McNerney votes for spending bill to end Iraq War
HR.4156 would:
-set
goal of withdrawal by Dec 2008.
-only provide funds for redeployment (not expanding war)
-mandate redeployment beginning 30 days from passage of bill.
-ban torture.
-require all troops sent to Iraq to be "fully mission capable".
If McNerney holds to his stated position of "we don't have the votes to end the war", his vote on this bill is meaningless. The
Democratic leadership has given McNerney cover to break from that position. I hope he does.
In related news, I am glad to see McNerney is aware of the terrible human costs of this unnecessary war as he advocates for a
PTSD clinic in Livermore. Then again,
I understand Bush is also aware of the terrible costs.
Dean Andal: first look
Finally a
CA-11 GOP candidate who understands foreign policy...
Not only are Islamic extremists a security threat to the United States, so are the Chinese and Russians, Andal said. In the face of such threats, he said Congress needs to increase its intelligence budget as well as the military's.
Asked whether the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq, Andal said after the luncheon that candidates and incumbents shouldn't "pontificate" about military strategy and give away secrets to Iraq. However, Andal admitted that no one is happy with the war's results.
Andal displays a masterful grasp of the threats we face, although he forgot Poland. And thank god he won't even utter a single word about Iraq else they get our secrets (and our lucky charms).
What a buffoon.
McNerney's moment
87 of McNerney's House colleagues
signed a letter where they pledged no new funding for escalation or continuance of the Iraq War but would fully fund safe withdrawal.
The text and co-signers of the letter are available at the link above. One of the more notable co-signers is Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo).
McNerney failed to
sign a similar letter last July.
This is rubber-meets-the-road time for McNerney. If he won't sign this time, I think he owes an explanation. The letter is supposed to be publicly released next week.
Obey or Hoyer/Emmanuel?
Looks like McNerney will have to pick sides.
David Obey (D-WI) Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee said
an Iraq funding bill will not be released from his committee without a withdrawal date. He also says he wants a war tax.
Steny Hoyer (D-MD) the House Majority Leader, basically said
he's scared of a funding fight.
Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) stumbled all over himself about ending the Iraq war on Real Time with Bill Maher the other night. Basically he said "we need a new president so we can bring the troops home". Give the
video a look (it is breathtakingly depressing).
So the question: Whose side will McNerney choose?
Answer: I have no idea but he has positioned himself to embrace either side.
On one hand McNerney says "I want a date certain withdrawal timeline" which leans toward supporting the Obey path. Also, he was pissed at the Dem leadership when the last Iraq supplemental was brought to a vote.
On the other hand McNerney keeps saying "we don't have the votes" which can be interpreted as: "I don't want the political fallout of a funding fight" and/or "let's punt the Iraq War to the next president".
I can only hope McNerney will be willing to go the mat to end the war. It's what he was elected to do and it's the right thing to do.
Who McNerney is waiting for
The "moderate" GOP'ers that McNerney is hoping will end the Iraq war oppose and despise all things related to "timelines", right? Well, what if the
timeline for withdrawal is conveniently based upon the US election calendar?A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: a call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but not until President Bush is out of office.
The legislation was deemed essentially a nonstarter by Democrats Friday and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on war policy. What attracts Democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground.
Once again, I'm obliged to remind Jerry of the character and mindset of the people he hopes will end the Iraq war.
Time to play hardball
Today, "moderate"
Republicans decided to leave 4 million children without medical insurance (SCHIP). Bush promised to veto and House Republicans acquiesced.
These are the same people McNerney is hoping will override Bush's veto on Iraq withdrawal.
Don't you think it's time to force the issue, Jerry? How many times over the next 13 months will we hear: "we don't have the votes"?
One step forward, ten steps back
Yesterday, McNerney asked me and CA-11 to stand with him on Iraq. All I can say is: I will try but he must know he's making it very difficult with quotes like this:
Washington PostBut in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."
Good. Lord. Someone is forgetting the
Iraq Study Group report (aka Baker-Hamilton). They delivered the Republicans and Bush an "acceptable way out" on a Poppy Bush crony co-chaired, bi-partisan,
American people approved (65%), silver f**king platter. You know, way back, 9 months ago in December 2006? Bush called it a "
flaming turd" and "the surge" was born.
By all means Jerry, try that again. But this time do it by negotiating directly with Bush and the Republicans rather than using a bi-partisan, independent commission. Jeebus.
One question for McNerney: If I stand with you on Iraq and you don't stand with our Congressional leadership, where exactly will we be standing? On a hill in San Ramon with a bullhorn?
the task ahead
I'm encouraged by
McNerney's reaffirmation of his stance on a "date certain" redeployment from Iraq. I'm not encouraged because I agree with his policy stance (I always did) but I'm encouraged because he's unequivocally stated his position and can now begin the critical task of bringing
others to an understanding of his judgement. As I stated in a
recent comment, I don't think he can get this done by visiting Iraq and then signalling a willingness for "more time".
Rover
Good article in the Tracy Press about Rove's legacy as it relates to CA-11 and all Congressional races.
I basically agree with
James Carville who thinks Rove's legacy will be to lose a generation of Republican voters. The damage he's caused will continue to reverberate for some time to come.
Let's remember the depths of Rove's malfeasance are not known. Just
take a look at three avenues of Congressional investigations that ain't close to being over.
Moreover, the "politics of hate" will continue. Take a look at each GOP presidential candidate try to prove himself more inclined to
torture people than the other guy. The GOP base will be listening to this trash for months to come. It will be quite interesting how candidates like Andal will navigate this rhetorical minefield. Pass the popcorn.
My only hope is that we all remember what happens when we choose party over country and conflate with politics with policy.
And finally, some
Friday humor...
Questioning the Generals
It seems the "Petraeus" report, which McNerney has telegraphed a willingness to consider favorably, will be
written by the White House. Perhaps that little factoid will help his decision to endorse/reject.
Wes Clark gave a fantastic talk at the DailyKos convention in which he hammers home a point I think McNerney should run with. It's not about the generals, timetables and such - it's about the strategy.
video here (3min.).
Until we shift our political discourse to
the strategy we are "playing George Bush's game".
While I wait
for a response from McNerney on the questions I posed
here and also emailed to his staff, I have the pleasure of reading news articles like this:
Democrats Praise Military ProgressCalifornia Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he'll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.
``I'm more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,'' McNerney said.
What signs of progress? Where? What "way forward" do the Generals have in mind?
I'm listening.
Houston not running in CA-11
Lisa V reports
Guy Houston won't challenge McNerney.
Instead, Houston will run against his former staff member, Mary Piepho, whom he helped elect to her county supervisor seat. Piepho's
current Chief of Staff is a former Houston staffer as well. Would seem like one big GOP happy family but it seems Piepho is none too happy about his decision...
"I talked to Mary this morning and it wasn't the most pleasant conversation, but we're cordial," Houston said. "We agreed to disagree on the reasons why I decided to run."
Heh.
I'll bet.
CA-11 "leans Democratic"
according to the
Cook Political Report.
McNerney: I'm willing to consider more war
USA Today:
"As long as we start at a certain date I'd be willing to be a little more flexible in terms of when it might end," McNerney said.
Stockton Record:
He said his conversations convinced him that, at least in Ramadi, the U.S. military was indeed making progress. But McNerney said he was well aware Ramadi was not representative of the rest of the country.
“I really don’t have an opinion on the rest of Iraq,” he said in a conference call from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany this morning. “I’m sure (the military) cherry-picked the best place for us.”
Still, McNerney said he will be more likely to listen to those who want more time in Iraq.
“If anything, I’m more willing to participate in a give-and-take with that viewpoint than I was before,” he said.
Mercury News:
"I was impressed with Petraeus' confidence," McNerney said. "... But he's aware of the pressure in Congress that we need to end this thing. He had a lot of data to show the progress. He's concerned about being given enough time to finish the job but he's aware that we need to come to a resolution."
I have some questions for McNerney:
1. What was it specifically about your trip that led you to believe "a give and take on more time" might be needed? Did Iraqi progress on benchmarks influence you? Was it the success in Ramadi (which by your own admission is not at all indicative of the situation in Iraq)?
2. Does your willingness to consider more time indicate you do not stand firm in your support of HR2956 which requires a "limited Armed Forces presence" by April 2008?
3. Gen. Petraus will undoubtedly issue a report in September saying he needs "more time". Is your willingness to consider more time another way of endorsing the Petraus report, the contents of which are largely known/predictable?
4. Do you believe the "surge" is working? If no, does your willingness to consider more time naturally open the door to consider more troops - a "surge" on top of the "surge"? What effects would "more time" and "more troops" have on our military which is already stretched to the breaking point?
5. Do you think your willingness to consider more time prior to an agreement on a redeployment start date increases pressure on the President, Petraus, or the Iraqis themselves to make progress?
6. Do you think your willingness to consider more time will influence your GOP House colleagues who refuse to agree to any timetable whatsoever?
7. Does your willingness to consider more time indicate some confidence in the Bush administration to use the additional time effectively? What is it specifically about the Bush Iraq strategy leads you to believe more time will result in either a more secure or stable Iraq and a reduction in loss of life/injury for US forces?
8. Your willingness to consider more time could indicate you disagree with Senate Majority Leader Reid who said" "Iraq is lost". Do you feel "Iraq is not lost"?
9. More time, undoubtedly, will result in additional U.S. casualties/injuries. You've indicated a concern about properly funding the current Iraq Veterans healthcare. How do you plan for the incremental veteran healthcare funding as a consequence of "more time"?
10. A 2006 NIE reported our occupation of Iraq is the "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S.. Do you see any risks in your willingness to consider more time in terms of worsening this effect?
11. We spend about 12 Billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. A willingness to consider more time might result in extra costs to keep the war going. How would you plan to fund the extra costs?
12. Do you think your willingness to consider more time hamstrings and dilutes the Democrats' efforts to redeploy responsibly and as soon as possible from Iraq?
McNerney's vote against CA marijuana law
McNerney just voted
against an amendment which would end Federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients who are in full compliance with CA state law. Here is McNerney's explanation:
"I have spoken to many law enforcement officials concerned about the effect of drug use on our communities, particularly in San Joaquin County. The problem is real," McNerney said in a statement issued Thursday. "Just yesterday, Stockton police announced a successful drug sweep in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies that led to 51 arrests and the seizure of over 12 pounds of illegal substances."
"We are facing a drug crisis with meth and other drug use on the rise. Until we get a handle on the crippling drug use in our society, I cannot support the relaxation of current drug policy."
Invoking meth epidemics and massive drug busts to explain a vote on medical marijuana? I'm a little disappointed here. Not because I think McNerney voted the wrong way (he did) but because of his somewhat mendacious explanation.
From National Marijuana Policy Project (same article):
Bruce Mirken, communications director for the national Marijuana Policy Project, said McNerney's statement "deliberately confuses apples and oranges, and insults every California patient struggling to maintain life and dignity in the face of cancer, AIDS, MS, and other horrible illnesses."
"No sane person considers it a `relaxation of drug laws' that physicians are allowed to prescribe methamphetamine, cocaine and morphine, and no one seriously suggests depriving patients who need those drugs of their benefits just because someone else might misuse them," Mirken said. "This statement reads like an excuse, not a reason, to justify what McNerney thinks is a politically safe vote."
But that political calculation is wrong, Mirken insisted; three quarters of California voters support the state's medical marijuana law, "and those who worked and donated money to put McNerney in office will be the most bitterly disillusioned by his betrayal of the most vulnerable Californians."
Update: As fate would have it I stumbled upon a documentary last night on Showtime called "
In Pot We Trust" which takes you through the everyday lives of people who struggle with chronic illnesses and live in fear of Federal or State prosecution. Some
previews on YouTube - check it out.
McNerney votes to get out of Iraq
... now that the word "responsible" was included in the legislation (
HR 2956: Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act).
Previously, McNerney
said he needed both detailed diplomatic plans and funding for veterans health care which prohibited him from voting in favor of the May 2007 Iraq Redeployment Bill (
HR 2237).
Well, one out of two ain't bad. There is no mention of funding veteran's health care in HR 2956 but there is this requirement:
(4) Specific plans for diplomatic initiatives to engage United States allies and others in the region to bring stability to Iraq.
From Pombo toady to Boehner flack: the Brian Kennedy story
Y'all remember Brian Kennedy? You know, the guy who
lied about Richard Pombo's relationship with Jack Abramoff and furiously tried to spin his way out of
documented evidence that Pombo's office continuously met with Abramoff surrogates?
Well, he was quoted today in
the Hill as saying this:
“Democrats can’t claim to be strong on national security and repeatedly advocate retreat in the fight against terrorists at the same time,” said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
To be sure, Kennedy must be considered a rising star in the modern Republican party.
(
via TPM)
Richard Pombo goes to Hollywood (sort of)
Last weekend I watched the movie
Evan Almighty (fun movie for the family, IMO) and one of the characters deeply reminded me of someone.
John Goodman plays the role of "Congressman Long" who is the chair of the House Resources committee. Long attempts to convince the main character, Evan, (Steve Carel) to join him in pushing through the "land act" which would open public lands for private development (at great personal profit for Long, of course). I won't post any spoilers but let's just say that the depths of Long's corruption plays a large role in the outcome of the movie.
Remind you of anyone?
Why doesn't this surprise me?
Guy Houston, current CA Assemblyman and potential GOP candidate for CA-11,
on trial in a civil suit for defrauding senior citizens.
They say Houston and his father, Fred, falsely represented the security of their investments, failed to disclose the risks, repaid themselves while abandoning their investors and failed to account for where the investors' money had gone in a confusing series of transfers among business entities.
There is a "pattern of irregular and incompetent financial transactions consisting of unexplained money transfers back and forth between the various schemes, and between the Houstons personally, without apparent disclosure to or authorization from the investors," according to court documents.
Modern day McGovern-Hatfield
Rick Perlstein wrote an article titled "
Why Democrats can stop the war" in January 2007. Perlstein takes a look back and reviews the legislative efforts to end the Vietnam war.
I can't get over the striking parallels between the
Iraq redeployment bill and the
McGovern-Hatfield amendment, which did not end the Vietnam War but undoubtedly played in large role in doing so. They are basically identical legislation - different war. Heck, even the sponsors last names are the same (McGovern).
It seems that wars are really, really hard to stop once they start. The legislative process to end them was once described as "hideous sausage making".
A snippet from Perlstein's article:
George McGovern, D-S.D., and Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., were in charge of the granddaddy of them all: an amendment requiring the president to either go to Congress for a declaration of war or end the war, by Dec. 31, 1970. Walter Shapiro wrote that a "skittish" Congress made sure its antiwar legislation had "loopholes" to permit the president to take action to protect U.S. troops in the field" -- which means no genuine congressional exit mandate at all. But McGovern-Hatfield had no such "loopholes." (Of course, McGovern Hatfield didn't pass, and thus wasn't subject to the arduous political negotiating process that might have added them.) It was four sentences long, and said: Without a declaration of war, Congress would appropriate no money for Vietnam other than "to pay costs relating to the withdrawal of all U.S. forces, to the termination of United States military operations ... to the arrangement for exchanges of prisoners of war," and to "food and other non-military supplies and services" for the Vietnamese.
Radical stuff. Far more radical than today's timid congressional critics are interested in going. But what today's timid congressmen must understand is that the dare paid off handsomely. With McGovern-Hatfield holding down the left flank, the moderate-seeming Cooper-Church passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee almost immediately. Was the president on the defensive? And how.
The bill McNerney voted against, was certainly about "holding down the left-flank". McNerney's justification for his vote (detailed diplomatic plans and healthcare funding for veterans) would have, indeed, subjected the Iraq redeployment bill to "the arduous political negotiating process that might have added them".
Look, I not only want Democrats to end the war, now, but I want them to be able to take credit for its end (only because they deserve it). McNerney's vote against the Iraq redeployment bill does not allow for such an outcome.
McNerney votes to stay in Iraq
At this moment, my wildest imagination can't think of a single good explanation McNerney could provide about
this vote.
I'm stunned.
McNerney is on Karl Rove's hit list
As if we didn't already know. But anyway, in the process of Karl Rove's
attempt to corrupt the non-partisan GSA for political gain, Rove's list of
top 20 House targets was revealed. This list was presented to GSA employees in an effort to pressure them to use their resources to help GOP candidates. According to testimony here's a key quote attributed to GSA Administrator, Lurita Doan while addressing her staff after the presentation:
"How can we help our candidates in the next election"
Indeed, the administrator of a government agency who handles Billions in taxpayer funded government contracts asking her staff such a question.
Let's be clear on what's going on here. The GOP is in trouble. They are shaking the trees, calling in every marker, pressuring every ally, bending and breaking rules, crossing boundaries that were thought uncrossable, to win back or protect as many seats as possible.
Buckle up CA-11 - it's going to be a bumpy ride.
NRCC mailer attacks McNerney
Someone at the NRCC must think the CA-11 seat is winnable for the GOP next cycle. I received this trash in the mail yesterday. For me, this mailer is a nice reminder of just how bankrupt the modern GOP has become and how important it is to keep the pressure on them.
