the MCA. You really ought to get some of the Seton Hall kids who worked on the summary of detainee information in to speak with at least your staff if not you.
The military is being debased by what has happened with Guantanamo and that has nothing to do with the concept of how you handle acknowledged terrorits (military commission v. criminal proceeding) and everything to do with the military’s acquiesence in human trafficking and buying people from Pakistan and Afghan warlords and then taking those people – hundreds of whom our own CIA sources say were wholly innocent – and disappearing, mistreating and abusing them.
Look at the beating/disability of one of our own solidiers when he “jumpsuited up” for a training session and the lack of duty and honor when the tapes of what happened to him were conveniently lost.
Almost everyone in Congress seems completely unwilling to be brave and face inconvenient facts and truths. I thought we were sending a braver generation of representatives, but so far it has been beyond disheartening.
Per everyone else, thanks very much for coming Congressman Sestak, it’s greatly appreciated.
“ren at 111 — You know, that’s funny that you think that Amb. Wilson does not have a clear understanding of the ability of the Bush Administration to do whatever it deems is necessary to achieve its ends justifies the means policy initiatives. Honestly, given what he and his family have been through the past few years, both publicly and privately in the nasty environs of the DC Beltway?!?”
Christy,,,I think he is aware of it on a personal level but I don’t think he is really taking in how INSANE Dick Cheney is….Joe seems to believe in strategic interests and all that,,,but doesn’t realize that we are trying to set up 14 permanent military bases in Iraq to keep an eye on OUR NEW OIL…and be a spring board for Iran,,,Joe doesn’t see the implications of all this and or doesn’t want to discuss it….
Joe Sestak @ 129
Congressman, thank you for taking my questions although I don’t believe you actually answered it. I do understand that the leadership has to balance differing issues and constiuencies. I just want them to deal with us in an honest and straightforward fashion and NOT attempt to blow smoke up our butts. Most of us are adults and have learned to accept some level of disappointment. Just tell us the truth. It really should not be that difficult to do and they may find a better long term relationship with us by doing so. Rather like your decision to be upfront with Howie and those of us here at FDL about your vote. We may very well disagree with many of your votes but we can have a mutual respect in the inidividual integrity and well meaning of both sides.
kerplunk — That was incredibly disrespectful to Howie who worked hard to get a conversation going with Rep. Sestak who was, indeed, speaking here today. You don’t like the tone of the conversation? Did you bother to ask a question above — because I am not seeing one. If you don’t do the work, you don’t really have standing to complain.
Thank you very much, Admiral Sestak. We appreciate your taking the time to come here and your speaking frankly about these complicated issues.
What Cristy said at 157
Speaking of authorizations and appropriations, what plans do you know of to require the Bush administration to put the war under the normal appropriations process and make it stick? As you know, this war/occupation has been funded by “emergency” appropriations for far longer than any other in our history.
I hope you will be able to come back soon, Rep. Sestak. This discussion is both very important and very helpful to both sides, I think. To repeat something I said in Howie’s post yesterday:
I thank you very, very much, Representative Sestak, for putting yourself in a position to confront and answer direct questions from citizens in this way (and as Senator Dodd did earlier this week). Our Members of Congress have indeed become expert at hiding from us, and using C-SPAN to deliver their cover stories before disappearing back into the hidden halls of power. However, only open debate and dialogue with all its attendant airing of disagreements can accurately define the problems we face, and then propose the best and most creative solutions to them, as you obviously recognize.
Thank you Howie and FDL for giving us this opportunity.
P.S. All Democratic Members of Congress (as well as many bloggers) will appreciate this incisive commentary from Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post today titled “The Troop Funding Trap”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..inionsbox1
I think there’s something wrong with me because I didn’t understand anything Rep. Sestak just said, it sounded like double talk to me. Is he for or against the war?
I am constantly amazed at the level of knowledge and integrity of the people who write and comment at FDL. This discussion was honest and, to say the least, forthright. I enjoy reading the ideas of people much younger than I am and have hope that the future will be good in your able hands.
OK, gang. Congressman Sestak has left the discussion and Joe Wilson is off swimming with his kids. This wasn’t a fundraising session and Congressman’s Sestak’s name isn’t on our Blue America page. Should it be?
egregious @ 159
Aaahhh.. I must have missed the important bits! Could you please indicate what you mean when you say:
“We appreciate your taking the time to come here and your speaking frankly about these complicated issues.”
The Admiral has not said anything. Please help understand.
“The fact that the current administration is wasting billions on an insane project that does not contribute to our security doesn’t mean the next will continue throwing good money after bad.”
It is not “the current administration”, it is ALL OF us as we are complicit in providing the funds for all of this to happen. You don’t give a drug addict some cold cash and not expect him to buy drugs. It is our money that was used and is being used to expand the American cities inside Iraq. There is no way these are going to be abandoned. No way, and anyone who has seen them knows it.
Christy Hardin Smith says
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
ren at 111 — You know, that’s funny that you think that Amb. Wilson does not have a clear understanding of the ability of the Bush Administration to do whatever it deems is necessary to achieve its ends justifies the means policy initiatives. Honestly, given what he and his family have been through the past few years, both publicly and privately in the nasty environs of the DC Beltway?!?
I just think Joe doesn’t appreciate that we are setting up 14 permanent bases in Iraq to watch over our newly found oil and to launch a war against Iran….all the pieces are in place and this still is focusing on the thought that we need to get out of iraq,,,we aren’t going anywhere but to Iran, unless we cut off the money to this war….
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I, for one, was not convinced, and I don’t think Congressman Sestak made many converts to his viewpoint. I don’t think he budged much either.
Nevertheless, he is to be commended for coming here on a Saturday morning to talk thoughtfully about his vote. Now, our community’s question is: Is Joe Sestak an 08 Blue American, or not?
Dale @ 167
Don’t see how you can be so sure. It happened in Vietnam.
I find Mr. Sestak’s cavalier attitude and apathetic attitude towards his responsibilities disturbing. We hear words like “patience” and “movement” and explanations of how a vote to continue the war is actually a vote against the war.
The US public has great patience, which is why it has not “stormed the Bastille” just yet. In Nov 2006, however, the US public delivered the message that its patience has reached its end and that the time for change was now.
Mr. Sestak apparently heard a different message. His pedantic and self-important preachings tell us that he needs time to form the movement and guide it to success. Mr. Sestak’s arrogance does not allow him to see, I guess, that the movement already exists and his “job” is to vote for that movement, not recreate it into some watered-down drawn out farce.
So, since Mr. Sestak feels that “patience” and understanding of political complexities are his right and that his right to such trumps the lives and well being of Iraqi children, women, and men, and of course also trumps the lives and well being of US service members, I ask Mr. Sestak specifically-”How many Iraq and US servicemember’s deaths are acceptable during this time of patience?”
A specific answer, sir, and not the standard answer of how each death is tragic and troubles you which is why we must have patience. This is a false logic political answer. I know that, and you know that. As does the vast majority of intelligent Americans, a fact that Mr. Sestak’s brief tenure in Washington has already made him ignorant to.
So, Mr. Sestak, how many specifically?
Understand,though, that at this moment I have a nephew over there with a gun pointed at his head.
Joe Sestak @ 140
Thank you Rep. Sestak for your response. The way I’ve seen the new Directive come across as is very scary. It looks like the same way Hitler took over Germany in 1939 with all the powers he had authorized to him by the German Legislatures.
So even if you pass a bill to restore Habeas Corpus he can refuse too sign it, than what? No one has yet to challenge all the signing statements he’s made, not even the anti torture bill. I truly believe are Constitution and our country are in danger of falling to a full blown dictatorship.
Bison @ 161
He is against the war and believes the appropriate way to end it is through an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. I’m going to have to look up the Vietnam War reference — in the discussion of this bill, a lot of people wrote about how the Vietnam War was ended by cutting off the funding, but assuming that Adm. Sestak is correct and it was ended by cutting off the authorization and not the appropriation, that does change the debate a bit. (I’ll also have to look up which type of bill about Somalia featured the debate remarks from hypocritical Republicans about cutting off funds.)
Joe Sestak @ 128
Admiral this is no longer 18th century America. The idea that you must ‘represent you constituents…’ to the exclusion of all other Americans is outmoded and frankly has quite a bit to do with how Mr. Bush and his NeoAmerican Fascists have been able to seize control of our government. As an example of what I am trying to say look at Joe the LiarMann’s campaign for Senate against Ned Lamont. Liebermann repeatedly made the argument that he should be re-elected because he had ’saved the Groton submarine works…’ thus ‘bringing home the bacon’. Admiral I’ve been listening to this egragarious bullshit for decades. Congress repeatedly uses pork to secure votes without ever recognizing the fact that pork in the form of out of control spending on the MI complex might be bad for the country.
What you call Democratic ‘leadership’ is a cartel of politicians playing a game. A game of you pay me and I’ll pay you with the taxpayer’s money. A game sir, we elected you to stop. Do you honestly think that even a minute fraction of the billions and billions and billions we have and are spending on cool stuff like the V-22, the Joint Task Force Fighter or even new air craft carriers is doing anything to make us safer? I am sure the Osama has a video of ‘The Commander Guy’ his dad and his sister breaking a bottle of champagne on the bow of our latest aircraft carrier. I can see him and his cohorts playing that video and laughing. Laughing at the folks in Congress who think this is a game you play to get paid.
This waste you signed off on is not making us safer and I would think you would realize that. We here in the blogosphere are not stupid sir and hair-splitting about the ‘Caucus’ and Democratic ‘Leadership’ is just not going to cut it. You can still get up on the floor of the House and speak the truth can you not? See the YouTubes of Tim Ryan if you need some help.
Better yet vote against this waste and stupidity.
But spare us the excuses about what you cannot do sir.
We’ve heard them all before.
And we do not nor will we ever agree that letting George W. Bush do whatever he wants is good for the country even if it’s good for you.
67 Christy Hardin Smith says:
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 am
Dale at 56 — I don’t know if you have read Steve Gilliard’s work on lack of exit strategy by military commanders in Iraq — but there is no realistic plan for it. And at the moment, our supply lines are very fragile. Go back through some of Gilliard’s older posts and read his analysis on this — it is spot on, and precsient because I’m talking about posts from a year or two ago.
Thank you Christy. I have to say I agree with both Joe’s. (Although the Israel question is a debate in its own right.) I like the authorization option that Adm Sestak is offering.
Anything we try to do at this point and with the damage already done and all the shouldas involved, will be extremely difficult and painful. We have to protect as many as possible in the interim. *Sigh
“Congressman’s Sestak’s name isn’t on our Blue America page. Should it be?”
I just can’t see supporting someone who votes yes to a bill like this. I give to ActBlue because I want to get Progressives elected and I want to stop the war.
howieklein @ 165
I would hope that it does not go on the list–I would like to see us field a candidate that will understand what we expect of them…and follow through with that mandate
Howie, I like him still. I disagree with this vote — and I think he has his rationale wrong on it. But looking at his overall efforts, on balance they are better overall than a lot of other folks that we supported. But I do think we ought to take a wait and see approach — see if he makes good on his claim that he wants to work on getting out, on what he talked about with you and also here today — and if he does the work to that end, then we ought to support that. Just my two cents…
I tend to be a whole picture person though, rather than a single snapshot. And the whole picture of Sestak in my mind continues to be more good than bad overall — just as Carney squelched that for me by being dismissive and cowardly about his vote when he need never have been. That was just shameful all around, and not balanced by any real efforts elsewhere that i could look at for mitigation. But again, that’s just my one opinion.
mic check…
Dale @ 167
Second thought–the MSM consistently ignores these bases and the importance of the issue (of their permanence). Definitely something to make a fuss about.
Dale, I really appreciated your inside perspective on the situation in Iraq in this thread (though the detail about our mini-city-states in Iraq is appalling to hear). Thank you.
Howie @ 161 – Joe Sestak deserves to remain a member of Blue America if for no other reason than for his volunteering to debate the vital issue of the day directly with the American people in this session today, it seems to me.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 13
Christy Hardin Smith @ 13
howieklein @ 163
First time I attended one of these. Very disappointing, I might say. Hard to follow and most questions were not even answered. The ones that were either avoided the question or skirted it with the same old blah, blah, blah. I won’t waste my time in the future.
I believe the take home message here is that Joe Sestak is going to do what he is going to do. In the face of an intransigent President, Joe Sestak has pretty much promised that when push comes to shove he is going to cave. Somehow we are supposed to feel better that he will cave while still holding (at least in his own mind) to his principles.
Beyond that, he will refuse to take responsibility for his actions and his votes. As I said in my first comment, Joe Sestak’s vote for the supplemental acquiesces in the deaths (and wounding) of hundreds of American troops and who knows how many Iraqis in the next 4 months. Yet he has the unmitigated gall to say that he will do nothing that will place our troops in danger. How divorced from reality can he be? Isn’t he just as reality challenged as Bush?
A date certain sounds nice but unless Sestak can point to a reliable way that it gets passed and becomes law, it is just so much window dressing, nothing more. I really don’t think he gets that we understand the legislative process and know what can happen to these good intentions. I don’t think he gets that we are looking for results, not pablum.
And I would say to the fdl community out there if he can not stand with us on this most important issue, do you really think he will stand with us on the others?
Hmmmmm….this is an amazing thread. What I take away from it is this:
Bush (and Congress continues to allow him)put U.S. soldiers into Iraq to use them as leverage to get our Congress to support his oil usurping strategy and perpetual occupation of the Middle East.
No one in Congress will come right out and blatantly state that, indeed, there are permanent bases in Iraq and our tax dollars have been building them for years.
There is a peculiar unconsciousness in Congress..it must be the water.
Thanks for coming by Congressman Sestak. Look forward too your next visit.
Redshift @ 172
This is something I would like to understand a great deal better–and I was really hoping that Adm Sestak would address this more fully. (I think this is part of what Wilson was getting at as well?). One hour was not nearly long enough–and I would very much like to see this conversation continued.
Personally speaking, I am torn between my ideals and accepting that there is a terrible reality on the ground, a HUGE part of, is the presence of the Bush-Cheney regime. So how to navigate? That is the question, and thus far, I don’t see anyone really articulating a vision that I can understand and resonate with.
I have to respect the Congressman for coming here and taking the questions by sticking his head directly into the lion’s mouth as it were. I also have to respect his experiences in the military where he has had to make some of the life and death decision that we sometimes seem to blithely dismiss.
However as much as I do respect him for all of the above, he appears to not really understand the depths of anger against this mis-begotten, ill-conceived, ill-planned, and mis-managed invasion. For that and FWIW, I’m not sure his future campaigns is the way to achieve Blue America goals of progressive/anti-war candidates.
My $.02
howieklein @ 166
What’s your gut, Howie? Do we have a luxury of choices of whom to support?
My vote is no. The guy’s smart, and certainly has similar goals, but he made a fatal error by treating this administration as one who plays by the rules, or gives a fuck in general. Rep Sestak is certainly the kind of thoughtful, intelligent guy who should hold office, but he should have known better than to treat the president as a peer.
Let us brand Blue America as we would like it to be, without compromise.
164 – that’s your call Howie. After Sherrod Brown I’m thoroughly burned from anyone’s Blue page. I contributed to Sestak, Charlie Brown, Massa, Wulsin, Laesch – but right now, having helped pop Beshears in so he doesn’t have a run-off on the Govs race, I’m pretty well done with Dems as a party and with fundraising for “good progressives.”
And I hate to sound so “impolite” but I don’t give out gold stars for someone showing up and saying “golly, I couldn’t send a bill that fully funded the troops to the PResident bc I was afraid he wouldn’t like it and then what?”
To me, that’s the same of Bush and his torture memos and torture flights and “gitmo-izing” Iraq and white phophorous etc. standing up and reciting dutifully that the US treats people humanely.
Saying is nothing. Doing is something.
howieklein @ 163
My vote is for “wait and see.” I don’t want to write him off, but I’m not comfortable with having him on the page right now.
howieklein @ 164
Howie, when that supplemental funding bill was passed I commented that I don’t think we should tear each other apart, because that would be what Karl Rove would want.
I’ll say right now, I think we should support Congressman Sestak, because really…would Curt Weldon come and have this discussion with us? Would we be investigating the Bush administration’s attack on our freedom, without Democratic majorities?
Having said that, I’m not happy with what happened. And some of the things both Joes just said have given me pause.
I see both the USA and Israel governed now by a couple of spouse abusing drunks, having one more drink and telling each other, “You know what…you’re right. You should teach that ***** a lesson, this time for real”.
It’s time for an intervention.
Howie,
I tried to talk a bit about how difficult these decisions are in the other thread. It’s hard here because I’m on dialup and it takes a long time to refresh the page.
But there are always unplanned considerations that come up with every bill. I think Joe’s high rating as a progressive who is doing good work should be supported despite his differences with us on one tactical issue. His goal is the same. He is not Rahm. etc.
Everyone being so ticked off at him for that is a bit over-the-top, IMO. Is he a whipping boy for our (justifiable) anger over this bill?
LS @ 183
Really how hard would that be?
Not very, for someone with honesty and integrity
I highly recommend you check this out:
Robert Newman–A History of Oil
At the end of the day you have to admit that the importance of getting out of Iraq is about keeping bush from going into Iran,,more than just purely getting our guys out of Iraq alone…or is it just me?
Howie Kleiin at 166:
I won’t support him again. As i’ve written to my representative, senators, and each and every Democratic presidential candidate: 2008 is, for the first time, a single-issue election for me. Get us out, or lose my vote.
howieklein @ 166
No.
I care about what they do, not what they say about what they failed to do.
For me Blue America is about actions, not words.
The Admiral talks Blue, and votes War.
Next candidate?
mic check?
tommy yum @ 185
I didn’t put him on the list– first time ever for a guest– so that pretty much says what my gut is. I like him a lot. I like everything he’s been doing in Congress. I feel he’s a leader on several important issues. But I also feel that voting with the GOP and the reactionary Dems on this is something that Blue America can’t condon. Unless I’m overruled by the community, I’d like to hold off until 2008 and re-examine it then. For now, I would rather we direct our fundraising efforts towards members like Steve Cohen whose views on this issue are far more in line with our own. But I’m open to hearing what everyone else thinks, that’s for sure.
howieklein @ 166
I’m still not sure.
Something Sestak said that I think no one else picked up on was that (paraphrasing) it would take 6 mo. to pull military out even under perfect circumstances, so that’s basically December, which his bill has as its cut-off…so that makes sense.
To all the upset folks here: anyone think logistically and SAFELY we could do that faster? I’m just asking…
Mary @ 187
I agree with your assesment of Joe Sestak but I totally disagree about the lesson to be learned from him.
This is not a TV show. The good guys don’t win on the half-hour. I find it juvenile in the extreme to think that after 40 years, that is a generation by the way, of ReThuglican propaganda and corruption that ‘progressives’ think everything is going to be ‘fixed’ after six months.
It will not be.
Your choices…
Live on your knees as a slave to the corporate state.
Suck it up and fight back.
I know what I’ll be doing.
183 – exactly. Not just on the bases, but on so many things. Truth is an abandoned value in Congress.
“Something Sestak said that I thin no one else picked up on wat that (paraphrasing) it would take 6 mo. to pull military out even under perfect circumstances, so that’s basically December, which his bill has as its cut-off…so that makes sense.”
“To all the upset folks here: anyone think logistically and SAFELY we could do that faster? I’m just asking… “
Yes, redeploy to the perimeter of the country and keep the Iranians and Syrians out and when we move to pull out it would only take 15 to 30 days to pull out all forces…..ha ha,,,like that is going to ever happen….
A.Citizen @ 197
Amen.
SteveAudio @ 200
I caught that which was kinda where I was going with my respect for his having had to deal with troops in harm’s way and the corresponding life and death issues. In other words he does NOT want to have a “people dangling from the helicopter as the last one leaves Saigon” effect which is a visual that has colored many folks memories of Viet Nam as it was the final one.
A.Citizen @ 196
what?
SteveAudio @ 196
Steve, my initial thought was that we should support Congressman Sestak. And as much as I admire him coming here to take some frank questions, I have more concern now than I did before.
This is not about how and when the troops get out. They are going to be there, dying, until 2009…Unless We Stop Bush/Cheney.
And I don’t see how his vote, or explanations for same, helps us do that.
Your not alone!
howieklein @ 165
Howie, I have never been completely clear on how you decide who gets to be a Blue America candidate. I thought they had to be anti-war, pro-choice, and generally progressive on economic and social issues. If that’s the case, then Sestak no longer qualifies (as anti-war). I fail to see the apparently nuanced difference between deauthorization and defunding. Is he saying that Bush would force the troops to be in harm’s way without a (deauthorization) bill requiring him to keep them safe?
That having been said, I am also leary of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A Democratic Congress, even with a few Blue Dogs, is vastly preferable to the six years of rubber-stamping we have endured.
dakine01 @ 203
Exactly.
Sometimes we all get so hot under the collar, me included, but still, no one should think there’s a magic wand that can erase GWBush’s incredible fuckupery all at once. It will take time, sadly.
No.
How much clout does a freshman congressman have despite his credentials? It’s not as if he could have stopped it, either. I respect the reasons he gave for why he voted for it.
The fact that he came here at all says a lot.
Dale @ 165
No doubt that is the scenario BushCo is trying to create, but I still don’t buy it. Yes, they’re spending huge amounts of our money on them, but it will also take huge amounts of money (and lives) to keep them. It’s not like the next administration can decide to just do nothing and keep them by default — they’ll have to decide that spending vast amounts of money to supply and man them is more important than anything else they could do with that money.
Administrations do in fact regularly abandon multi-billion dollar projects from the previous administration. Couple that with the fact that most Americans don’t care what happens in Iraq except as it affects us, and the bases won’t create pressure to stay. Once we pull out of Iraq any images that do make it through to the media of these huge bases will be evidence of Bush’s folly and waste on par with Saddam’s palaces, not “surrendering our bases,” no matter how Fox tries to spin it.
MayDaze @ 208
How many of us who proudly claim to be “anti-war” were excited to see troops go into Afghanistan after BinLaden, I wonder? Makes one think about black & white labels…
There are 2 intertwined issues here – the war, and the politics. I believe that Congressman Sestak is sincere in wanting this war of occupation to end. I believe his understanding of the politics is dismal.
But that applies to most of the questioners here as well. There will be no end to this occupation unless the Administration changes, or we develop a working veto-proof majority to force the Administration’s hand. On the other hand, running up the vote AGAINST the bill that passed 2 weeks agowould have sent a stronger message, and made the next vote easier for the minority party (whose name I can’t seem to type) to join.
Simply allowing the money to run out in the next 6 weeks does seem to be a bad idea though, do we agree?
198 – ???
I didn’t realize that I was giving anyone a take away lesson re: Sestak and I do know that I have never indicated – EVER – that good guys win period, much less in half hour sequences.
Howie asked a fund raising question and I tossed it back to him because I have limited time, resources and effort and I have been burned by investing those in people who come recommended, but about whom I really know very little.
Glad you’ve got a game plan – not sure exactly what it involves other than “fighting back” but go for it.
Not as a “gameplan” but as a discrete decision, I’m deciding no more donations to those who won’t call a spade a spade and are afraid to challenge.
dakine01 @ 201
More than 120 Americans lost their lives in Iraq in May. Sestak voted to allow that to continue through September and has portrayed this some kind of sign that he takes the lives and deaths of US troops seriously. He can’t have it both ways, and trying to shows that he doesn’t understand dealing with troops in harm’s way and the corresponding life and death issues.”
Hugh @ 216
OK, you have the magic wand. . . explain exactly how you pull troops out in 15 min. with minimum casualties, please?
A half a billion dollars to steal oil.
tenmilekyle @ 191
No one? Doesn’t voting for “no pemanent bases” resolutions count?
Occasionally the thought comes into me that what was considered ‘radical’ a few years ago, is nothing more than common sense today. ;0)
No, it should NOT be…yet. Same with any and all Congress-creatures that voted for the blank check. Wait until September and see exactly what comes of the already canned report to Congress (”progess, progress, blah, blah, stay the course, 6 more months, turning the corner, blah, blah). If the Dems produce a REAL defunding/withdrawal timeline bill that forces BUSH, not the next President, BUSH, to start cutting troops (and gives up any idea of permanent presence) THEN the appropriate Dems can be put on the Blue page.
Until they show that they are other than what they have already presented, no Blue page support.
I meant $500 billion to steal oil.
Just because our guest has left the thread does not mean the rules have changed. Insults will not be tolerated and the mods will delete those comments.
In the majority of the publics view, defunding the war equates to not supporting the troops. That of course is bullsh*t but it is what it is.
The timeline bill that was vetoed should have been sent back IMO. It was a huge tactical mistake to send the one they did, again, IMO
Thanks Howie for your work on Blue America. Unfortunately the Dems lost me with the Iraq supplemental. It was just the final straw in a looooooooonnnngggggg line of disappointments. I won’t be supporting Democrats anymore, ever.
I might however be persuaded to support a “Green” America. Maybe, as I alluded to in my un-answered question @ 70, when (not if) the Dems sell out middle-class America yet again on the “top-secret” trade and immigration bills more of the netroots will realize the Democratic Party has sold out to corporate America and no longer care about the wellbeing of 98% of Americans.
I truly believe that if a viable candidate (Gore?) decided to run as a Green and the netroots put their energy into recruiting and running 50-100 Green congressional candidates, a Green President could come into office with a nice 50 seat Green caucus and we would have the beginnings of a true second party in this country.
Wishful thinking? Daydreaming? Perhaps, but it’s about all I have now to keep from totally giving up, saying F it and dropping out entirely.
I think the question is if not Sestak than whom? It’s not like pols are tripping over themselves to come here? Based on this thread, I would compare us to a meeting of abolitionists in the 1700’s, a hundred years before the Civil War. I’m ok with not supporting Sestak, but then I’m interested in how we stay relevant to the political process that is available to us? Things can get worse. How do we influence the process beyond “Spotlighting” good posts to the MSM? I don’t know, but it seems to me we have to have some ideas about that, before we casually toss Sestak and others like him away.
Sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. There are a lot worse options out there than Sestak. Are we helping them by abandoning Sestak? I don’t know, but I think the question needs to be asked.
Redshift @ 219
Okay, I should not have used the words “no one”. They should be talking about this every day even though the “resolution” went nowhere. They just let the ball drop, and there it sits.
Audrey @ 207
Yes, it says that his chief of staff shit a brick when he saw what the blogosphere response was to Sestak’s vote to support Bush and his immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq.
howieklein @ 202
Finding and supporting candidates who will stop this war and more than that who understand that the cancer of Military Keynesianism must be cut out of the body politic. If you aren’t sure of what that is here is where to go to find out: Military Keynesianism: What is that and why should I care?
And I’ll be working to build the progressive network of citizens determined to take back our government no matter how long that might take with my cohorts at YearlyKos 2007 and Drinking Liberally, Oakland.
I’d like to do that too …. does anyone have book or author suggestion for me?
Hugh,
I disagree with your statement that Rep. Sestak doesn’t understand about putting troops in harm’s way. One of my closest friends served directly under him and from our conversations I’ve learned that Sestak is very dedicated to the troops.
Also this is Pennsylvania, not a fully blue state. This may be as progressive as we’re going to get from this district. I will continue my support for him in ‘08.
Mary, your questions were very good but I don’t think I saw answers.
As to the overall outcome of this, I’m disappointed. I don’t think Congressman Sestak gets it.
SteveAudio @ 213
Well…it takes an infinite amount of time.
If you never actually start to do it. Which is the BushCo. plan.
Like Korea sez ‘The Commander Guy’.
SteveAudio @ 212
FIW, I felt Afghanistan wa a righteous action and beyond everything else, Iraq was and is a distraction from that. We had the global support for the Afghan invasion and although it would have been difficult, with the help of ALL the world, we could have made a serious and positive impact there. Now not so much after all the craziness of the BushCo actions.
Howie, I’m glad you’ve raised the question about whether Rep. Sestak should be a Blue America candidate.
I’m glad Rep. Sestak came here, but that’s not a reason to support him.
My only reason to support Blue America or any candidate is that I care how they use their power.
Talking with us is nice – being a mensch is nice – airing ideas is nice.
Nice isn’t power.
Their power is their vote.
The NRA succeed by focusing on power – who votes how, and the direct consequences of the vote.
I’d like to see Blue America exhibit the same single-minded focus on the Congressional votes.
We can be nice, but when Blue America decides whom to support, I’d like to see the choice based on exercise of power, rather than upon posession of laudable social traits.
Cozumel @ 224
The problem with that being that Bush would have vetoed it again, the veto would have been sustained, and the funding would have run out. Bush is willing to (as both Joes both put it) “use the troops as a political football.” The Congress wasn’t.
The only way the occupation will end is to gather a veto-proof majority in both houses, or replace the administration.
Shorter Dems voting for the supplemental: Sorry, we can’t beat Bush, so we have to join him in “supporting the troops.” It’s like they are using the most powerful Rove meme to excuse themselves.
Re-deploying the troops to Iraq’s borders between Iraq and Syria and Iran respectively is a recipe for WWIV ~ but I don’t even have any military ancestry, so what do I know.
If we really want to end the war we have to not support people who aren’t working to end it right now.
This HAS already ended badly ~ it’s too late: I’m afraid trying to find a good way out is just delaying the inevitable horror AND adding to the tragedy with more delay. Getting out will be a mess but at least we will be out: the only alternative is staying forever.
The sadness is crushing.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 179
I’m in the “wait and see mode.” I won’t condemn a candidate based on a single vote and I’m willing to see what gets accomplished in September. I’m disappointed by where things are at the moment, but I’m also hopeful that this is an aberration, not a long-term policy shift on the part of Democrats.
SteveAudio @ 213
First, there are no magic wands but there are bogus issues. Defunding is certainly one of these created by the Republicans to beat Democrats over the head with and allow wishy-washy politicians like Sestak to hide behind.
Second, if withdrawal became our stated policy, we could remove American troops from many of the areas and many of the patrolling activities where they are most at risk. This would reduce American casualties significantly since 80% are now caused by IEDs. We could then coordinate with the Iraqi government on how our withdrawal was going to take place to at least give them a chance to minimize the power vacuums that our withdrawal will cause. We then do a staged orderly withdrawal as militaries know how to do and have done for the last few centuries. No one said it would take 15 minutes but then that is another bogus argument, isn’t it?
dakine01 @ 234
Indeed. most of us firm “anti-war” types, who have actually become adults and not the youths we were, or at least I was during VietNam, have struggled with and come to the realization that sometimes military force is necessary.
blue e @ 228
I don’t have the citations right in fromt of me but iirc, most of our troops were out of battle and Viet Nam by early in ‘73. I believe we stopped funding the South Vietnamese gov’t in early ‘74 which may be the point the Congressman was making. The final chaotic scenes that became the final images were the evacuaiton of the US embassy personnel and troops and the evacuation of the South Vietnamese government officials most at risk of purging by the North.
I_M_bobo @ 236
What I really meant was the last vote was an all or nothing deal and it shouldn’t have been.
kirk murphy @ 230
This person speaks for me.Sestak gave no believable reason for his vote. Indeed, his ‘reasons’ were Republican talking points. The man is impressive in person, talks a good game but…like many folks who came up in the military, an organization not known for being able to determine success of failure accurately, failed to deliver on his promises. At this point I cannot see ever supporting his candidacy for national office.
He is part of the problem.
Not the solution.
BlueAmericans are not supposed to undermine the efforts of progressive Democrats to move the party away from the Iraq Occupationist corporatist Beltway Dems. This, in my view, disqualifies Congressman Sestak from being on our 2008 list. Some of his statements (as MayDaze brought forward from yesterday at comment 46) undermine the votes of patriotic progressives.
Describing a “no” vote as “depriving the troops of the funds and supplies they need to re-deploy” really does serious damage to the anti-IraqOccupation effort. I won’t reward such behavior, and BlueAmerica shouldn’t either.
The focus must be on the President and his illegal occupation for oil. Shrouding the vote in a “safety of our troops” argument makes it all the more difficult the next time.
Hugh @ 240
Well said, and no, I don;t think it is a bogus argument. I don;t like Sestak’s vote, at all, and I’m certainly not a concern troll, but I wanted people to think about the logistics of re-deployment. As someone replied above, we don;t want that last helicopter scene from VietNam, do we.
I want as many troops as possible to come home alive starting now, today. I just wanted some thought and discussion about how that takes place.
FWIW, I’m pretty sure the NRA boasts FOUR million dues paying members.
AFAIK, FDL can’t even provide health insurance for its posters.
Getting into EPU waters. Thanks, Howie, Ambassador, Admiral/Congressman – MODS! I merely sat and read.
Howie, don’t put Rep. Sestak up at Blue America until we see whether or not a more progressive candidate with credibility files against him for the Democratic Primary. If none does, or a more progressive candidate for that district whom we DO support gets beat by Sestak, then put him back up there. We’re more than a year away from the primary in my state, so …
Why does every friggin’ national level American politician have to be either scarily hawkish or robotically unimaginative when it comes to talking about the Palestine/Israel problem?
egregious @ 226
How is it dedication to the troops to vote for a bill that will send several hundred of them to their deaths in the next few months to no purpose? This is an irreducible problem, a circle that can not be squared. Explain to me how buying into the bogus Republican argument of defunding the troops shows dedication on his part but actually doing something to keep them from getting killed does not.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with JohnO @ 183.
The few questions the congressman did answer were answered with evasion, a disingenuous “everybody knows” attitude and (sadly) a healthy sprinkling of Republican talking-points.
I also disagree wholly with the premise that the Middle-East, especially Israeli national interests, should a be a primary concern of the US. For the money we’ve already spent on the Bush (and now the majority of congressional Democrats’) Iraq adventure we could have taken the final, necessary step of weaning ourselves of dependence on their petroleum resources.
And, I’m sorry to say, The Admiral now must face the truth that every additional troop causality in Iraq, is his fault. It may not be a comfortable thing for him to face, but it is a fact.
Next week: Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME), the Democrat who is taking on Susan Collins for the Maine U.S. Senate seat. It was interesting to see Congressman Udall in Colorado vote with the Republicans on the Iraq Occupation appropriations bill because he thought it would make him look “moderate.” But Allen voted against the bill because he KNOWS it’s how 70% of the country feels and he KNOWS it’s the right thing to do. So next Saturday at 2pm (EST), 11am (PT), come back and meet Tom Allen.
Sorry to see you say this. You should have been here for some of the others. They’re each different. Hope you change your mind.
Thanks, Howie!
SteveAudio @ 241
Until we have the votes to make withdrawal happen that would seem to be a waste of breathe to discuss.
Understand, until we can punish those like Sestak who think they can accept our support and our money and then vote with the ReThugs to support of BushCo’s permanent imperium in Iraq…..
To support the expenditure of 50% of the budget on Military Keynesianism: What is that and why should I care?
The troops are never coming home.
Never.
egregious @ 230
I’m tempted to just say ‘what egregious said’, because I trust your instincts.
On the other hand (I think I’m up to five hands now), what about the fact that our dollars are really quite limited, in the big picture? Should we be sending some of them to Congressman Sestak, instead of, for instance, Victoria Wulsin in OH-02, or Steve Porter in PA-03?
John Casper @ 223
I don’t think we’re proposing abandoning him, just asking him to earn our support again after taking an action that we don’t see as in accord with the reasons we supported him. There’s a level of forgiveness for certain votes that is a concession to political reality, and a level that weakens our “brand.”
I certainly don’t think we should refuse further occasions to talk to him. And if Rep. Sestak turns out to be correct about the best way to end the war and his approach actually has some significant effect in the coming months, then while there would still be some grumbling, most would welcome him back to Blue America.
Remember that we’ve helped to educate Rep. Sestak today. He may well learn from this thread, and refocus his efforts in a more productive way as a result. That is why I applaud his courageous appearance here today: not just for appearance’s sake alone, but for the effect it should (and I hope will) have on the end result, because of his good faith engagement in this debate: getting us well and truly out of Iraq, ASAP. [I should be honest by stating, though, that no Member of Congress will be getting funds from me until their actions have replaced their words; nevertheless, I believe Rep. Sestak has the right intentions here, though he may not yet have mastered the art of the legislative leverage game.]
Michael Kinsley describes the dilemma well – and thereby helps us and Members of Congress to understand the problem of perception that must be overcome before we can achieve our policy goals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..inionsbox1
howieklein @ 246
Let’s not forget that Collins has a secret weapon in her campaign for re-election: the support and fundraising prowess of the Chair of Homeland Security Committee in the Senate, Mr CFL himself, RGJoe Lieberman!
So, this campaign is a proxy do-over. I, for one, cannot wait! I want to see Collins squashed like a metaphorical bug.
dakine01 @ 235
I remember the evacuation well in 1975. I was in Tehran, Iran, of all the weird places. Invited to dinner where the So Vietnamese ambassador and his wife (to Iran) were guest. It was a surreal experience since I had been so ardently opposed to that war…but seeing the ‘hated’ Veitnamese govt officials as people with a point of view is a lesson and an experience I have never forgotten. It was not a fun time to be an American abroad. I have a feeling that many in the military and in Congress have never forgotten the chaos of evacuating Saigon either.
It is worth poimting out that Nixon ran on the platform that he would get us out, yet he kept escalating so as to “prevent’ what happened. I am so afraid that we are headed down the same path. And so far, I haven’t heard a single plan/policy which makes sense both morally and practically.
Thanks to all here and both Joes, from a daily reader who seldom commments.
Merits of the topic at hand aside, this is critical information I appreciate that is otherwise unavailable to me in the MSM.
Thanks again!
Reaching out to the community to explain his vote is a gesture which should be acknowledged.
However, knowing the passion that exists here for an end to the war, and engaging the community before the election for support, I do think coming here after the fact is not what I would accept from an candidate in the future.
I would give more slack if the Congressman came here before the vote, not after.
We are not at war in Iraq. We are occupying a nation whose government was overthrown with the permission and financial support of the Congress, using taxpayer dollars; based on lies and deception provided to Congress by the Executive Branch.
Our government is building permanent bases and the largest embassy in the world in Iraq.
Our government is negotiating language in Iraq that will guarantee U.S. and British corporate oil companies access to Iraqi oil.
We are not going to “leave” Iraq. We may reduce or redeploy troops or we may not.
These are the facts as far as I can see them. Until I see concrete pushback from Congress, I will continue to see it this way.
Meanwhile, at home, we face a great fight to reinstitute our civil rights and prevent a police state aided by private military companies, such as Blackwater.
We face potential voter fraud in our elections.
The government’s departments have been infiltrated by partisan operatives.
Many of our elected officials continue to operate as if everything is the same as before 9/11.
These are just some of the issues that make me really frustrated.
Gore gets it. Obama gets it.
John Casper @ 222
It’s a two way street. Joe Sestak seems to treat our concerns fairly lightly. Yes, it’s nice that he came here but it would have been nicer if his vote reflected our values and the reason he got elected in November in the first place.
As for the lesser of two evils argument, there are some issues where one really does have to take a stand. Bush will not move until he is forced to. So where really is the lesser evil? Bush does what he wants or after some kabuki with Sestak he gets what he wants. I don’t see the difference. The results are the same.
What we can do and should do is not give Congressional Democrats a free pass on this. We need to keep their feet to the fire. Even after November, it’s clear that some Dems like Sestak still don’t get it.
I have the greatest respect for Amb. Wilson and his spouse – I’ll have to re-read his comments above.
His remarks and Rep. Sestak’s (on first read) left me wondering if those groomed to serve and defend our overseas empire – centered around global control of resources – are intellectually capable of perceiving the empire.
If we don’t have an empire – well – our massive bases are just there to help the Iraqis fend off anarchy.
For those who see post WWII US foreign policy has been driven by suppression and violence against local rule in service of global resource control, the massive Iraq bases sing of endless empire.
With the best will in the world, could a US Ambassador or US Admiral even hear the song, much less follow the lyrics?
I don’t think Ambassador Wilson or Admiral Sestak ever got up in the morning intending to serve empire.
If they never saw the empire, I’m not sure they’ll ever perceive how empire determines policy.
We’re not in Iraq for oil.
We’re there to prevent chaos.
No empire here, folks – move along.
We’re just here to help.
Like in all the other countries we help with bases. Full of weapons.
We’re just here to help.
Mary @ 113
before you comment on muslim faith, you need to realize that its common sense as well, same common sense that citizens of this great country used to drive british out to get their independence.
besides that, in Islam, you have duty to defend yourself, your family, your country. i live here; tomorrow if USA is attacked byone, i’ll be the first one to pick up arms to defend its borders.
their is not rule of islam to drive out non-muslim invaders for your and other countries. the rule is simply to defend, and help others in need, be it from muslim or non muslims invaders. just like people here were christians, and fought british who were of the same religion as well, and just like countries send their forces to other countries in the time of need. these are fundamental principles of islam. the main difference now is that countries generally do it for their interests, money, power and exploitation rather for real humanitarian reasons.
Ali
Thanks for your comment Ali–and I would only add that I am old enough to remember a middle east in which there was not sectarian strife, in which people of all faiths could and did live together in the same neighborhoods (KSA being a notable exception, but that place is another story altogether).
Redshift @ 251
Including any here who lost a relative to ‘The Commander Guy’s’ excellent adventure in the meantime?
Do the math at current rates over a hundred exhausted, demoralized, scared Americans will die every month it an illegal, immoral occupation of a nation whose residents will be a long time forgetting us. Not to mention the amputees who are being sent back to The MeatGrinder.
All so Mr. Sestak can ‘come up with a better plan…’
Napoleon said, ‘Never reinforce a defeat.’ I think that good strategy indeed.
Sestak is a defeat for BlueAmerica.
Time to move on and Stop Playing Games!
kirk @ 262
Yes! You are making sense out of what confused me no end. And such blinders would hamper logical understanding of what to do now, huh.
Thanks for that.
How many of us who proudly claim to be “anti-war” were excited to see troops go into Afghanistan after BinLaden, I wonder?
I wasn’t. In fact, IIRC, there was a good amount of talk about “you can’t bomb them into the stone age – they’re already there.”
An international (i.e., UN) force charged specifically with tracking down bin Laden and bringing him to the Hague? Yes. An indiscriminate bombing campaign that didn’t really care who we killed? Well, we can see how well that worked out.
Hugh @ 247
HUGH, I don’t find your answer responsive to egregious’ comment. She commented about Sestak’s understanding, and I don’t think we can draw conclusions merely because you prefer a different out come. More important, I don’t know how one can suggest that Sestak is indifferent to further deaths of US troops.
The funding was for operations through September. The troops are there and are following orders endorsed by the CinC. It is the CinC’s orders — to engage in combat operations in hostile neighborhoods — that places the troops in harm’s way. Whatever deaths will occur are the result of those order, none of which would have changed a result of the vote on the Supplemental either way.
The problem is not Sestak, a man who, as best I can judge, would never have put our troops in this position. But there is nothing he coudl do with his vote to reverse the orders of CinC. That is the reality he faced. You can agree or disagree about whether his vote was wise or not, but at least acknowledge what he faced.
The other thing both he and others had to face was the total irresponsibility, subborness and stupidity of the CinC and the completely crazy people in the OVP. There is no guarantee that the President would change his orders wrt to the mission no matter how the Congress voted on the Supplemental.
If we want to save soldiers’ lives, we have to change their mission and provide funds for the approved mission and no other — and, and this is critical — we need a different CinC who we can trust to follow the mission consistent with the appropriation. We do not have that, and this critical fact means there is probably no “correct” vote that cannot be second-guessed. But no vote, either way, could have changed the number of deaths between now the end of September.
Unka Willbur @ 248
Sadly, yes.
howieklein @ 166
No, and he should be told: he’s on notice.
There’s no point in raising money for politicians if they’re not ACTUALLY GOING TO LISTEN.
Did Sestak solicit any opinion from Blue America before his vote? Was he open to listening (as in one-on-one meetings) before the vote?
I agree – no one will vote the way you want 100% of the time. But this vote wasn’t some farm bill that only affects hog farmers in Sestak’s district. This vote was on the defining issue that got him Blue America’s support in the first place.
A definite “wait and see” attitude on further funding is warranted, IMO.
My fear is a populist, bi-partisan support for an attempt to simply steal the oil, because of cost push inflation caused by skyrocketing energy costs. No more hocus pocus about building a Democracy, now we’re stealing their oil to preserve our standard of living. I don’t think it would work, 25 million Iraqi’s would be committed to seeing that it didn’t, but I could easily see the conditions that would lead to it.
howieklein @ 199
I believe we have to be in tune to more than one issue ….. even if that issue is critical. I was in the infantry in Vietnam, I hate seeing our guys wasted on someone’s personal vendetta and for making sure the right people get rich. There are so many assaults on our freedoms (by design?) that we have recognize them and fight them. If Sestak delivers on most we just need to convince him on the others or see his reasoning.
Hugh, I’m not at all sure of my position, I’m just asking questions. You and Mary are very close on this and either one of you, alone, carries enormous weight with me.
Late to the discussion, was watching Plame on BookTV, dave at atrios’ comments said this was going on.
Rare is the time we’re able to act strictly on moral standards, political dictates determine we can try and weigh this best to determining outcomes.
To send ours into battle and ignore all diplomatic levers at said time would be crime. Ours in service want their efforts to be matched by maximum diplomatic effort, any other action would be making their efforts in vain. Bush has done that, this is one time we may be able to say otherwise as Iran may soon come in and provide the sister state presence needed to settle this civil war.
We can then redeploy and let regional actors assume greater risk, and still have some influence to shaping policy.
Remember, had we voted vs. funding, bush would leave ours in the field without funds as political means. Rove’s done it before. We can’t let him continue to hold the troops hostage, but the vote contituted a way to frame it to his ends.
The amount of casualties must stop, we should immediately call back the engagement level(hole down in the fire base). Minimize our visibilty and ask state actors to take over such risks. Then get out ASAP.
We cannot do it unless Bush is going to agree, there’s not enough votes to determine otherwise. Keep the conversation the same, place him in position to talk with Iran and resolve that developing item as best we can determine for now, then await legal proceeding vs. Cheney, who is the real puppet master.
If you’re not going to vote for a Democrat who will you vote for? A green? Another republican rubber stamp? Nobody at all? Have those choices not brought us to this point?
The plan is to try and make Iran take on greater role, and this helps Syria act regionally, to help calm Lebanon and Iraq. Meanwhile we push Cheney out with the ongoing legal actions to mollify his resistance to the will of Congress.
Yes they should be out, Iraq is lost in terms of our being there, the best way to turn this on Bush is to show how failure to reach diplomatic resolve is the way that troops’ sacrifice become in vain.
We cannot do it without more message control, and it becomes much easier with Cheney out of the way.
If you did want to do so immediately I’d suggest calling for Independent Counsel to prosecute the Constitution via War Powers act. Without a vote it isn’t a war. The Security Council was not tasked this prior on the world stage, but since China wants us there it’s probably moot. If they did not want us there the war would not have shaped so to this point.
Those are the two options. The international emphasis comes from China underwriting our budget, gaining market entrance to Iran, and using us to hedge other West actors from their market plans by plausibly isolating the regions China adheres deals with.
The home stage is a matter votes, itself an item shaped by DoJ and vote machine scams. the language aside from that best suited to work is in the vote to war. You really want to do that with an antagonistic messenger press corps?
I’m not a fan of the way pragmatism is played in our world view, how the very notion is twisted by right wingers, but here’s one instance it does indeed apply. If we oppose on moral grounds the narrative of betrayal becomes his trump card. We cannot do his work for him, the point to be spoken in enabling him funds he has obligations and transparency to answer regarding such.
Pay-go time.
Scarecrow @ 265
At some point there has to be a correspodence between positions and facts. Sestak voted to fund 4 more months of Bush’s war. That’s a fact. The deaths that result from that support are on his head. I find it an incredible argument that Sestak can vote to prolong the war yet somehow not be responsible for it. Why is he in Congress at all? Wasn’t he elected precisely because Americans rejected Bush’s war? How does he reject it by voting for it?
You also seem to be saying that nothing is going to happen until 2009 when there is a new President. The odds of that are increased when Representatives like Sestak forget so quickly why they were elected and turn around and continue this war despite the “total irresponsibility, subborness and stupidity of the CinC and the completely crazy people in the OVP.” I would think that is exactly why Sestak and others Democrats should have stood up and resisted even more strongly. What kind of an argument is that: the President and Vice President are crazy so I guess I will let them do what they want?
TeddySanFran @ 170
Probably in EPU land here, but I think we should wait 6 months to decide. Let’s see what bills he introduces with regard to Iraq and watch how he votes. And if he sees impeachment as a viable option.
Well, that was somewhat disappointing. All the questions and comments I wanted addressed (esp. A. Citizen’s, Praedor A’s, ren’s, Mary’s, foolme1nse’s, and TeddySanFran’s) were skirted. Congressman Sestak seems to becoming quite adept at answering questions in D.C. speak, which I don’t necessarly fault him for; it’s the “manufacturing consent” machine in the media at work 24/7 which inhibits our reps from cutting through the fat and talking like you all do here at FDL (I think Joe Wilson recognizes this, too, as both a media cause celebre and as someone, like us, who wants to bring about significant reform, so I actually appreciated his comments more than the congressman’s). IMO, if we don’t get corporate control out of the newsroom, we will never see the adherence to the Constitution that this community obviously craves and is willing to put a big chunk of their lives into.
But make no mistake, you ARE a part of that process (the live blogs here are an incredible resource, and I LOVE what Josh at TPM is doing, too). Props to Howie and Christy; thanks.
Please Sir; do the honorable thing. Help the people of this country find your replacement that will not lie to us. Nothing else is acceptable now that you have broken your trust. In this time, your actions are treason by the very words used in the law written to protect us. They are very nearly your words sir.
There is one alternative. You know how close we are to a national meltdown due to the oil crisis. If you voted to protect the ignorant, you have this chance to say so. I understand it will cause a panic, but are you simply going to wait until it happens?
I find it deeply troubling to say this to someone that has distinguished themselves with such honor in the past. Your actions have helped reduce all citizens into war criminals that the world will not forget. We, the people, continue to hold out hope that a government that is clearly mad with power and the desire to keep it, will be reigned in by our representatives. We, the people, have been disappointed yet again. And by someone we thought was one of “our” representatives.
John Casper @ 270
Actually I think that your raising of the lesser of two evils argument is valid. But I find it really interesting that it is brought up with a guy who was supposed to be on our side on Iraq. If we say we are disappointed but we understand, we are simply inviting Congressional Sestaks to do more of the same: Talk to us but vote against us. I don’t know where the line is with Sestak. We’ve seen different views here but what I think we all can agree on is that there is a problem with him and that we need to keep the pressure on him and the other Democrats and make sure they understand that kabuki doesn’t cut it with us.
Re Iraq and oil, as long as Iraq is in chaos, no one has effective control of the oil. Whatever government eventually does gain control of the country is going to as its first order of business exert control over Iraq’s oil reserves. That’s why the hydrocarbon law is irrelevant. It’s not even clear that the current government can pass it and even if it does, whatever future more permanent government finally comes along will not abide by it but write up its own.
Scarecrow @ 265
More excuse making…and this from a FDL regular!
Look, this is not about what Bush is or is not gonna do. It’s about two things…
Fact, Americans will continue to die in Iraq.
Fact, Sestak failed to stand up and vote to stop the deranged madman we still call President.
It doesn’t matter that the ‘Democrat’ Party doesn’t have the votes to override a Presidential veto.
See my comment above about what Napoleon would have to say about continuing to support a ‘general’ who won’t fight.
For the opposite side of the coin recall Howard Dean’s 50 State strategy to regain control of Congress. We need to fight the failed policies of the President and his Republican enablers at every single opportunity. Every. Single. One.
‘Keeping your powder dry’ does not work.
Short form: Progressives don’t win by rolling over and using ReThuglican meme’s to justify same.
Stick a fork in Sestak….he’s done.
Hugh:
There was no proposal in Congress that did not fund the troops on their present missions through September. Feingold’s proposal would have done this. So let’s be clear about that. So if Sestak had voted for Feingold, and Feingold had passed and been signed by the President, then US troops would have been engaged in compbat operations in Iraq through September and beyond. In that sense, very proposal would require the Congress to be responsible for the deaths — but Sestak is arguing, if I understand him correctly, that that situation is a function of decisions already made and troop placements that could not quickly change. Only a different set of orders — to pull back into secure fortications — would change that outcome, and none of the bills called for that, IIRC — am I wrong about that?
wrt to the “crazy” leadership, you’re missing the point. Think of this as a hostage situation. The hostages are 150,000 US troops; the hostage takers are the WH, and they have no intention of letting the hostages go without forcing them to follow orders. That is the predicament we face — in that case, then the choices we confront cannot be analyzed the same way we would analyze the choices if the leadership were sane/rational. Given the realities, it is not clear to me there was any “correct” vote on Supplemental. Every choice has to be rethought as though we face a hostage condition. Do you meet the demands of the hostage takers? We’re repelled by that, but sometimes you have no better choice.
wrt to 2009, don’t confuse advocacy of a position with acknowledgement of our situation. I have argued several times that there is no plausible way to end the occupation as long as this regime remains in power. How you get them out, and how long it takes, are unresolved questions.
kirk murphy @ 197
Amen.
Rep. Sestak, I have an enormous amount of respect for you, but am disappointed by your vote on the funding bill. I understand your reasoning intellectually, yet in my heart, I believe that it is a terrible mistake to further enable a president who is daily becoming increasingly more obstinate and unwilling to work with a tripartite system of government.
My son’s active duty navy & I contributed to your campaign because I had high hopes that this war that is stressing the military to the breaking point would soon be ended by veterans like you, and Senators Webb and Tester. Sadly, following the recent funding vote, and victory for George Bush’s endless war, those hopes were literally “shot down”.
Sir, I ask you this question: If the Founders could risk their lives, their fortunes and their freedom to submit the Declaration of Independence to a powerful King with a powerful army, why is this Congress so adverse to taking what they (incorrectly) perceive as the risk of losing their jobs in order to support the troops by standing up to the President who wants to keep slaughtering them? The Founders risked so very much, without overanalyzing, taking head counts, and checking and rechecking poll numbers to see if their action was “politically correct”. Is it really so much for the citizens of this nation to expect the Congress members who promised us so much in the 2006 campaigns to take a few risks?
Thank you always FDL for research and the posts, thanks to the guest, and especially, thanks to all for the comments.
What I take away here is that good intentions mean nothing without the hard vote.
I believe that upon being given the first bill, Bush vetoed funding to the troops. They would have been cared for with the first bill and benchmarks. Bush does not seem to care about the troops. If he did, there would not have been such harsh re-deployments. Soldiers would have had the correct equipment from the start. He would have attended funerals of some of the 3500 dead soldiers. He would have seen that the VA hospitals were doing the right thing. Bush wanted a blank check to continue setting up the bases in Iraq. The only thing that has gone well in Iraq have been the substantially built bases. Those in congress that voted yes for the second bill failed the majority of Americans big time, and they failed the troops.
It is all nothing without the bottom line vote.
Christy: I can’t comment directly on the “substance” of Sestak’s or Wilson’s comments without going completely outside your conduct guidelines. So let me just ask you this: Next time you host someone like this, and assure them that you will enforce politeness on the crowd, can you also warn them that all bets are off if they can’t be bothered to address more than one in 20 of the questions they get? I’d venture to say that the ratio of answered to avoided questions is at least that high. My apologies if that seems OT, but I’ve been visiting FDL for a long time, and this has been the most disappointing, fruitless discussion I’ve ever seen here.
Scarecrow @ 278
Okay….
Let’s try some A. Lincoln:
“Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong.”
Anybody here want to argue with him about that? A man who would not compromise his principles in the face of the threat of civil war.
I stand with Lincoln.
You will not shift me on this. As for ‘plausible way to end the occupation….’ Well, the Republicans were going to hold both Houses of Congress last election. Remember? And why did they not?
Because Howard Dean, the netroots and millions of Americans fought back by making the War in Iraq the issue.
Pardon me but just because you can’t think of a plausible way to end the war until more FUs have passed does not mean I can’t.
You do it by fighting every inch of the way…
By never conceding anything to the NeoCon cabal…
By refusing to quit…
By speaking truth to power…
Remember the third part of Kos’s favorite Ghandi quote.
The part with the word ‘fight’ in it.
Joe Wilson @ 26
WOW, This statement explains ALL of the democratic “leaders” actions of late. Thier ACTIONS (thier words are far different) show that they support this kind of thinking.
They think war reduces threat of terrorism.
They think we have the right to take someones oil if it is a danger to our economy not to.
They think Isreal’s intrests are more important than our countries safety.
How can ANYBODY continue to support democrats?
A. Citizen (@286):
I’m with you. This is the real world. Today was all not sweetness and light. So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut said (a line he borrowed from old German fairy tales).
I think it can be said that we are working for the troops. We want them home. There is nothing in Iraq that we can’t do without. All the grand diplomatic strategies have got us exactly where?
Joe Sestak is a good guy, and he got rid of Curt Weldon. We do him no service if we just be all touchy feely about his vote on the supplemental. He knows we didn’t like it, at all. Case closed.
Michael Brown (@285):
I don’t think it was a fruitless discussion. We know more about Sustek than we did before. He knows more about what we think. Politics is messy and it doesn’t always go the way you want it to. It was a real discussion though and we go on from here.
howieklein @ 166
Rather than answer specifically, I’ll make like a congressman and declare my general principles. There are very few votes that individual congressmen take that can overshadow their general record. Right now, I don’t think the recent vote on the supplemental funding for Iraq was one of those few. Let’s look at each congresman’s record as a whole and try to judge. That Rep. Sestak and Sen. Webb both voted for this thing, while disappointing in the extreme, is perhaps an indication of some thought process that makes more sense when one is actually in Congress than when one isn’t.
For the record, since I wasn’t here to say so at the time Adm. Sestak was here, I still think the vote was a huge mistake. Since, as he said, there is funding through July, it wasn’t yet time to pass something that would essentially give Bush what he wanted. He needs the funds, so he should have to work for them. Congress shouldn’t need to work to please him on this issue. In short, and I’ll put this in bold so that someone in Congress might notice Bush is the one who is endangering the troops. See? That’s the meme. “Excuse me, Timmy Boy? Are we the idiot who ordered our troops over there, before we had a plan to win the aftermath? Are we the damn fool who’s keeping them there even though it’s doing no good?” Keep saying that loudly and every time one of the Bush’s press sycophants intimates that Congress is doing it. And just keep in mind that you’re saying the same thing that two-thirds of us who don’t live in Washington, DC, are thinking.
Now to answer Howie’s question, if this pattern continues, I’d say that any reps who continually vote the wrong way on this issue should be off the list. For now, though, I see no reason to keep Rep. Sestak out of Blue America.
Rick @ 287
Because it’s the only way to work towards a more progressive politics.
Scarecrow @ 278
The original supplemental established clear benchmarks both with regard to the readiness of American troops deployable to Iraq and actions by the Iraqi government. Some of those deadlines were in June if I remember correctly. So the process of disengagement would have begun then and not just in September. More than this, the loony tunes policy of the surge would have been effectively undercut and though I can not say that Bush and Petraeus would not push to act as if the surge was still viable, this could lead to a less aggressive and casualty producing posture.
Yes, the Congress in the original supplemental should have demanded a withdrawal, period. But it did not. Kabuki has its costs. But at least we would be on track to disengage and withdraw from Iraq. As it is, the deaths between now and September will count for nothing. They are the product not of a policy to get us out of Iraq but a delay in coming up with one. Because Sestak and others voted for delay in making a decision instead of taking a decision when they had the chance, I stand by my earlier statement that he and they are very much responsible for those deaths.
Bill @ 272
I’d go further and say we can also agree to disagree on an issue or two. We are actually somewhat in agreement with Rep. Sestak, it’s just the methods we’re arguing about. Adults do that. Plus, there are 434 other congressmen – if 100 more felt the way we do, that vote wouldn’t have happened. It only happened because the leadership felt it didn’t have support to do what we think is the right thing.
Sorry Sestak,
You are admitting that you accept being held hostage by this corrupt regime. Your arguments sum up the typical rethuglican argument of “if you don’t support Bushes failed policies, you don’t support the truth.”
You caved man. And no! This is not “America’s war!” It’s the Bush regime’s war and you, by giving in to it, are now part of it as well.
You’re just like all the other military apologists for the regime — “We must stand with the troops.”
Well, because of military guys like you, I’ve come to the point of saying, screw the troops — they’re a killing machine without conscience.
As a military man you would support any bill to protect your own — you care more for them than the other people of this country AND the innocent Iraqi’s that are the real victims of this occupation.
I will never vote for a military person for political office again — because when it comes down to it, they’ll vote for the military machine everytime.
Does anyone actually believe that the military is going to run out of money in July? Yeah, yeah, operations costs yadda yadda.
Well then, maybe the military should cut it’s operations and play with the hand they’ve been dealt — THAT would get Bush’s attention real fast.
You military guys just love to play victim — I’ve reached the end of my rope. I tried to “support the troops” but you guys with the fancy medals and bars, especially the ones in government, have left me with a sour taste when it comes to “supporting the troops.”
PHEW!
Sestak is a perfect example of why this country needs to move in a direction away from a republican form of government toward a pure democracy. Let the people vote directly on issues.
It is now 12:45 pm PDT and I am too late to interact with Congressman Sestak. I did not see anyone address what I believe is the chief problem with the behavior of the Democrats – perhaps someone still hanging around this forum has some thoughts.
My question: why did the Democrats allow this issue to be framed as Democrats are not funding the troops when they pass a spending bill that includes a timetable?
Note that it is Bush who vetoes. Why did the Democrats not pass a bill that included dates to begin withdrawal and then say something like: WE are funding the troops; we have done OUR part; GWB is failing to fund the troops in the field.
I am sorry, but the Dems, including Congressman Sestak can spin it all the ways they want. The Democrats caved in like craven cowards, they failed in their jobs and deserve to be turned out of office when next we get a chance to vote. Period.
Joel,
I’m voting for the few brave ones that stood up to the masters in charge — and I’m NOT voting for any incumbent who didn’t.
Primary votes are my main objective next election.
abdiel @ 293
While I agree that Rep. Sestak has something to answer for with his vote, I disagree with the rest of your argument. Troops in a war zone have only two choices – do what they’re ordered to do, or face jail if they’re lucky enough not to be shot.
Even in peacetime soldiering is a dangerous profession. In addition to requiring that they work with guns, explosives, and other dangerous things, they are subjected to health problems and stresses that very few of us civilians have to deal with. I’ve met former soldiers who now have painful and chronic conditions they acquired in peacetime service – like missing arms and legs. As a sailor, Adm. Sestak had to live in that environment, so he understands it in a way that you (apparently) and I don’t. That he’s had to live with it along with his fellow sailors and soldiers gives him a different emotional context, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
As I mentioned before, there are 434 other congressmen (not to mention 100 Senators), and if there had been enough who basically agree that the situation in Iraq is bad for us as a nation, then we wouldn’t be arguing about this vote because it wouldn’t have happened. I think we need to focus on that point. There’s a center of mass on this issue, and at the moment it’s not sitting where we need it to be.
Joel Grant @ 295
I’m not sure I want to get inside their heads enough to know. As you can see, Rep. Sestak didn’t really address the issue very much, nor was he likely to. Doing that would require that he reveal confidences, I suspect.
Maybe it has to do with not wanting to be blamed for a “defeat”. Maybe it has to do with not wanting to let the reserves and Guard be any more depleted than they already are. It’s probably different things to different congressmen and Senators. You might as well ask why they ran for Congress.
Anyway, from my comments here, and on my blog, it should be pretty clear that I don’t think this was a good decision either politically or ethically. It should also be clear that I agree that the Democrats are fools for letting themselves be framed that way. Why Congress, the allegedly professional politicians, chose otherwise is a mystery.
cujo.
This is an all volunteer military.
If any person wearing a uniform doesn’t know that there are risks — big time — then they shouldn’t be there. They accept those risks the minute they sign the papers.
I wouldn’t go into the military because I don’t support the corrupt regime that rules it. I have no qualms with fighting an enemy. I DO have qualms about fighting for corrupt government who attack those who do not attack us.
Sorry, I don’t feel sorry for those who have chosen to be part of the neo-con new world order — anytime anyone fo them could say, “no.”
If they don’t, they are partners in crime.
After Sestak and Webb’s votes, I have come to this conclusion with great sadness. I never thought that I would be so pissed at the military and lose my respect for the folks in uniform.
But I have.
Of course the rank and file must carry out orders — but they all take an oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign AND domestic.
The truly brave ones are the ones who have said “no” to the crimes of this regime. They’re willing to go to jail or exile — that’s bravery!
Blind followers, like Sestak, are just little goons supporting the big one.
howieklein @ 166
No.
I wouldn’t support someone to run AGAINST him, I just would put MY money elsewhere.
Putting him on the Blue America page encourages folks [particularly folks who haven’t followed as closely and who rely on Blue America’s implied “endorsement”] to give to those listed. Not putting someone on doesn’t say “he/she’s terrible; oppose him/her,” it just doesn’t say “yes, give.”
I’m suspecting that Sestak won’t have serious opposition in 2008, that he’ll be able to use incumbency to his advantage, and that thus our $$$ are better spent elsewhere.
I included him on my own ActBlue page last year; I won’t for 2008.
The Founders were not in full accord, many hated slavery and did not want it codified in the Law.
That’s essentially what the war vote has become. Shackling soldiers with no operative plan. Some Congressmen agree with funding, in the hopes or moving past this point in time soon.
Grandmatoo@283, thanks for you son’s service. You brought up the Founders, but even their great plan conceded things I’m not in agreement and most Americans aren’t today. They had to secure ways that matched interests to move past that point in time.
The Congressional Black Caucus votes best mirror the demand for not going to war and have been an example of loyal dissent, above all other legislative groups the CBC has voted with moral authority and conscience for the most part. Still it is a fact that without message control in the media we play to narratives in traditional types of opposition.
Authorization is indeed separate from appropriations. Combine the two by making accountability part of the performance based review. Audits, accounting for money spent, and penalty taxes for subcontract and contractor fraud could become major motivators at play. Barring ability to account for appropriations, authorization waivers should apply.
There’s also the matter of treaties bound to honor our Constitution in terms, there’s a Fourteenth Amendment not being honored in the building of the world’s largest embassy involving what is essentially slave labor. Immigrated work crews on payroll/company store/status who get thrown to wolves when hurt, simply vanish off their work crews.
My contention is we can call upon Amb.Wilson’s own experiences rebuilding Balkan regions to accelerate the effectiveness of our efforts in the Mid East. Especially using safer smarter work with the help of labor unions, who have an infrastructure and NGO types of capacities to mobilize and apply working solutions, real time.
They could cohesively fit the demand in Iraq and see that its people are put to a path of empowerment. Peaceful change can be acclimated in policy on the ground.
The use of unions could create working fabric across the communities we need to secure, and that structure could better suit our demands for developing oversight and security in other key areas included resource and personnel basis points to work from to a better future.
Amb.Wilson could probably share his own experience with restoring infrastructure and nation building in postwar phases, emerging from regional conflict.
IF anyone cares, I just posted a summary of this session, with my commentary, over at my place.
And as much as I want to trust in the good faith of Rep. Sestak to now redouble his efforts to end this occupation, with more effective tactics and facts to back them up, this paragraph you wrote, Hugh, makes me think about how chillingly inhumane any further “patience” is: Your words resonate of nothing so much as of what the world might have stopped, had it acted in time and with more urgency when it knew enough, even if far from all, of the horrors and dehumanizing brutality of the ongoing Holocaust and its “labor” camps. ‘Just in case’ bombing of train tracks and bridges, opening of borders to take all Jewish refugees, and so many other untaken steps that could have saved a great many human lives while there was still time – steps that political caution, convenient rationalizations, “sober” justifications, naked racism, lack of personal risk, and wise counsels of “patience” all tragically helped to prevent from taking place.
Tonight in Baghdad, American airpower is strafing a section of Sadr City… This despite (or because of?) al-Sadr’s call for negotiations with Sunnis to try to peacefully resist the occupying Americans as he attempts to corral his more violent militias.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenew…..561503.htm
Who’s really calling the shots in Iraq on behalf of the American occupiers, and for what purpose are they calling them?
Most of us are still waiting for Congress to honestly answer that question for the American people.
Cujo359 @ 298
Maybe it has to do with not wanting to be blamed for a “defeat”. Maybe it has to do with not wanting to let the reserves and Guard be any more depleted than they already are. It’s probably different things to different congressmen and Senators. You might as well ask why they ran for Congress.
I assume it has something to do with that – and thanks for addressing my question – but we shouldn’t have to play mind-reader. Yes, Sestak did not address this, nor have I noticed any of the other Dems explain why it is THEIR fault when BUSH vetoes a spending bill.
That is the real puzzler. It is as if Bush was a force of nature, another Katrina, whose existence and behavior are beyond human intervention.
Beyond rational human intervention perhaps, but the idea that the Dems need to accept blame for Bush’s behavior seems more like Stockholm Syndrome than rational political calculation to me.
I’m with Scarecrow. I can’t tell you how many times over the years a critical vote by people I supported has let me down. But I didn’t withdraw support. Are we really a single issue group? I’ve been watching politics since the Nixon/Kennedy race and it’s always the same.
BTW: “It’s my way or the highway” is a Bush talking point, too.
We are a diverse group here even though all want to save the country from the maniacs in charge.
I remember well, the tensions re: Vietnam. This soooo reminds me of that.
TeddySanFran @ 243
Thank you for making the point so eloquently.
abdiel @ 299
I don’t even know where to begin. As I suspected, you clearly have no idea what they do for a living. The other thing that’s obviously clear is that you need to consult a calendar that has more than one year in it. Many of the folks now serving in Iraq volunteered during the Clinton years, or right after 9/11 when it was clear that at least part of the military would have to be used to stop terrorism.
Besides, people join the military for many reasons. Some think of it as a profession. Some think of it as an obligation to their society. Others want to go to college, or just escape poverty or see the world. They often also do it because they’re eighteen years old. Not all eighteen year olds possess your omniscience, and quite frankly the argument that they joined up so whatever happens to them is just their fault is one that’s barely worthy of the neocons you’re bashing.
A big part of being in the service is the concept of loyalty to each other and to the unit and the service. Rep. Sestak still feels that, I’m sure. It’s partly due to the training, and partly due to the normal human tendency to bond with the people with whom you’ve shared a stressful experience.
Joel Grant @ 304
Chris Bowers wrote a good essay on this the other day. Ah, here it is. They sure make things tough to find at MyDD. Anyway, it’s basic premise is that we’re all responsible for Iraq to a degree, because we’re all part of what is (supposed to be) a free society. Many Democrats voted to approve the war. Many more have voted to continue funding it all along. We all have a responsibility. Adults know this, by the way, which is another thing that seems to differentiate us from much of the opposition nowadays.
Recognizing that we “own” it can have all sorts of effects on one’s thinking, I suppose. I think that’s why Democrats need to be clear that they don’t want to own it any more. It’s Bush’s mistake primarily, and if he wants to continue in error he will do it without us. Preferably, they will box him into some sort of legal corner where he has to comply or be impeached, but I doubt that will happen. There just aren’t the votes.
Anyway, sit there in your office in DC and things start to look different, I imagine, if you try to limit yourself to the set of things that are actually possible. I think what’s lost on them is that part of what determines what’s possible is public opinion, and they need to work on that. They haven’t been, and partly for the reasons you and I are discussing.
[OK, I know I’m late for the party, but I had a few questions for Admiral Sestak that I posted on the heads-up thread (thanks Howie). Now, I know the Admiral isn’t here but maybe he’ll come by to read the comments when time warrants … so here they are again]
Admiral Sestak,
I’d like to think that you have a great record considering the alternative and it looks like you have voted in many ways I would approve of, but …
A shorter version in my interpretation of what you are implying above is “We’re there, we have to do this right” (If I’m wrong, I apologize. And btw, that is the completely wrong frame, but anyway). OK, here we go …
You say
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Where in the bill does it do the following
- Where in the bill does it explain how staying in Iraq is going to make the troops safer?
- Where in the bill does it explain how they are miraculously going to be issued sufficient body armor – and not the insufficient shit they have now – by September? And if it does? Doesn’t that implicitly say we are not going anywhere anytime soon?
- Where in the bill does it explain how they are going to all have up-armored humvees by September? And tangentially, why is it the people in charge didn’t and don’t give them M-113 vehicles that are already deployed in theater (Kuwait, Qatar, ???) to use until they do receive the humvees? (Isn’t safety for the troops the number one concern?) And if it does? Doesn’t that implicitly say that we are not going anywhere anytime soon?
- Where in the bill does it explain why it takes four years to train Iraqi’s to police their own country but it takes mere months to train and send off 18 year olds to the occupation? And how this bill is going to deviate from the last 4 years? And what is the plan for training them? And why isn’t NATO doing the training of Iraqi troops like we were promised they would?
- Where in the bill does it explain how we are or will stop the insurgents/criminals/terrorists/tribal conflicts and exodus of same from areas of escalation of US troops when they can easily leave an area when they receive word of US troop escalations? (whack a mole)
- Where in the bill does it mandate that Iraqi contractors rebuild their own infrastructure? To generate pride among the people
- Where in the bill is an apology for needlessly invading a sovereign nation for insufficient reasons? And tangentially, isn’t invading a country to remove it’s leadership an abrogation of international law? And what is the reason, if not that? Oh, and also btw, is the Iraqi government not in violation of international law? Because if I’m not mistaken a government set up during an occupation by another country is illegal.
I have the utmost confidence that if anyone can answer these, you are the one Admiral Sestak
[I would also add that you (Admiral Sestak) mentioned something about “hope” not being a strategy (or something like that) I would ask how sending the troops out without the items listed above is not “hoping” that things will go well over the next few months?]
Congressman,
Thank you for the pay raise…
Thanks for more war…
Thanks for ensuring more people get murdered in the Middle East…
Thanks for supporting the deaths of our troops.
Ridiculously late weighing in on this, but I need time to see what distinguishes Sestak’s position from Lieberman’s “no one wants to get out of Iraq more than I do” stance. It’s one thing to want it, another to do it.
I don’t believe in any of these wars. The hijckers were mostly Saudi’s, and even then, I wouldn’t have wanted to war with them.
The hijackers were all killed on 911. For $500 Billion, what did we get? There isn’t a country who isn’t upset with us. For that kind of money, we could have rebuilt our power grids AND stepped up our port security. Over 100,000 people are now dead and gas is $3.16 a gallon in my neck of the woods. I’d love to concentrate on why gas is so high? There is plenty of gouging going on and not just in the Bush administration. Every year, my medical insurance goes up, and some of the benefits are dropped. I’m so sick to death about ALL of it. And my party, the Dems, are a bunch of pussies. There main fear isn’t getting out of Iraq; their main fear is being called a pussy by Russert. We should never have lost the 2004 presidential election.
Some new questions for the Admiral …
As you are aware, Admiral, the US military plans for everything: With that being said, here goes
I was forwarded a report about 4 or 5 years ago from the Monte Rey NPS library (wasn’t classified at the time [dead link now]) about the possible insurgency (if I remember correctly, their word) and in this report one of the authors premise’s in the difficulty of conflict with Iraq was the culture of Iraqi’s being that their priorities were these, in order: 1) The tribal structure 2) Their religious affiliations 3) I forget which this was and 4) Iraqi nationalism
With that premise, here’s a hypothetical: Say you have a training program for Iraqi police (or army) and say in this training program you have members of 3 or 4 tribes in the training class, what happens when they get word that there is a sweep that will be in their own neighborhood? Do they let it continue when they know that US troops and Iraqi’s will quite possibly arrest members of their own family and if not their own family, their own tribe? Do they not make a quick phone call back home? What happens when two of the three tribes want to take revenge on the third tribe? What happens if you split up the training classes according to tribes and one night one of the classes decides to take revenge on one of the other tribes? What happens if one tribe accuses another tribe of being Al Qaeda? How do we tell the difference?
How does our continuing to be there improve this situation? And, btw, the Iraqi’s don’t want us there as seen in poll after poll and also recently their parliament voted for the US to leave, how do you rationalize us staying where we are so obviously not wanted?
Another thing: In the report they quote extensively from Tsun Tzu (sp?) and one of the quotes I remember was something on the order of not completely destabilizing your opponent and destroying their lives
Have you read this report? And what’s your comment about it?
SaltinWound @ 311
Oh man, that was COLD. And so to the point.
Joe didn’t add anything that we didn’t already know from his editorial. So in that sense, a waste of time. BUT, the commenters added plenty.
At this point I follow everything back to the pot of gold. Everyone in government seems to be concerned with one thing, lining their pockets.
Put me down for, seems like a great guy, but no money from me.
Cujo359 @ 308
I know where to begin — it’s with logic.
The military is, by definition “of, for, or pertaining to war.” People who go into the military should know that this is no civilian career — for whatever reason.
They are signing up and agreeing to assist in war — be it combat or support. The peripheral benign reasons why they do so do not detract from the fact that they are joining a war machine — period.
I’m military age. I was seriously considering joining the fight — being swept away with the patriotism and fury over 911. But I did something — I listened, studied, and realized that what was evolving was an uncritical wave of irrational war thinking.
I heard the drums start beating for war with Iraq.
It didn’t take me long to realize that I would not voluntarily become part of it — not for any reason.
Oh, and the calender thing. The mess that the US in involved with is older than a year. People have been criticizing it even before 2003 and the start of the invasion in Iraq. Most volunteers that signed up after 911 probably signed with a three or four year active duty agreement. That means that most of the 911 angry bunch are probably non-active by now — granted a lot of them have been called back but this is just so you understand…
Most volunteers do NOT become career personnel. I bet that a great number of noncoms who signed during the Clinton years are either non-active or recalled because of contract.
With all that said I will finish by saying — there’s a reason why the military is having such a hard time hitting the recruitment goals. It’s because more thinking military age people are thinking like I am — we’re not going to fight a devil’s war even if we need money for college or whatever.
Stop making excuses for people who go into the military — they join a MILITARY for chrissakes — not a damn charm school!
And here’s something else of interest. This is NOT just about us.
fahrender @ 288
Are you kidding? We helped elect him and Sestak doesn’t even hear us — or himself. Perfect example: The idea that re-submitting the original bill, or failing to submit anything at all, would have been “playing chicken with the troops’ welfare.” As though this president has been doing anything else since the war began!
Bison @ 164
Yes. He is.
And he even told us that the U.S. Navy isn’t any better off financially than you and me. We’re all just three months from being homeless.
In my opinion this conversation was not credible. I very much admire the work at FDL and I think you deserved much better than this from a guest. Your credibility will survive but I can’t say as much for the congressman.
Larry_H @ 318
Hear, hear. Exactly the point I was trying to make. This man has wasted our time — at Blue America, in the campaign, in office, on this blog today….
About all I take away from this discussion is: How very, very, very far we have to go to form anything like a truly progressive alternative in this country.
I hadn’t contributed to any Dem candidates for very long time before Blue America came to the Lake.
Admiral Sestak reminded me why: I’m allergic to intellectual dishonesty.
I went to my garden to find a couple of pebbles to mail him.
If we send him enough pebbles by September, perhaps he’ll have the stones to oppose King George.
I don’t get it.
How do people serve as Naval officers – for years – without apparently having bothered to understand the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend?
How can you defend it when you seem not to comprehend it?
Is it “just a goddamned piece of paper” for American Generals and Admirals, as well as for their King?
Hey Admiral – you’re not in the Navy anymore.
You’re in the Congress.
It’s OK for Congress to defy the President – that’s why the founders put the Congress there.
And when the Prez defies Congressional authority over spending, it’s OK to impeach him – that’s why the founders put Impeachment there.
Here’s a pebble, Admiral.
When you have the stones to oppose King George on a symbolic vote, do let us know.
Then perhaps you can surprise us and oppose King George on a substantive vote.
Or don’t – and tell us how you were keeping the powder dry for the next sally.
Admiral, if the Navy had used your strategy with the Russians, we wouldn’t have needed aircraft carriers.
The Fleet would never have left port.
Hope you find the stones to vote against King George’s Occupation, Admiral.
Your mirror is there every morning – and every morning, the Baghdad morgue fills with flies and blood and cadaver juice.
And you couldn’t even take a symbolic step to defy King George’s War.
Your mirror is there every morning, Admiral.
Blood, blood, blood.
Find the stones, Admiral, find the stones.
Well, that was a whole lot of absolutely nothing.
Ali @ 263
It’s a complicated issue and not well suited to a short question and I understand your position and point, but I think because your view or practice of Islam is different from that held by those who, for example, went to Afghanistan on jihad you are more explaining your views while I am inquiring into why there is so little consideration of the views of the ones who are out there preaching calls or answering them.
I’m a Christian and I will would readily admit that there are many sect doctrinal teachings that are vicious – contrary to what I believe to be true Christianity, etc. but I think to address those issues and their effects you have to open your eyes to them.
Obviously, there is hateful, as well as loving, doctrine in the Bible that can be used for targeted purposes and the same is true with the Koran. So I do believe you when you say, “besides that, in Islam, you have duty to defend yourself, your family, your country. i live here; tomorrow if USA is attacked byone, i’ll be the first one to pick up arms to defend its borders.”
and I understand your doctrinal belief that:
“their is not r”ule of islam to drive out non-muslim invaders for your and other countries. the rule is simply to defend, and help others in need, be it from muslim or non muslims invaders.”
but it is not the same doctrine followed by those who went to Afghanistan or formed terrorist or extremist sects or have streamed to Iraq. And I do agree with you that there is also the plain and simple issue of Iraqis not wanting occupation forces from another country calling the shots in THEIR country (and the facts that most of those occupying have no ability to speak the language, do not understand the culture and were encouraged to abandon the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Conventions and vent post-9/11 anger on a relatively helpless native popultion under the guise of “interrogations” and “detentions” only made the situation worse).
So that is not only a valid point but the one that you would think would be so obvious that everyone in Congress and the military would understand it intuitively. Of course no one wants their country occupied by foreign forces. However, the President tries to frame this as an issue where we are not occupying the country, instead we are helping the country deal with the problems of terrorists and jihadi etc.
It’s true that those groups do not necessarily abide by “be not agressive; surely God loves not the agressors.” My point goes to that argument – (I think the other argument that you make, that people don’t want an oppressive occupier, shouldn’t have to even be made, but you are right to make it). The teachers/leaders/historic figures within those groups who we are supposedly worried will “overrun” Iraq have used armed “infidel” invasion or ocupation as a religious duty to repel. When that as to the US’s benefit, as with the Soviet situation in Afghanistan, we encouraged it.
Those like Bin Laden have pulled some of their doctrine from sources like Sayyid Qutb and from Abdbullah Azzam’s Defense of Muslim Lands
Azzam posited that it was a fard ayn for the expulsion of non-Muslim invaders – that fell first to local Muslims, then to their Muslim neighbors, then, eventually, to the whole of the worldwide Muslim community.
Now I don’t follow the teachings of Rev Dobson and I don’t know that you follow the teachings of Qutb or Azzam, but I do think that it is important to try to understand what is being taught and why and how it works as a motivator and how it will faciliate or prevent the finding of common ground for resolution of issues.
All of that is still not really an answer to what you raised, but this isn’t the best forum.
just like people here were christians, and fought british who were of the same religion as well, and just like countries send their forces to other countries in the time of need. these are fundamental principles of islam. the main difference now is that countries generally do it for their interests, money, power and exploitation rather for real humanitarian reasons.
Ali
Because as high-ranking officers they are there to promote the status quo, nothing more. Just like the hierarchy of any organization.
Some homework for the Admiral
Click the youtube
Audrey @ 305
Same here– in fact, I’ve been surprised at the reaction to Congressman Sestak’s appearance here. As a former admiral, I think he really does have some understanding of how appropriations passed or not passed can affect troops in the field. And this is not during peace-time. I doubt he is underestimating the political machinations of which Rove/Bush/Cheney are capable. Same with Webb.
Nor is it fair to expect former military people to be anti-war, especially when they never claimed they were, but were only against this particular war. (I was against invading Afghanistan, and was in a very small minority.)
Weldon? He was still convinced of the existence of WMDs that just hadn’t been dug up yet.
I am curious, though, about how many of those who are criticizing Sestak now for this one vote, believed the lies in 2000 about the two parties being identical and decided to vote for Nader? The rest of us were right about what would happen to SCOTUS, but were laughed at.
The criminals are in the White House….or as Rev. Lennox Yearwood says as he is arrested, “Power to The People.”
Tina Richards, outside of Nancy Pelosi’s office, and Adam Kokesh at the Hart-Senate Building
14 arrested including Rev. Lennox Yearwood after sustained 1 hour action. Rev. Yearwood with Iraq Vets against the War hold “Funeral for A Soldier” to honor those who will lose their lives in Iraq war. Another citizen activist group drapes several stories of Hart building with gigantic impeachment banners.
Dear Adm. Sestak,
I donated to your campaign last year via ActBlue.
Guess what? That won’t happen again until you grow a pair and decide to stand up to George Bush. Until then, you can beg for donations from the DLC and your friends in the GOP.
I’ve just spent an hour or so wading though the comments on this thread and I have to say thanks to all involved. As to Howie’s question, I’m another wait-and-see vote. One thing Congressman Stasek said that I thought deserved more attention was this
This may seem like “in the weeds” minutia but I’ve seen situations where my boss couldn’t buy item A because we only had money on pocket B.
kirk murphy @ 320
Kirk, if you check my comment at 83, you will see I agree with you, on the tactics.
But it is one thing to disagree on tactics, and language, and another to claim bad faith.
Joe Sestak said
Understand that the day I entered the race, I’ve never deviated that a date certain was the only strategy that we could redeploy and leave behind an unfailed state in Iraq I still believe strongly that a specific date to redeploy changes the structure of incentives for Iraq’s politcal leaders to beigin stepping up and assuming responsibility for the tough political decisions of accomidation amongst themselves; and that it also changes the behavior of Iran and Syria, who are incvolved destructivly because we are bleeding…and they like that. If we nnounce we will not be there, and then leave with confidence, diplomatically with them, we have the only strategy that can bering them to the table constructively.
I believe Joe Sestak is sincere. Ambassador Wilson spoke up early in this Iraq war/occupation debate, and has suffered mightily for it. So his endorsement of Joe Sestak carries a lot of weight with me.
At the same time, I think Rep. Sestak is missing something from his plan. Before you worry about getting Syria and Iran to the table, you need to get Bush and Cheney to the table.
And they aren’t interested, he typed in a massively understated fashion.
But that is still a far different thing than bad faith, and it’s important to avoid circular firing squads. We don’t have the numbers that we can afford them.
What a passionate thread! Sorry I couldn’t be here while the discussion was going with the admiral/representative, but hope he or a staffer will stop by to read later . . .
One thing that I’m still chewing on is Sestak’s “attach this to an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill” approach.
I thought I understood the congressional appropriations process pretty well, but he seems to be saying something I’m missing here. I know the difference between the two, but I don’t see how that makes a difference to the discussion of ending the war/redeploying the troops via the “power of the purse.”
Given Sestak’s former position at the pentagon, I’m sure he came on to the House floor on his very first day knowing more about the appropriations process than every other freshman member of the House, probably more than most veterans of the House, and certainly more than me. He’s trying to say something important here, but I can’t quite get a handle on it yet and it doesn’t seem like anyone else has understood it either. I’ve got to study this one some more, and Howie, if you could get Sestak to elaborate on this down the road, I for one would really appreciate it.
From most other politicians, I’d write this off as spin, but given Sestak’s progressive positions on so many other issues (torture, unions, health care, education, etc.), I’m willing to follow him (or anyone else) into the weeds to sort out what he’s trying to say here.
Put me down as wait and see.
bobo
howie, keep him? yes. but on probation……….
bobo-stated two issues
end the war
yes, now. i won’t elaborate for now.
the politics-i think he understands the politics just fine….he was an admiral in charge of budgets–the accountants know politics better than anybody, my dad was a corporate accountant, one with a conscience, they know it all…
and it’s ok to hit me here but, i think that most of us don’t really understand the politics involved in things, as much as we like to think we do, we don’t really have a clue in how things are arranged and accomplished and what it takes to get a bill through….what little i have been exposed to has opened my eyes in what it takes, and it is a herculean effort…tantrums from commenters don’t help and all of you who do that lose me in your arguments no matter how articulate, once i see a tantrum coming, i know you are no longer listening (learning) and not worth my time.
so get with it, plant your seeds and watch them grow…..plant a good seed….but if you’re just throwing dirt, you aren’t creating anything good in my book.
amberglow @ 63
Oh, Amberglow, I love you! An agenda!!!
Now do this: stop the trade deals, repeal the Patriot Act, stop the spying on us, etc etc etc. I have posted comments like this one on many other threads.
And, Joe, don’t you know that even if we could ever get a defunding bill passed again (the Repubs smell blood), Bush would continue the occupation putting our military in danger. But he doesn’t have time left in his 2nd term to push it to the max (the point at which no bullets are left to shoot, no meals are left to serve, no armor is left to hand out, no spectacular new vehicle is left to issue. . . and maybe no general who would send his troops out sans these protections). So go attend to the other stuff.
Joe Wilson:
Joe Sestak:
Wow; these are what Joe and Joe think are acceptable premises for this discussion? as much as I like to believe that I understood where they stood in the political spectrum, I must say that I don’t think I know enough about who these people are anymore; I would have expected to hear those words from Joe Lieberman, but not from Mr. Sestak or Mr. Wilson …. This is going to make me rethink and reassess ….
Christy Hardin Smith:
When Mr. Wilson accuses P. Lukasiak of using Rovian talking points above in comment#26 above,
does that qualify as flamethrowing? are you going to ask Mr. Wilson to retract? or perhaps scrub Mr. Wilson’s comment from the thread? In any case, how would you want folks to respond to that insinuation while maintaining a civil tone? I think you should hold your guests to the same civility standards that you are asking commenters to adhere to, and being told that one is working from the Rove play book should not qualify.
As to whether we should put Joe Sestak back on BlueAmerica, that would be no different from a serious case of battered spouse syndrome
re putting Sestak on the ActBlue page for funding. My thought is to keep fund raising and keep asking for explanations and progressive voting and he will show himself worthy of support or not. I felt relevant in the last election as you all made my little contributions meaningful. I would hate to be made irrelevant by political purity. And I would hate to be made meaningless by compromise of significant principles. We need to stay in dialog and let him know what we need from him. So my answer is maybe, but not yet.
Sestak on Blue America? ABSOLUTELY NO. If he or anyone else who voted for the capitulation bill are on it, then I will abandon ALL Blue America candidates.
Blue America MUST not support pro-war candidates. Blue America MUST not accept excuses like the ones made herein by Congressman Sestak and Ambassador Wilson for pro-war votes. If Blue America DOES accept pro-war candidates and their votes for more war, then it has no reason to exist.
We really must be firm and unswerving on this very critical matter. Zero tolerance on pro-war votes is the only appropriate policy.
Admiral lists American interests:
1 – Growth of terrorism
2 – access and ability to protect the strategic oil fields;
3 – obligation to serve as a guarantor of Israel’s territorial integrity
1: You cannot fight terrorism without going to the core – diplomacy and cooperation; worldwide. Terrorists must be taken to the fringe.
2: Get in line. Its their oil, not ours.
3: I just puked; sorry.
What hogwash. What trash. No wonder this country is heading over a cliff.
Oh, by the way, thanks for giving Bush a blank check, great move.
After sleeping on it, I vote no on Sestak.
If he significantly modifies his position, away from his massive enabling of Bush, I reserve the right to change my vote.
I think Hugh, Mary, and many others correctly identified the completely unacceptable quality of his responses. To paint us, Blue America, FDL, as leaving our soldiers exposed spat in the face of people here. Bush, now with Sestak’s help, are keeping them in harm’s way. We’re using the only tools available to get them out, the power of the purse. If Bush would agree to a date certain, we could extend the proposed 5-7 week interval.
Sorry, those were Joe Wilson’s talking points. What planet is this guy from?
There is, and has been, only one way to end our occupation of Iraq “under the circumstances”. That is to vote “no” on any apppropriations for it, and to keep voting “no” until our troops are withdrawn.
… in the end, that vote is the same vote Curt Weldon would have cast
With that vote, and 85 others, our continued occupation of Iraq is assured. Nothing has changed, nothing will change. Because those 86, and the seats who voted with them for this appropriation, will not change.
I’ve been away for a few days. Sorry I missed all this. I’ll add a bit, just in case anyone at all happens along to read at some future date.
I think that what many are not understanding is what I’ll call…..the “Logistics Reality” of a redeployment. So…..try to strip away from your mind all the very understandable angst, anger, dismay, etc. over the lies told to us by Bush, his general BS, the foolishness of war in Iraq….sigh…try to strip away the last 6 years. (a TALL order, I know!)
Approach the problem from pure military reality: can you, within either 60 days (by July), or within 90 days (September), SAFELY redeploy over 140,000 US combat troops in a combat zone, and the nature of the combat zone being that there are NO front lines, and NO rear areas which are safe and secure? Can you do this within either 60 or 90 days? I personally tend to think not.
The bill as worded, would have also meant the troops run way low on vital supplies (by July) during such redeployment effort. The Admiral, using his military judgment, also answered in the negative to the pure military question. The Admiral is supported by a Congressional Research study. And so…the Admiral voted against a bill which, from pure military logistics perspective, would’ve been impossible to safely pull off.
I think the key datapoint here, and for anyone to debate, is the question posed above: from a pure military perspective, can US forces safely redeploy out of the Iraq war zone within 60-90 days? And, even if the forces begin to redeploy, isn’t it necessary to keep these forces fully funded during said redeployment?
I sense that the good Admiral tried to convey these ideas in his comments above. Sestak may not have done the best at eloquence…but I think his reasons for his vote are based on pure military logistics reality.
Ghostman