[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.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
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