Tom Vilsack vs. St. McCain
Tweet
Gov. Vilsack’s Letter to Sen. John McCain on the Iraq War:.
Your suggestion to deploy additional American servicemen and women to Iraq would make a big mistake even bigger and send the wrong message to President Bush, who has stubbornly refused to recognize that his Administration’s military and diplomatic failures in Iraq have recklessly endangered America’s national interests.
41 Responses to “Tom Vilsack vs. St. McCain”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Sounds like cheap partisan posturing from Vilsack. Nothing ingratiates one better with the moneybags extreme left than harshly criticizing Bush and the war – a war Democrats voted for. Too bad for Vilsack he has zero chance. Richardson is better than this toad.
WE are the moneybags?! The party of the poor, of labor and of the working class?
A politician acting partisan because he doesn’t march in lockstep to Bush? Someone hand Dugger the smelling salts, because clearly his sensibilities have been offended.
That’s funny. I’m reading this as Vilsack in on the Daily show. double take.
Another fact Dugger simply cannot deal with: THAT A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY WANTS US TO LEAVE IRAQ. That’s why he’s fallen back on his LGF “moneybags extreme left” conspiracy theories. Is Soros involved? Maybe Streisand and Seinfeld, too?
Forget the conspiracies and moneybags. McCain is not THE MAN in ’08.
You can either favor sending more troops, or be opposed to it.
But what you cannot do is favor more troops based on the idea that what X troops can not do, X + n troops can.
OTOH, you cannot simply call the war in Iraq a “bad idea”, without justification, and say that since the war is a “bad idea”, increasing the number of troops is also a “bad idea.”
Not wanting to feed more American troops into the Iraq meatgrinder = “cheap partisan posturing”? Man, that’s warped.
Not having a clue as to how to end the war, or even a good reason why, while at the same time whining “I want to go home!” is indeed “cheap partisan posturing.”
Too easy Wilbur. The cheap partisan stuff comes, not from saying we need to leave Iraq, but from the loaded ‘stubborn’ ‘failures’ ‘recklessly’ ‘endangered’ etc. He might as well have been wearing Birkenstocks, sipping a latte, doing some weed and carrying a Bushitler placard. But I acknowledge the yahoo extremists (including money bags like Soros, Hollywood etc) and the human shield types will eat that crap up.
Wake up, Dugger! Rational people might disagree on which way to go from here, but practically everyone in the country apart from the 29-percenters would agree that Bush’s Iraq adventure was “stubborn”, “a failure”, “reckless” and has “endangered” not only our troops, but our national security and the stability of the entire middle east.
Don’t need to smoke weed to see that, you just need a pair of eyes.
A rational person might wonder what the hell it is that you are smoking.
You cherry pick your polls. The biggest poll that really counts came out in favor of Bush – the reelection. And it doesn’t matter regardless. Vilsack could have chosen to be rational, thoughtful and deliberate. He chose all the opposites – to play to the Kool Aid base. Everybody knows that become a viable national Democrat these days, you have to go the hate route.
Pretty funny even when Dugger’s wearing his high-and-mighty Hat of Seriousness on, he still can’t resist undermining himself with bizarre caricatures and literal conspiracy theories wrt the majority of the country. Do you ever actually read what you’ve written, Dugger, or is it all stream of conciousness?
I agree with Frank that McCain is not the man in 2008. It’ll be between somebody who can win the nativist conservative vote. My hope is that that person will also be antiwar, but that may have to come from a different GOp candidate. I have a fear that McCain will flip flop from being pro-escalation now to being pro-pullout next year, and that will be the way he tries to win back independents in the general. Hard to see him getting the nomination first, though.
Either way, I think ’08, given the economy and Bush’s stubbornness, is going to be pretty favorable for Democrats, both presidentially and congressionally.
There is nothing wrong with the economy. Once again, the American people are proving it by knocking down the doors at every retail outlet in every mall in the country.
You can point to median wage, business start ups, or new houses, but nothing says prosperity like the crazed stampede of holiday shoppers.
As for the war, it will have a positive spin on it by the summer of ’08, when it matters. The Dems are setting themselves up — without telepathic commands from Karl Rove — to increase the troops in Iraq. The Prez will still start calling them home in late 2007, early 2008, and he will look great.
I can and will point to the median wage. Nothing points to eroding prosperity like having the average family’s income stay the same for 6 years. Consumer spending is healthy, but a lot more families are in a more vulnerable position than they should be because of the way economic gains have been distributed the past 5 years.
Positive spin on the war 2 years from now? Keep dreaming. Bush is going to keep his “stand there and bleed” strategy, and the verdict’s already in on that one: people hate it. If you think Bush bringing the troops home is going to to make him look good, then your argument’s with Dugger, not with me. But he’s not bringing them home. That’s why he keeps saying that. Why don’t you believe him? BDS?
Frank, in point of fact, this should be a high point of our economy. The baby boomers haven’t yet retired. To wit, we have basically given up on trying to manage our Federal spending or current account deficits, and so far there hasn’t been much of a backlash. How long will this go on?
Well, in 2009, the Labor Force Participation Rate will decline meaning that more of us in our 20s and 30s will be forced to bear the burden of supporting non-labor participants. Interest rates which have been incredibly low may creep up as fewer governments are willing to backstop our Federal debt.
In other words, we aren’t doing terribly – although middle-class labor participants might disagree – but we also aren’t acting like good squirrels and putting away nuts for the winter.
There are some odd comments in this thread, including the notion that keeps coming back (and it’s really just a talking point masquerading as a real point) that “the Democrats” have to figure out how to “win in Iraq” if they are to have anything to say…as if withdrawal is completely inconceivable or as if Democrats are being asked to submit a plan to match the administration plan. This after Bush has been deep in talks to figure out what the hell he is doing in Iraq. Let’s face it, the administration has not had a plan in Iraq except for hoping the Iraqis would love us for killing so many of them.
Some weeks back I floated (on another site) the idea that we need to examine the question of whether Iraq is “winnable” in any real sense of the word (and we need to know what “winning” means first) before we decide whether to stay and “win” or withdraw. I still have seen no reasonable discussion of that question. Instead, you get one side saying “we have to win” and the other saying “we cannot win”, but without real discussion of…oh…I said that. So McCain’s position, the administration position, and even Vilsack’s position lack the basic discussion needed to convince an observer that they have the right position.
However, looking at the politics of the Vilsack letter to McCain, an writing as one who supports regime change at home (Bush has to go…even conservatives can see by now that he’s a total screw up, except for those conservatives who have conflated Bush and their personal religious beliefs), I believe that McCain has, with his call for a “surge”, made the first and biggest misstep in his campaign for the White House in 2008. Now don’t get me wrong: McCain will be the Republican nominee in ’08. The fix has been in for more than two years. However, the surge will be a disaster and McCain will have to own it, which will sink him in ’08. In those terms, the Vilsack letter, whether politically motivated or motivated by a genuine concern for the commonweal (I always wanted to use that word in a sentence), is a good idea because he is helping to pin the surge to McCain’s shirt. McCain is helping with that, too. It would benefit the Democrats, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination in ’08, to ensure that McCain not only has the surge pinned to his lapel, but tattooed to his forehead and painted on the sidewalk in front of every place he parks his car. Cover McCain in surge and he’ll have to defend the failure of that surge throughout the campaign. Cover him in surge and you ensure that the ’08 campaign is all about Iraq, and that won’t help the Republican nominee at all.
I was about to respond seriously to your post until I saw the “fix” comment re McCain. Hopefully this is just poor word choice and not the Cynthia McKinneyish conspiracy bullsh*t it seems to be on the surface.
Get it right, DBK: Dugger only likes conspiracy theories involving rich, liberal Jews. Also, he never responds seriously — bad faith is the only language Dugger speaks.
Anyway, the GOP nominating process is not a “fix”; it’s just a matter of the fact that, with Bush at least, the strategy was to first line up the donors, then the governors, and then steamroll the primaries as a formality with his unprecedented war chest. Hillary’s apparently attempting something similar, but the Democratic party’s nominating process has never worked in as top-down, non-democratic a way as the GOP’s anointings. Here’s a Time roundup of Bush’s path to his particular GOP anointment. Has McCain lined up the donors and governors yet?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/06/14/bush.html
At least, not a fix in the sense of a secret conspiracy. Just the reality of power in the GOP — it resided with donors and governors in 1998 more than with GOP primary voters.
Today in the Arizona Republic: “McCain Tapping Bush’s Donors.”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1219mccain-money1219.html
I’ll make a bet right now — none of you (nor can I) name the Republican nominee for 2008.
The names being bandied about now will not make it to the Convention Hall.
Romney
Giuliani
McCain
Brownback
Allen
Not a one of them.
Hey, I can name a lot of people, Frank. Anyway, I mostly agree, especially since most of those guys are social moderates on abortion and gun control and whatnot. McCain’s the only one I’m not sure about, because of the donor/GOP power broker angle.
I have a feeling that Gingrich is going to surge as a take-back-the-party conservative. I also wouldn’t write off Brownback from the right, as well as Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter from the nativist wing. Huckabee, Hagel, Condi, Tommy Thompson, and Pataki are all jokes in terms of winning the nomination. So as I said above, it’s between McCain and some firebreather like Tancredo or Gingrich, and hopefully an antiwar insurgent, like maybe Gingrich in another role or one of the moderates. I’m telling you, if Dugger’s jumped ship on the war, there’s space in the primary season for an antiwar Republican. It just remains to be seen who that might be.
“especially since most of those guys are social moderates on abortion and gun control and whatnot”
Whoops, I meant just on Romney and Giuliani. Brownback’s a contender from the right. Allen’s a loser, though. He’s done.
A good barometer will be to see how the GOP congressmen and senators react to this bullshit “Surge” political strategy of Bush’s. Early GOP critics might be positioning themselves for an anti-war run at the nomination. What will Tancredo do? Keep his mouth shut? Or bet that the anti-immigrant and anti-war wings of the party are a big enough coalition to topple the front-runner? That’s what I’d do if I wanted to win the Republican nomination this year.
DBK: Of course the Democrats are in no way obligated to figure out a “proper” end to the war in Iraq. But they do face a number of thorny issues:
1) How do they “bug out” of Iraq, without looking like they have “bugged out”?
2) How do they avoid a “helicopters on the roof” imagery (some of us do remember May, 1975, and who was directly responsible)?
3) How do we continue a credible “Global War on Terror” having left Iraq (and Afghanistan?) with our tail between our legs?
You don’t have to answer these questions, but if the Democrats ever want to see the inside of the White House again, except at the (Republican) President’s invitation, they do.
Uh, Frank, why do you think Congress will be directing a withdrawal, now? Congress can hold hearings and make life hard for Bush, but this decision is going to be either Bush’s or his successor’s to make. I believe the next president will be a Democrat, and that Bush will leave withdrawal to him/her. Obviously, you believe something different which needs to be explained in order for you to be understood.
On 3, the war on terror will be much more credible if we’re doing things to help it, rather than undermine it, as our Iraq invasion did, so that’s a start.
Uh *, Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy: I don’t know when Congress will be directing a withdrawal, or if they will. I still contend that, if and when they do, they will be faced with those three issues, at the very least.
I don’t see why I need to “explain” why I think the next President will be a Republican in order to be understood.
Whether or not finishing up the job in Iraq is left until after 2008, I still believe the next President will be a Republican.
If I wished to get into a totally off – topic debate as to why I think that is so (I most assuredly don’t), I would be asking for an avalanche of comments from people who disagree with me — mostly because of wishful thinking.
This would not approach the issue I raised.
If the Democrats seek to “solve” the “Iraq problem” (the usage is intentional — it is important for the Democrats to avoid calling a war a war at all costs) they must resolve the three issues I raised.
Do you think I am wrong? Tell me why.
Do you have the answers to those issues? Fine.
If not, why throw bad questions after good?
* Why people insist on employing that obnoxious usage is beyond me — it makes my skin crawl.
The point I was getting that is that it would be the president who oversees withdrawal, not congress. Democrats have no power to “solve” foreign policy, only shed light on it, bring attention to problems, and call for change. They cannot “bug out,” so I’m trying to understand what the fuck you’re talking about in terms of Democratic responsibility for Bush’s war and the withdrawal from it.
Meaning that the person who bugs out of Iraq will either be this president or, more likely, the next one. I would agree that, say, President Hillary would definitely face a political problem withdrawing from Iraq, but given that you’ve written off that possibility, I have no idea what you’re imagining. That when Bush or Pres. McCain pulls out, Democrats in Congress will pay for it somehow? None of your scenario makes sense in terms of questions that Congress “has to answer”; it only makes sense at the presidential level, and you’ve excluded Democrats from even holding the office.
What I’m trying and failing to say is that those are all crucial questions for a Democratic President who inherits this fucked up disaster to answer, but not for a Democratic Congress. If Bush or a GOP successor withdraw, they take the heat. If a Democrat withdraws, she takes the heat.
According to the Conventional Wisdom, President Bush just lost out in a referendum on Iraq.
That is why the Democrats are now expected to come up with an answer. You are right in saying that it is technically an Executive Branch issue, but it is up to the Legislature ro control the Hearings and the purse strings, and use the the power of the Sunday morning talk shows to accomplish the goal of extrication from Iraq.
If they can not or will not do so, they will open to the accusation that the campaign of 2006 was a fraud, promising change when they had no intention of bringing about change.
I knew they couldn’t and they wouldn’t, but lots of people voted for them, thinking that they could and they would.
Hence, the old saw, “Fool me once, etc…”
Hey, I agree that Reid and Pelosi need to start aggressive oversight hearings and do a better job working the media. Obviously looking incompetent will not help them. But looking like they can’t do anything about a stubborn president… well, that probably winds up hurting the GOP “brand” on national security more than anything.
That’s certainly what I expect to happen through the end of Bush’s term: Democrats steadily escalate scrutiny pressure, but not past the point of cutting off funding. Bush stubbornly keeps his war, and refuses to draw down. Democrats take the presidency, and are forced to bear whatever political costs emerge from our leaving Iraq, and the GOP says “but we were about to win the war” for the next 40 years.
Just to be clear, you voted against the Democrats because you thought they would be *ineffective* at getting us out of Iraq? And you voted for the GOP instead, thinking they’d do a *better* job getting us out?
I’ll answer your question, if you answer mine…
I didn’t vote for Republicans to get us out of Iraq. I voted against Democrats because they want to get us out of Iraq.
My view is this: We have 150,000 troops, give or take, smack dab in the Middle East. Talk about your “Roman Garrison”! Are we just sitting there getting fat? Nope, we are kicking terrorist ass — al Qaeda, ex – Ba’athists, Syrian and Iranian terrorists. Send us your Islamofascists yearning to “Meet the Virgins” and we’ll play matchmaker.
We’re also becoming a mediator. Whatever you want in the Middle East, you have to come to us to get it. Are we making new enemies? Not really. There’s always been a steady supply of haters of the Great Satan.
That won’t change if we leave, I believe. On the contrary, we will look toothless and weak.
Now, my question for you:
What exactly does this mean?
But looking like they can’t do anything about a stubborn president… well, that probably winds up hurting the GOP “brand” on national security more than anything.
On your first points: I disagree that we currently look like a mediator or that our current strategy of “stand there and bleed” makes us look anything other than stupid, clumsy, and impotent. Also, obviously, your macho posturings of “virgin matchmaker” only play among the far right. Nobody else buys it.
But I thought we were arguing about the domestic political implications of Iraq. My point there is that a) I assume Bush isn’t going to pull out. If he does, though, he bears whatever political cost comes of it, wouldn’t you agree? If he leaves it to his successor to pull out, they bear the cost, whether Democrat or Republican. Your scenario in which the president pulls out and that leads to Democrats getting punished — that’s what I wanted you to spell out. I can see a President (whether Bush, a GOP successor, or a Democrat)taking the heat for a “helicopters on the roof” situation, but not really the congressional leaders of either party. Since you said you thought the Democrats had to deal with that *before* getting into the oval office, I wanted you to explain how you thought a GOP president would somehow manage to avoid the heat from it.
“We’re also becoming a mediator. Whatever you want in the Middle East, you have to come to us to get it.”
Care to spell this out? I have no idea what this means in a practical sense. What do you believe people want in the Middle East, and that we are in a position to give them? Oil? Stability? Aircraft carriers? What?
It was the Democratic Congress that brought the war in Viet Nam to an end. How and why they did it, I will leave for you to research. Trust me, they did.
In political terms, only the Republicans can execute the war in Iraq. The Democrats are committed to “getting us out.” So, the problem for the Democrats is how to devise an exit strategy that doesn’t look like retreat.
As to how we we have become a mediator, I refer you to Libya and Syria (Lebanon).
Now will you answer my question:
What exactly does this mean?
But looking like they can’t do anything about a stubborn president… well, that probably winds up hurting the GOP “brand” on national security more than anything.
Don’t be a cock. The reason the Democrats looked bad on Vietnam is because Vietnam was primarily a war run and lost by Democratic presidents. Iraq is a war where all the hawks are on one side of the aisle. If we lose Iraq (and we already have), the public knows where to assign blame, and in fact, has already done so. The only thing that might complicate this narrative in the public’s mind is if it’s a Democratic president that pulls us out of Iraq. Otherwise, the failure of Bush’s war will be laid at the feet of the war hawks, not the doves.
On mediation: the recent Lebanon/Israel war showed that we’re more impotent than ever when it comes to mediating anything. Libya is a success, but not one that we could accomplish in, say, 2006. Iraq has not only weakened our hand in the region, but in every other region in the world.
Your last question: the GOP just took a beating because they and the President won’t listen to public opinion on the unpopular, failed war. If a Democratic congress can’t make GWB listen over the next two years, it won’t help Democrats look good in any way, but neither will it help the GOP to be anchored to a lost, even less popular war.
If you could stop saying “lost, failed war” long enough to hear what I’m saying, but this is ridiculous.
It is precisely because saying the war is lost and failed doesn’t make it so, that the Democrats are going to have to do some fancy footwork to “get us out” of Iraq.
From today’s Philadelphia Daily News:
“… he [President Bush] rejected the notion that the war cannot be won, and vowed that the United States would not be ‘run out of the Middle East’ by extremists and radicals.”
He has put the ball back in the Democrats’ court. Your “shot clock” is running.
Oh, and BTW: Don’t be a cock?