As the right decision.
Walz wrote a column in the Winona Daily News establishing why he voted for the bill.
“Some advised me to vote against continued funding for the war, in order to show my unhappiness with the way the president has handled it. I could not do that. I came to Congress to make hard decisions on behalf of the people of southern Minnesota, and in this case, I believe my first responsibility is to ensure the safety of those Minnesotans who are serving in Iraq by making sure they have the resources they need. The president may be willing to play a game of political chicken with our troops, but I am not.”
Tim Walz doesn’t represent a liberal district, and he made the right choice for his constituents and for himself. With the Republican party politicizing his every move he has responsibilities and his actions have repercussions that pundits and bloggers couldn’t imagine. A vote against this bill would like spraying bodily fluids into the wind (PG rated blog and all). The President can hold the nations troops hostage, wailing away like a child throwing a temper tantrum refusing any bill that doesn’t have his stipulations on it. Tim Walz is an American hero, and with this vote, he stood up for all of the rest of the American heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan ensuring that they have the support and the funding they need, because our dry drunk emperor would continue to play this dangerous game of chicken with them.
Tim Walz deserves our support. Not just because he’s a Democrat, not just because Minnesota is better off with him in Washington, not just because Washington is better off with Tim Walz there; but because he made the right decision by himself and his constituents.
You help Tim fight off the forces of Icky by donating here.
As a lifelong resident of the first I’m personally unhappy with his vote in this regard. However, I agree that it is what is required of him in this district and that the benefits of having him in congress are too numerous to through away. He is a strong voice for withdrawal and I appreciate that. Even after this vote, I don’t regret the donation I gave last week. I want Tim to represent me as long as possible.
I cannot disagree with you more Sean. Tim Walz does indeed represent the first, but that does not mean that he is not a representative of the great state of Minnesota, and the greater United States on the world stage. Regardless of whether the affirmative vote he cast was “the right choice for his constituents”, it was the wrong damn decision.
Roughly 70% of the American people are against the decision he made, and for that matter perhaps, the opinion of Minnesota’s first Congressional district.
I love Tim Walz, and think he holds more potential than many other leaders out there right now, but the fact of the matter is, there are right decisions and there are wrong decisions. There is enough money in the pipeline to bring to the troops home, even if we authorized no other funding to the President’s illegal war! Furthermore, the bills the President vetoed funded the real job in Iraq, which is the rebuilding of infrastructure and development of political security.
This argument that voting no on the war funding bill is voting no to funding the troops is a complete farce! It was an irresponsible and undignified vote. Sorry Mr. Walz, but you are wrong on this.
Dems like Waltz and votes like this one are the reason the state legislative session ended the way it did and the reason congress has an approval rating about where Bushes is.
If you care about the politics more than the issues you don’t deserve to be elected.
Sean,
I’m a little dizzy from your spinning. Are you actually suggesting that President Bush MADE Tim Walz vote to continue the war? Your assertion that the President throws a temper tantrum because the previous bills didn’t have his stipulations in them is crazy. There is only on Commander in Chief and it isn’t Tim Walz. It’s President Bush.
Tim Walz and the rest of the Democrats had two choices: they could fund the troops and the war per the request of the Commander in Chief and the generals in the field or end the war. Walz did not choose to end the war and he will be feeling the heat from the left.
In any legislative body, deals are always part of the landscape. Compromise is the first groundrule. But any legislator should ask if he/she is willing to pay the price for complicity in legislation that is distasteful.
In this case, we have already been in Iraq 1,527 days. During that time, we have committed just over a half-trillion dollars in direct war funding, or just over $327 million a day. Our most respected economists now project that we will be paying closer to two trillion dollars, by the time we pay pensions and rehab to the survivors and their families.
The human cost, of course, is far more graphic. To date, the best research indicated that around a million Iraqis have died because of the war, or about 500 per day. At this moment, the War Department says that 3,441 soldiers and Marines have died in Iraq, at a rate of 2.25 per day since the war began.
Based on those rates, continuing the war until September 30 (when this appropriation period ends), we could expect to spend an additional $42 billion dollars, witness the deaths of about 288 Americans and the deaths of around 64,000 Iraqis. These figures are probably quite low, since Bush’s “surge” will certainly result in much more death, both among Iraqis and Americans.
Is there a single person reading this who honestly believes that a military victory is possible in Iraq? Is there a single person out there who really believes that our troops would be better protected by spending this money than by bringing them home?
Tim Walz has a rather extensive military background. He should know better.
In my view, this vote (and Tim Walz’s vote) now give the Democrats full ownership of this tragic and evil war. I could not feel more ashamed for the Democratic Party and for all of our national leaders who place cynical politics ahead of the future of our country.
And what, exactly, could Tim Walz possibly have gained by his vote to continue this war?
Chris —
It’s not rocket science. Since the Democratic Congress and Senate sent to the President their first Iraq funding bill he has pronounced loudly over and over again that he would veto any bill that came before him that didn’t allow him to continue to have carte blanche over the war in Iraq. He wouldn’t accept time tables, he wouldn’t accept benchmarks, but instead like the rousing successes of the last 4 years he had to have his way.
There is no way to rationalize that other than our President holding our soldiers hostage to continue his misguided attempts at war. And, what it comes down to is if you care for the security and defense of our troops there would be no pleasing President Bush, it was either with him or against him, his way or the highway.
Never mind the fact that the results of the election in November while not solely about the war in Iraq was a clarion call about this Presidents misguided execution of the war in Iraq.
It was either his way or the highway.
Sean,
If you thik the war is misguided, illegal, immoral and whatever adjective the MoveOn people are using today - you should vote to end the war. The idea that the President is holding the troops hostage is absurd. You either fund them or remove them from the theater. It’s pretty simple. It is his way or the highway because he is the Commander in Chief not Tim Walz, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid or Ike Skelton or John Murtha or whomever. The rest is just hyperbole and spin.
Much as Pawlenty did in the Legislative session, Bush has used his veto authority to get his way on the troop funding issue for now. Until enough Republicans Senators and Representatives vote with the Dems against war funding there is little that can be done. Bush is kind of stubborn idealoge who would leave the troops there without any funding and call it resolve. The left and war opponents may not be happy, but there it is. When you are elected to Congress you take on tremendous responsibility for National Security and the women and men servicing our country in the Armed Forces. Tim Walz made the vote he thought he needed to make under the current circumstances. Sometimes those of us who live in the 5th and 4th find it easy to stand on principle where a Dem is virtually assured re-election. The 1st CD is a whole different animal. While it’s demographics are changing, if Walz and the Dems aren’t careful it will go back to ol’ Gil the auctioneer. What good would that do? Is this political calculus a little cold when people are dying in Iraq? Yeah, it is. Did you look at the vote totals? Walz voting for this funding had no effect on the outcome, but was the right move politically. And he DOES represent the 1st CD, Not all of Minnesota. Where was Ramstad, didn’t he go to the White House to express his displeasure with the current policy? In the end I was far more disappointed in Klobuchar’s vote that Tim Walz’, Let’s look at this issue in totality. Incidentally, Norm conviniently missed the vote, hmmmm…..
Rick said:
Is this political calculus a little cold when people are dying in Iraq? Yeah, it is.
Wow that’s pretty stunning admitting the Democrats make political calculations involving our troops dying in Iraq.
Playing the political game ahead of principle is why the Democrats are complicit in this war. This has been true from the vote on the Patriot Act to the vote to authorize the use of force to the current vote to fund the war. The only difference between the GOP and Democrats is that after they vote the Democrats hold a press conference to complain about the thing they just voted for.
The rationalization of doing the wrong thing because it may, or may not, give you the opportunity to do the right thing later is nuts. The Democrats are at this point almost as responsible continuing the mess in Iraq as Bush is because they were afraid to pay the price to stop it. Meanwhile people are paying for their decision with their lives and the rest of us, and our children, with our pocketbooks.
Chris,What’s stunning is President that commits war crimes including torture, usurps and tramples the Constitution. lies with impunity to the American people and the Congress, ignores the wishes of the American people and continues on with his quixotic quest for democracy in a land without any history or culture of democracy.
It is not the Democrats who have forced this war on the American people, it is now, and always will be Bush’s war he entered into by choice.
And while I’m at it, how bout the latest Executive order he signed May 9th, giving himself unlimited power over all government and business activities in the U. S. in the event of a self declared “National Emergency” that last until he says it’s over. Your hypocrisy know no bounds. This Imperious duo of Cheney and Bush are the greatest threat to our Constitution and Liberty since the founding of our country. Take off you partisan blinders and look at what they are doing to individual freedoms in our country! A true Conservative would be appalled. Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan must be spinning in theisr graves on this one.
Chris:
As you have established several times, George Bush is the Commander and Chief of the United States Military, and as such, what he says they do.
And this is the fallacy in your argument.
No silly, I’m not saying that he isn’t CinC but instead, where you argue that they either fund them or remove them from the theater isn’t really true. As I’ve said you’ve gone on several times now about how the President is the CinC and if we had removed this funding he wouldn’t have to remove the troops from the theater immediately, instead he seems to be so committed to this boondoggle that he could limit other defense and unnecessary expenditures to pay for the war in Iraq. Like Representative Walz points out it could mean less practical training for the soldiers we are putting in harms way, longer time for repairs on vehicles etc.
Pushing Congress members into a vote between keeping our soldiers safe and giving them the tools to execute the mission their CinC gives them, or not.
Further, I said misguided (not illegal or whatever else you prattled on about), and I’m sorry, but you’d have to be blind to not see the staggering levels of incompetence that have gone into executing this war.
But, as always thanks for coming and reading.
Sean
Being appalled at Bush does not mean those of us who think the war is a disaster should not be appalled at the Democrats as well. Bush may be the waraholic but the Democrats are his enablers. It will be Bush’s war alone only to those who choose to rewrite history and ignore the votes that led up to it and have happened since. Those Democrats who deny this have zero credibility.
This was not an esy vote for Tim to make. He was thinking about the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, their safety, and equipment they need. He put them first before himself and us. For that, I commend him. For that, I will continue to support him.
Tim’s article in his own words…http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=295419
It is President Bush who has acted the Spoiled/reckless child regarding this war. Tim Walz makes pulls no punches as to who is really to blame for this mess in Iraq. The Yahoo cowboy from Texas who has failed at every business venture he undertook , thought that he could keep a war afloat like a business under water. This vote is no victory for Bush and the rest of the GOP in Congress. This war continues its division of this country.
Tim did what he thought was right for the men and women in uniform. It’s a damned if he did, damned if he didn’t situation.
“After finding out yesterday that the Forces of Icky are already gearing up to launch the hellhounds against Tim Walz, his vote for HR 2206 (the bill that will fund the war in Iraq through Sept. 30th) can be seen only one way.
As the right decision.”
Shorter version: — Waltz votes for whatever will get him re-elected.
Waltz and other Democrats keep blaming Bush out of one side of their mouths and enabling him with the other. If they want out they should refuse to fund the war and impeach Bush if he refuses to bring the troops home. They refuse to exercise their constitutional powers because of the potential political consequences.
With the Republican Party politicizing every move Tim Walz makes, this is fodder for them to say…”Look! Walz goes against his campaign promise!” Or…”Lookie here! The Democratic Party can’t count on Walz to vote their way every time.”
No matter how you lok at this, it was a difficult vote and the right one at this time. Walz makes no bones as to who the real source for this war came from….GWB.
Kathy,
You have never responded to the fact that there is plenty of blame to go around. GWB can be to blame but so can the Democrats that enable his incompetence. As long as people like you keep you heads in the sand this country is screwed. Your reasoning is the equivalent of saying that one of two bank robbers isn’t guilty because the other one shot the security guard.
Democrats have enabled Bush’s incompetence?
How about the last 6 years Keresone Hat when the Republicans had majority over both Houses of Congress and voted no problem to give Bush Blank Checks for this war?
My head has been out of the sand for a long time. You must think that denial is a river in Egypt.
Sean,
You and Rick (and even Kathy) called the war misguided and a boondoggle and whatever else. Why is it that Walz voted to continue the boondoggle misguided war? I mean if the war is as bad as all of you people say it is he should pull the troops home today and not, as Rick pointed out, played politics while our men and women are dying in Iraq.
Kathy says the President is a spoiled or reckless child and I don’t get that at all. What would have been reckless would be to keep our troops on the ground for another three, four or six months and advertise to the enemy when we are leaving. As I pointed out many times before, Bush is the Commander in Chief not Walz, Pelosi, Reid or anyone else. I also remind you that the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to lead the surge in Iraq. If Congress did not have any faith in the change in policy, they should have voted Petraeus down then and brought our troops home.
What is happening is that Walz and the rest of the Democrats want to have the issue both ways. They don’t want to end the war and bring the troops home for the obvious reason that they don’t want to be held accountable for losing the war in Iraq. At the same time, they don’t want to be held responsible for staying in Iraq either. It’s time for the Democrats to stop playing politics with the war.
Kathy,
Have you checked the voting records of the Democrats? They voted for the Patriot act, the use of force resolution and the continuing funding of the war in large numbers. Those of us who have opposed the war from the beginning are sick of the enabling Democrats who continually refuse to take any responsibility for their actions and votes. Simply putting ALL the blame on the Republicans and Bush is not the whole truth. Those who do not admit this and change their behavior have their heads in the sand up to their toes.
Bottom line: Walz will NOT gain any political capital from this vote. Therefore, the fact that he made this decision from a political point of view makes the decision exponentially more lame.
Sorry Tim. Sorry Kathy. Sorry Sean. But you are all wrong. Just deal with the fact that Walz made a very bad decision, and move on. It doesn’t mean he is doomed. It just means he is really going to have to step up his game from now on.
I suggest Kerosene Hat go to Washington D.C. and see how things really operate there. It’s all about counting the votes. All the whining and wailing won’t change the FACT that without some Republican votes the Democrats can’t stop the war! But is possible to lose swing seats that brought the Democrats back into control and have enabled all that is good that has happened so far. An increase in the minimum wage for one. If you don’t have the votes to override a veto, you don’t have them.
Do I want this horrible, ill advised fiasco of incompetence that has been bungled and botched from it’s evil spawn of birth to today to end, HELL YES! Tell me, how does losing Congress and the White House in 2010 accomplish that goal?
This administration is the prime example of the “Peter Principle”,
that you rise in an organization to your level of incompetency.
As far as Chris’ comment about a political vote by any politician let me quote Claude Rains in Casablanca, “I’m Shocked, Shocked ,to find their is gambling going on in this establishment!”. He should recognize sausage when he sees it. The Republicans have made it clear the last 6 years that any vote against “the troops” will be exploited, like they actually give a rat’s behind about our servicemen and women, the record shoes a different story from their rhetoric.
As far as Congressman Walz, he doesn’t need me or anyone to defend his vote, he spoke for himself. Politics is about compromise and tough decisions, hard votes and partial victories and partial defeats. do some members of Congress need to grow a backbone, yes they do.
Pardon my error, I meant 2008, NOT 2010.
Rick,
Whatever happened to politics ending on the waters’ edge? Republicans never opposed FDR during WWII even when we were losing hundreds of thousands of men. Democrats voted in favor of the war and now that their base is pissed, they are playing politics with our troops. Either the war is a illegal, immoral, unjust or whatever adjectives George Soros is telling the MoveOn people to use on a particular day, or it’s not. If it is, then pull the troops out. If it’s not then we need to fund them. End of story.
And by the way, Rick, I don’t know of a single Republican who has spat on the troops (like the democrats did after Vietnam) or called them baby killers like Cindy Sheehan. If you think Democrats have always supported our troops, you have a funny way of showing it.
Politics with Democrats and Republicans is about compromise between bad and worse. In the mean time the majority of Americans are marginalized and have more or less given up hope of any competent leadership.
Believe me I know how both DC and St. Paul work and your tired sausage analogy is for those who are willing to trade doing the right thing for getting elected again. There are a few Republicans who would vote with the Democrats, Paul and Hagel among them. The Democrats are in the MAJORITY now and can without a doubt start the end of the war by cutting off funding.
Every only reason both Rick and Kathy have given for not cutting off funding is the next election. There is always another election, if that is your primary concern you will never get big things done.
The lesson in all of this is it doesn’t take much to win political victories over those whose guiding principle is to do what is politically advantageous in the short term. That’s why at the state and national levels a strong executive has prevaile over weak, unprincipled legislatures.
Chris,
I don’t know how old you are, but I was alive during the Vietnam war, just young enough not to be drafted, still in High School. You need to check the history books again, there was Republican opposition to the how FDR prosecuted World War II.
Are you really comparing WWII to Iraq? That is big stretch.
As far anyone spitting on returning troops from Vietnam, I have heard that old saw for years but none of the Vietnam vets I know, and I know quite a few, had it happen to them or saw it happen to anyone, it was always a guy someone knew….. that they heard about, maybe it did happen a few times, somewhere, I don’t know. That was 40 years ago. I don’t recall Cindy Sheehan calling anyone a “babykiller” either. While she is a public face of the anti-war movement, she certainly doesn’t speak for all people opposed to this war. To my knowledge, no one has spit on troops returning from Iraq. These service people are brave patriots who followed their orders and fought where they’re told to fight. Thank God they are willing to volunteer serve their country.
The problem is Bush has not used their sacrifice to defend our country in Iraq, but instead was pursing his own ends, ends not justified then or now. We may never know what the real reasons we went to war in Iraq were, in some ways it doesn’t matter now. What does matter is how to end this occupation, to bring our troops home and stop shedding American blood for no reason other than stubbornness.
My 19 year old son tells me we won’t be out of Iraq until March 2009 (Bush has already told us that it will be the next administration’s problem), IF we win the White House and maintain control of the House and Senate.
Am I concerned about the next election, You bet I am.
“We have always been at war with Oceana”(sic?)
Please tell me how is it supporting troops when our VA hospitals are a disgrace, how is it supporting the troops when you send them back over and over again for no real purpose, with no strategy, without needed equipment, into the midst of a civil war in a country that didn’t exist until after WWI when it was cobbled together by the victors to assure access to the oil, with a puppet pro-western government? They have no history of rule of law and no unity of purpose other than getting the occupiers (us) out.
And don’t trot out that fight em there or fight em here crap, that story was played out 42 years ago in 1965, check the history books. You can’t justify this war or the administration’s prosecution of it so you reach into your bag of worn out and trite talking points to dredge up ghosts of the past. How morally vacant are your arguments to have to resort to those tactics?
This occupation will end, it’s just a matter of time. It can’t end soon enough to suit me. What’s sad is hundreds if not thousand more Americans and probably tens of thousands of Iragis will lose their lives because of one man’s inability to face reality. Bushes war will go down in history as a collosal blunder, worse than Vietnam. And for what, Saddam tried to kill my Daddy?
Rick,
I’d like to know which Republicans opposed WWII. Name names and provide quotes, please.
We can certainly agree to disagree about the rest. If you haven’t followed what Cindy Sheehan or Rosie O’Donnell, or for that matter John Kerry & Dick Durbin have said about our troops I can’t help it. All of those people have called our troops terrorists.
Finally, there is a struggle in our country between those who believe terrorism does not exist (ie. John Edwards) and those who believe that Islamic terrorism is the issue of our time. I hope, for the sake of our country, that those who take terrorism seriously will prevail. Have a good Memorial weekend! I will be decorating graves.
Michelle Bachman voted yes also, did she do the right thing? How sad that Ms. McCollum and Mr. Ellison didn’t, and voted against raising the minimum wage which might have helped many of their constituents. Kudos to Mr. Walz for helping the Minnesota small dairy farms too with his vote as there might be a few in the 1st district.
When you argue with an idiot then there’s two idiots arguing. It’s hard to believe that I wasted time reading all this. Enjoy your Memorial Day, I’m going to get back to my job so maybe there’s fewer crosses in the cemetary.
Chris, please tell me when Dick Durbin or John Kerry have actually called our troops terrorists. Not repeating what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have paraphrased or interpreted them to have said, but actual quotes. Because I think that’s a damn lie.
Cindy Sheehan (who does not speak for the Democratic Party, no matter what you, Dick Cheney, or Rush Limbaugh thinks) hasn’t been spitting on the troops. She’s been spitting on the administration that’s been getting them killed. I don’t agree with everything she’s done or said, but as the grieving mother of someone who actually served and was killed in Iraq, I’m gonna cut her a little slack. I’m quite sure that’s beyond you.
AS of Saturday, 100 Americans have died. At this pace, 119 will have died in May. That will be 5 more than April’s count since the surge began. More troops means more deaths.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070527/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_memorial_day
Wow. Your blog just lost most of its remaining credibility for me.
Josh,
John Kerry said on Face the Nation that our troops were terrorizing women and children in the dark of night. Dick Durbin compared our troops to Nazis and Pol Pot on the Senate floor.
It’s really no different than Rosie O’Donnell accusing our troops of killing 650,000 Iraqis (a lie) and then asking who the terrorists are.
Dem in Iraq,
Thank you for your service to our country. There are millions of Americans who support you and the work you are doing.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080001
Here’s a fully linked article on Kerry’s remarks. It’s illuminating of how the fascists in media are twisting language and using the “Big Lie” practice of turning the issue.
Durbin’s comments were equally distorted. Was he engaging in a bit of hyperbole? Sure, but his point was Americans should not be torturing and murdering prisoners at Gitmo.
Richard,
Who is being tortured and murdered in Gitmo? Nobody. Nice way of calling our troops murderers on Memorial Day.
Just remember, Chris, the point being made by Rosie and others is that the troops obeyed the orders of the incompetent Commander in Chief. HE is the terrorist, not them.
Stop being such a talking point repeater, Chris.
That’s right, Bush is a terrorist. Lets not all pretend that’s not true. He is not morally superior to any of them. Bush lies, deceives, tortures, and is destroying the Republican Party PERMANENTLY.
Enjoy.
You hit the coffin nail on the head Rick! And to Dem in Iraq, we love you buddy! If there is one damn thing that progressives want our soldiers to know it is that our opposition to the war, and in some cases war in general, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOLDIERS! My father is a decorated Vietnam Veteran who cries almost every time we talk about Iraq, because he knows that what you guys are dealing with over there is heavier than any one of us over here can possibly know. The things my father had to do in Vietnam in order to survive have plagued him and given him sleepless nights for more than thirty years! We solute you and if we had it our way every Iraq War veteran coming home for good would have free education, free health care, and their own home waiting for them when they got home!
Peace be unto those who sacrifice, and in some cases are sacrificed, for the failed notions of a misguided regime.
Tim Walz’s vote may be understandable, but it’s still wrong. It’s a capitulation to the false frame that “defunding hurts the troops”. (Amy Klobuchar, on the other hand, does not have my understanding. She has no practical excuse for handing Bush more war cash.)
Defunding won’t hurt the troops. On the contrary, it’s funding an insane president that hurts them. The failure to make this simple argument amounted to Democratic capitulation. If the argument didn’t stick on the first pass, it still would have reinforced the position. Sticking to this point would have held the House, and then it wouldn’t have mattered a whit what the Senate did. If the insane president chose to continue on his path, we would have had a trial for high crimes and misdemeanors by September.
And none of this would have hurt Walz in 2008.