Posted on 01/31/2007 8:56:53 AM PST by Valin
"Senators Also Said They Were Beginning To Realize That The Vote, While Nonbinding, Would Be An Important Statement On Congressional Sentiment Regarding The War."
Oh, you mean like the troops, our Iraqi allies, and the enemy might be watching?
The New York Times' story on the Senate's dance of the resolutions throws the paper behind John McCain's and Lindsey Graham's "Gang of 14," er, "benchmarks" draft in an attempt to leave the impression that the McCain resolution is the one favored by people serious about victory.
It isn't, of course, and won't be so long as it telegraphs contingent support for victory, which the langauge of "benchmarks" does. "Benchmarks" is Senate code for "we are out of here" later rather than sooner.
If Senator McCain insists on "benchmarks," the damage to his 2008 presidential ambitions will be lasting, as the significant majority of Republican voters don't want to be 50% for failure or 50% for victory. "We win, they lose," is the preferred resolution of the GOP's base. See ThePledge for background.
Here's the key passage of the story intended to help McCain out of another McCain-created political jam:
["In advance of a possible Senate vote on the resolutions, Republican senators now appear widely divided over how to proceed. In trying to head off the resolution supported by Senators Warner and Collins, allies of the White House appear to be trying to muster at least the 41 votes they would need to prevent a vote on the measure under Senate rules. Mr. McCain is sponsoring the competing resolution that would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government. He said the proposal also could be fashioned to give Congress more oversight.
Republicans were viewing Mr. McCains plan as a way to deter Republicans from joining in the resolutions more critical of Mr. Bush, and many Republicans said that would be preferable to one criticizing the troop buildup outright. Senators also said they were beginning to realize that the vote, while nonbinding, would be an important statement on Congressional sentiment regarding the war."]
Lousy reporting if you want specificity as to which Republicans were supporting McCain's resolution --Lindsey Graham, yes, and who else?-- and no mention of where the leader of the Senate's victory Republicans, Jon Kyl is. (See Kyl's piece in the Christian Science Monitor today.) The story's sentence "The senators have been joined in their effort by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana" purposely misleads as it gives the impression that these three have thrown their support behind Senator McCain's resolution, when the Washington Post accurately reports that Senator Cornyn has his own draft (as does Senator Gregg and Isakson.) But then the Times' story isn't designed to accurately report what is going on in the Senate GOP caucus. It is designed to rally a handful of GOP senators to the McCain resolution despite the obvious demand from the Republican base that they not side with either the Warner or McCain resolutions.
I wonder who provided the details to the "reporter?"
Republicans up for re-election should remind themselves of the wonders Senator McCain did for Mike DeWine with the Gang of 14 "compromise." Senator DeWine never recovered from that miscalculation. Ohio was tough on Republicans last year, for plenty of reasons including the incompetence and corruption of the Taft administration. But Mike DeWine never had a chance because he burnt his bridges in 2005 to conservatives serious about the courts.
Senator McCain faces a choice. He can resume his prior role as one of the Senate's leaders on the war, or he can continue his new role of leading benchmarker --a benchmark on his way to a huge repudiation in the Republican nominating process. Senators signing on to Warner/McCain also have to recognize that they are joining the new Gang of 14, and taking themselves out of contention for serious leadership in the future.
It is a defining moment, one of many that the Democrats will force on republicans in the months ahead unless Petraeus begins to bring order to Baghdad and stability to Iraq. Then the Democrats and the Republicans who sided with them will have to find a new story line. The Democrat's base won't care. The GOP's won't forget.
Note in the Times' piece Senator Collins' complaint that There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us. Where that pressure is coming from is left unspecified, but it is of course coming from voters across the country outraged that Republicans are considering collapse as a legislative strategy, and doing so days after confirming General Petraeus without a single "no" vote. Republican senators up for re-election are beginning to figure out that you can't win with just the supporters of victory in Iraq, but you surely can't win without them. Throwing in with Warner, McCain or any resolution that equivocates on the necessity of victory or implies contingent as opposed to enduring support for victory will not be forgotten by the GOP activists and contributors.
Senator McCain needs to hear from you, again.
His Senate office phone is: (202) 224-2235
His Senate office fax is: Fax (202)-228-2862
His Senate office e-mail is here.
His campaign phone is: (703) 418-2008
His campaign e-mail is here.
And here is the expanded list of contacts of other key senators:
Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.
Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.
Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.
Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.
Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.
Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.
Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.
Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.
Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here.
Finally, here is the contact information for Senator Brownback, who is about to completely dash his already small hopes of becoming the conservative alternative for GOP primary voters if Romney falters. Senator Brownback is not mentioned in the Times' story, but earlier reports had him somewhere in the Warner/McCain camp. You can contact his presidential campaign here, or call his Senate office at (202) 224-6521. He has been trying to build his campaign on the idea of protecting human life from womb to death, and across the globe. That agenda cannot advance by retreating from the field on which the most pivotal of the current battles is being waged. Perhaps Senator Brownback will also recognize that in the days ahead and back victory in Iraq.
A----- are fogetting who they work for! They've been told what kind of message this sends to terrorists and what it does to our soldiers. They keep putting politics above the nations security and the safety of our soldiers.
I really don't have a problem with McCain's bill
I sent (yet another) E-mail to my senator (Norm Colman) saying pretty much what you said.
Iraq's leadership needs to be held accountable and for anyone to say otherwise is smoking crack. That politicians feel the need to grandstand is a different issue.
I respectfully disagree with you. These REMFs know exactly who they work for: their big campaign contributors, i.e. lobbyists.
We're just the clutter on their radar screens.
Still, these Senators are going to think long and hard when it comes time to actually go on the record. They learned from Jean Francois Carry the perils of flip-flopping on important issues.
The problem with this are
1 Do you really what to let Congress micro manage Iraq? Because that's what will happen.
2 Do you want to let the bad guys know just what it will take to get us to go, and when we'll leave?
You may not have a problem with that but people like Gen. Petraeus do.
I don't want Congress to have this ability per se but they are not going to continue to fund an effort that has been failing due in large part to Iraqis. At what point is the WH going to hold Iraq accountable? How is the WH going to measure progress?
And while the bad guys would benefit from our leaving our commitment is not open ended either and it shouldn't be.
then let the Senators set up a meeting with the Prez, discuss same. there is no reason to put this into a resolution. they are only advising. a resolution will be misunderstood abroad.
Why make this non-binding?
The Senate has no cajones. Come on Sanators, go on record. Force the President to make the call.
then let the Senators set up a meeting with the Prez, discuss same. there is no reason to put this into a resolution. they are only advising. a resolution will be misunderstood abroad.
Agreed,
if they had any class, it would all be discussed in private.
I liked parts of his bill, but his "list of benchmarks" was not appropriate for the legislative branch. If he wants to define goals, that's OK, but they weren't goals, they were metrics based on one person's idea of how to reach the goals.
I would support the Senate passing a binding resolution requiring the executive to clearly define the goals they are working to, and a set of benchmarks that the executive plans to use to measure whether their current plan is working, so that if the plan is NOT working the executive will be able to modify the plan.
I fully support congressional oversight of the war. They are our representatives, they are the ones to ask the tough questions, to ensure the executive is not just off pulling plans out of their butts and marking time to the end of their term.
But putting a list of benchmarks that Iraq has to meet in order to "keep our support" is wrong for the legislature. Iraq should be talking to the executive branch for that type of input, not legislative. Iraq doesn't need the senators telling the insurgents what they have to do to keep Iraq from getting our support.
Well, one reason to be non-binding is they don't need to get an agreement with the house. Also they don't have to suffer the ignonimity of a presidential veto.
And they can't be "blamed" for anything bad that comes of it.
Agreed about McCain's resolution. Maybe people should actually read the thing. Naaahhh...
If Lincoln would have "benchmarks" for the Civil War "Inside the beltway" would refer to Richmond.
Would that be so bad?
How about exeterminating anyone capable of raising a rifle against an American soldier. Let Iraq start all over. No tribes, no classes, everyone starts on an equal playing field.
Not at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.