After seeing Franken’s smack down of Coleman’s boobery; Mike Ciresi responded by throwing down the gauntlet over Norm Coleman’s self-serving spineless support of a plan to get out of Iraq — later.
“This is the most self-serving proposal that one could imagine. Mr. Coleman wants to continue to risk the lives and well-being of American troops because of his mistaken policy on Iraq.
We need a bipartisan policy to end the war in Iraq that is in the best interest of our nation, rather than the political self-interest of Coleman, prompted by his re-election campaign - our troops, the families of our troops and all Americans deserve nothing less. Since when have we put our troops in harm’s way to appease a politician’s self-interest? Minnesotans should be outraged at such a proposal.
Once again I call upon Norm Coleman to set forth a plan that is in the best interest of America and not his own political agenda.”
(emphasis all mine)
Norm Coleman needs to challenge the President on Iraq now. I understand that would take a spine, something that Coleman is distinctly lacking, but his illogical, self-serving support of Voinovich’s plan is laughable.
Follow the absurdity with me if you will. This plan that Coleman supports calls for an end to combat, but only after George Bush is out of office. It’s not contingent on the situation on the ground then, it’s not contingent on the situation on the ground now, it’s just a sham; and Norm Coleman should be ashamed for being a big enough coward to support this plan rather than pony up and call for change now and he should be ashamed for being a big enough nimrod to think the people of Minnesota would swallow this illogical, self-serving stupid plan.
And big ups to Mike Ciresi for calling out Nahm on his boobery.
Funny thing, it looks like Coleman’s thoughts on Iraq aren’t any different than Clinton’s, Obama’s or Edwards’. If Ciresi gets the nomination, will he be ashamed to campaign with any of the leading Democrats running for President?
“Since when have we put our troops in harm’s way to appease a politician’s self-interest?”
Good description of the Democrats’ authorization of the war in 2002 and their continued refusal to de-fund the war. Also, does the plan that Coleman supports literally state “only until George W. Bush is no longer President should reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq begin”?
Are you two saying that no Democrat may oppose the war in Iraq?
wtm — I like your characterization of the vote to use force in Iraq. It applies with equal justice to the President’s determination to get us into the war in the first place. I do have to ask, are you saying that Congress should defund the war in Iraq? Didn’t that kind of proposal from Al Franken earn howls of rage over at MDE?
Randy,
What does it tell you when Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to promise to have the troops out in four years if any of them are elected President? It tells me that the Democrats who are calling for Bush to pull our troops out of Iraq are playing politics with the issue. It tells me that the consensus among people who have a shot at being President is that troops will be needed in Iraq for at least another four years. It also tells me that it is not in our country’s national security interests to have our troops out sooner or else major Democrats running for President would have them out sooner. And it tells me that the MoveOn.org people and the rest of the far left are out of touch with reality.
Yes, I think the Democratic candidates are showing a remarkable lack of spine on this issue. You are right: it is politics, nto a matter of national security. I believe the Big Three have been so cowed by the thought of being branded as unpatriotic that they are afraid to take a real stand.
What does it tell you when the so-called moderate Republicans propose a total pull-out that must be completed within fifteen months of the legislation’s passage? It tells me that it isn’t a matter of “if” we pull out of Iraq, but “how soon.” I think no one, in their heart of hearts, believes the US will be in Iraq until the country is pacified.
Randy,
I appreciate you coming to the same conclusion I have. It shows your are intellectually honest and I respect that. In terms of the so-called moderate Republicans let me say that they are pandering to the anti-war left, which will not vote for them anyway. Any moderate Republican who survived the last election should not pander this way and they will likely face defeat next year. It is silly to say that we should pull out within fifteen months regardless of what the conditions are on the ground. Let’s say we pacify Iraq, a new government is elected and infrastructure is rebuilt. Wouldn’t it be in our interest to keep troops in Iraq longer to work with Iraqi troops to fight al Qaeda elements?
Or is the fifteen months a bone to the President: “What do you care, you’ll be gone by then”?
Our military is stretched almost to the breaking point — how much longer can we stay in Iraq? Our infrastructure is, on its good days, crumbling — how can we afford to help rebuild (as an aside, how much more is the public willing to spend to rebuild a foreign country?)? A new government is elected — been there, done that, nothing seems to have changed much.
I have always been against the war in Iraq, even though I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan. Time and events have not made me change my mind.
Randy,
I have no problem being accurate about characterizing the 2002 Iraq War authorization of war vote as a vote to authorize the war, because that is what it was. I also don’t believe the President would shirk away from your suggestion that that characterization be applied with equal force to his decision to start the Iraq War because the President has been forthright about his responsibility in making that decision (recall the “you know where I stand” line in his 2004 Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech).
In regard to de-funding the war, I don’t believe Congress should de-fund the war. We have a responsibility to see this endeavor through to a conclusion that benefits the Iraqi people and maintains our nation’s honor and integrity (the Pottery Barn rule — you break it, you fix it).
That being stated, the Democrats’ most recent position is the war is a failure and that it needs to end. If they’re being honest, then they have a responsibility to do just that because that is their belief and they have the power to do so. But, as we have seen, the Congressional Democrats don’t care to push the envelope as far as de-funding the war because they know the political backlash will be severe. So, rather than follow through on their words and the “mandate” they received last election, Congressional Democrats prefer to allow the war to continue out of political self-interest.
wtm — I was referring to your acknowledgment that the war vote was “put[ting] our troops in harm’s way to appease a politician’s self-interest.” My question was, does THAT description apply to the President’s initial drive for war with Iraq?
Bush’s parting words?:
“So Long Suckers”
“Turn out the lights after you mop up.”
According to todays Star Trib, Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race is WIDE OPEN.
The voters are finally revolting because they are disgusted with the choices!!!
This will be my last post on MN Publius until Sean Broom and Sean Broom only- gives me an interview.
Anyways, once that happens, I’ll be back.
MN Publius runs a very good site, and that is a credit to all of you
Matt, Zack, and Sean
Sean-
It is up to you to bring this Wellstone guy back.
Love him or hate him, I don’t give a rats ass.
I think you should interview him and expose him as the fraud that he is.
If you don’t then it just makes him look credible.
Which he actually could be. As of now I think he’s full of crap or he’d be dead.