Giffords and Mitchell voted with the GOP on HR 2237, the appropriation bill for Iraq that would have begun redeployment away from Iraq. It was widely rumored that conservative Democrats would be voting no, and about 60 of them did, dooming the bill to lose 171-255, and weakening our hand in the struggle with President Bush and the GOP to end the grinding, senseless, and direction-less occupation of Iraq. Giffords and Mitchell and the other Democrats who voted for this bill have some serious explaining to do.
I am unable to understand what these Democrats think they gain with this vote – besides the obvious cover in the next election of being able to deny that they voted to end the war. The need for such a refuge is mysterious given the strong and deep opposition to continued occupation of Iraq among the majority of Americans. I’m sure there will be lots of puffing about this vote from blue dog Dems, but the bottom line is that these two new Representatives, whom so many here in Arizona worked for and voted for in the expectation that they would help end the misbegotten occupation of Iraq, have utterly let us down.
Giffords’ apologia was “I opposed legislation introduced by Congressman James McGovern from
Massachusetts (H.R. 2237) that would have prompted an immediate
withdrawal. This is not a realistic option. As a member of the House
Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, I have spent countless
hours in briefings and hearings related to the occupation of Iraq. I am
convinced that redeployment of our troops must occur in the most
responsible and practical manner for the safety of our men and women in uniform and the security of the region.”
Why does Giffords believe that the time-table and priorities established by 2237 are not a "realistic option"? Why does she characterize the bill as prompting an "immediate withdrawal" when it clearly establishes a 90 period before redeployment begins and clearly provides for open-ended ongoing operations in Iraq? Bullshit. What the hell is our Representative thinking? What her explanation seems to come down to is that she simply knows better than us and the 169 members of her caucus who voted for the bill.
I remain unconvinced that this vote had anything to do with strategic or prudential concerns. Granting that would entail a judgment that the 169 Democrats and 2 Republicans who voted for this bill are idiots who don’t comprehend the strategic significance of Iraq, don’t understand military affairs, and don’t care about the security of this nation – I don’t buy that for a minute.
Even more confounding is that Giffords and Mitchell cannot be so obtuse that they failed to comprehend that passage of this bill would only be the beginning of a struggle with the Executive over control of the war. Any objections to the contents of the bill are utterly moot. The bill would undoubtedly be vetoed, but the leverage its passage would bring to bear would force the Administration to include Congress in on-going planning of the occupation. Giffords, Mitchell and the rest of the Blue Dogs have denied Congress the enormous leverage that the power of the purse should give them in directing the military policy. Giffords and Mitchell and the Blue Dogs have effectively handed back the reigns of the Iraq fiasco to the Bush Administration, who has proven again and again to be utterly unable to responsibly execute a strategic policy in the Middle East.
Perhaps they want our military policy to be wholly in control of the Administration so that the political fall-out of the war doesn’t get transferred to Democrats and Congress. That is understandable politically, but reprehensible patriotically. Letting our foreign policy spin out of control for lack of a steadying, objective hand on the tiller is an act of political terrorism, not a political maneuver. I pray that this is not the real reason for these Democrats’ votes.
I’m sure a lot of people are asking the same questions that are on my mind. I intend to find out some answers. I certainly invite anyone who thinks they have insight into Giffords’ and Mitchell’s action to share their thinking in the comments.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh…and while we’re at it, if you want a primary challenger who can stand up to GG and her $, you better start saving your dimes. Unfortunately it is still the $ that matters in politics…ask Daniel Scarpinato or the other creatures from the press. The only thing they pay attention to is who has the most money and that is directly proportional to the amount of coverage they’ve got. If and when you succeed in recruiting a primary challenger, you’ve got to get out there and raise millions of dollars for them or they haven’t a prayer.
Oh…and while we’re at it, if you want a primary challenger who can stand up to GG and her $, you better start saving your dimes. Unfortunately it is still the $ that matters in politics…ask Daniel Scarpinato or the other creatures from the press. The only thing they pay attention to is who has the most money and that is directly proportional to the amount of coverage they’ve got. If and when you succeed in recruiting a primary challenger, you’ve got to get out there and raise millions of dollars for them or they haven’t a prayer.
I know Jeff Latas well. I know he would’ve voted to end this war. From the outset of his campaign he said so and got the most applause consistently. The other candidates kept moving closer and closer to his positions until they were indistinguishable. But what is distinguishable is the moral fiber it takes to just take a stand and say enough is enough. That is why I backed Latas, and yes, I would rather have Latas there than the wobbly Giffords.
But now that Gabrielle Giffords is the Representative, where is the pressure for her to do the right thing? Everyone knows she has no moral compass to get her there by herself. If that were the case she would’ve had the best answers from the outset in the 06 campaign. Those voters in AZ-08, of which I am not one, need to get in her face when she gets back about this.
Well, I guess if I had a choice between bankrolling solar panels and bankrolling Blackwater, I’d pick solar panels all day. But, that’s not the choice, unfortunately.
x4mr, I would most definitely rather have Latas as my representative.
You know, with Giffords being as young as she is, and, in my opinion, lacking a solid and historical knowledge of US foreign policy, it could even be possible that the warmongers have gotten to her. They know how to recognize fresh meat.
Dwight (AC) thinks its Israel. Well, I definitely expect to hear the pro-Israel rhetoric and perhaps there has already been some. I would think, however, that would have more to do with Iran than Iraq.
Having said all that, I still think it’s about trying to appease voters for the 2008 election. Michael thinks that’s too obvious and simplistic, but why? It’s a sweet gig. She wants to hold onto it.
As for the solar panel thing she wants to turn us into the solar panel envey of the world. This involves big bucks for her campaign war chest as she already has raised $500,000 dollars for 2008. The Home Builders and her front company that is managed by the Marine Col. will be watched very closely that will be setting up shop in Tucson shortly with Federal Money.
Iam all for Solar Powered homes etc; but if this business is run anything like El Campo was look out folks!
Oh, Bob, please. Liza’s remarks are more insightful. Unlike Grijalva, Giffords sits on a very precarious district for a democrat. I find it amusing to hear the DINO talk along side the “radical liberal.” Which is it?
Freshman get to change the world after they get re-elected, and it’s results, not kool aid, that will matter in 2008. Giffords does not have enough kool aid to win CD 8 in 08. I’m not qualified to address HR 2237 as I have already admitted in an earlier post. She and Mitchell had their reasons, and I am not an insider. Also, the more I think about this, the more I question the true semantics of each vote on each bill. I am growing more confident that votes are cast with the knowledge of other votes. This changes everything.
By the way, Bob, who runs against Giffords in 08? Your thoughts? Would you really rather have Latas or Weiss there? Really?
I think that Giffords is concerned about facing a tough re-election in 2008. I would think that it would be safer for Giffords to just tow the party line, keep up her efforts to align herself with non-controversial issues and get as much exposure as possible. What is it she’s into now? Solar panels?
If her vote on HR 2237 was politically motivated as an attempt to show herself to be a moderate, it could really backfire. She’s alienating progressives as well as every decent human being who wants an end to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. It’s way too early to try to judge what the “mood of the electorate” will be in 2008, let alone what it will be like in AZ CD8. Things happen. But, the incumbent has an overwhelming advantage, and it just seems that towing the party line would be the right thing to do. I really don’t understand her vote.
The explanation, clearly, is that Gabby is exactly the kind of DINO that her backers insisted she wasn’t when she was running for election.
Latas and Weiss both raised the alarm, but x4mr and so many others drank Gabby’s kool aid. Now you get what you voted for… a yellow-bellied blue dog who rolls over for a corrupt administration running a disastrous war.
Great job, AZ-8 voters.
Having said that; Mike the answer to your question is all about Israel.
As for my stand on the War and what to do in Iraq; I have been supporting Sen. Joseph Biden’s plan for over a year now. It has been posted on my web-site with the video of how to get out of Iraq now. Iraq needs to be a Federal Government with (3) three States, funded equally by the oil revenue. Each of the main ethnick groups would control and elect people from there own states, just as we do in the United States.
We need to deploy our troops to the borders of Iraq after sending in the b-52’s to bomb every cockroach out of his hole along the border ; as we return the troops through Kuwait. We should then send the regular Army,Airforce and Marines to Afghanistan and return The National Guard to The United States to support efforts needed along our Borders and for Natural Disasters.
Thereshould be a benchmark set for this to happen by October of this year and the movement needs to begin now!
The United Nations needs to establish air security over Iraq until Iraq can get a Air Force up and running. Most of its Air Force equipment(planes;etc) is now in Iran.
Forget about Bush and what happens to Iraq;it will be up to Iraq’s neighbors to help with the three different sectors; Turkey; Iran and Saudi Arabia can control its tribes in Iraq.
The Trick is to keep all of its neighbors from invading Iraq and taking over the oil fields.
There is a posibility that this will happen anyway and if it does you now have World War III in the Middle East as you see Hamas now fighting with the Fatah groups.
I would like to see our troops out of Iraq before the collapse intowar so we could deal with it from the Air instead of a ground war.
All of this is not a pretty sight but before someone lights off a dirty bomb or worse killing tens of thousands of our ground troops we need to get them out of there now and at least get them on ships in the Gulf.
They both represent Military Bases in there districts.Giffords is on the Congressional military oversight committee. Giffords has set up a retired Marine Col. to run the “Solar Valley” that she intends to create in District 8. The Col. is in town waiting for the go ahead to set up shop in a huge complex funded by the Federal Government. As you recal her campaign ads pictured her standing in the desert next to solar panels. Tucson is an Air Force town ;if you don’t believe me ask Juana Mase!
AZ PDA went right to Mitchell about this vote, snip taken from http://phoenixpda.com
“Congressman Harry Mitchell, Democrat from Arizona’s 5th CD, met with constituents on Saturday morning at one of his regularly scheduled “Congress on the Corner” gatherings. PDA members from the Phoenix Valley were there in force to ask the tough questions and to hold Congressman Mitchell’s feet to the fire for his “no” vote on McGovern’s HR 2237 — a bill that would have begun withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq within three months with final withdrawal within six months.
Accustomed to only a few supporters who usually show up to throw him softball questions at his “Congress on the Corner” gatherings, the Congressman’s staff had to scramble to handle the surprisingly large crowd that was there to throw some hard balls.
Thom Bohlen, PDA member from Fountain Hills, held a sign that read: “171 Dems voted to end the war in Iraq. Where was your “yes” vote, Harry?” Many who had gathered to simply meet-and-greet their Congressman were surprised to hear about Mitchell’s vote on the bill.
Reflecting on the theme of the gathering — “Congress on the Corner” — Lisbeth Applefield, PDA member from Scottsdale, spoke for many when she asked the Congressman “Are you IN our corner… or just ON our corner?”
Dialogue with the congressman will continue. PDA Deputy Director Sherry Bohlen got a confirmation from the congressman that he will arrange a meeting directly with PDA leadership from the Phoenix Valley to discuss issues relevant to the progressive community. Phoenix Valley PDA members are committed to staying with the congressman to hold him accountable to the people’s message from the November ’06 election.”
The more we sit back and let the dems we voted in to office do nothing the more we are to blame. Our voices need to be heard and they need to be challenged when they side with the blue dog dems and the DCCC. This bill would have been another significant angle to a very good debate on withdrawing our troops from Iraq, playing it safe is just plainly irresponsible at this point in time. Enough is Enough.
1) characterizing this bill as an immediate withdrawal is incorrect: 3 months to start redeployment, 6 months to finish it is not immediate. Plus there is a raft of reasons we can leave soldiers in Iraq for on-going operations in this bill. It does not even remove all our troops. It does provide for turning over our bases to the Iraqi government, a specific pledge by Giffords.
2) The bill is not about what the bill is about. Even if passed it would merely been the beginning of a negotiation with WH on Congresses terms. Thus any objection to the contents of the bill is an excuse to cover the real reasons a Dem would vote against this bill.
3) I already understand the obvious political reason to vote against this bill for someone in a marginal district; I don’t accept the political calculation that would lead one to cast that vote. I think it fundamentally misunderstands the mood of the electorate. The other explanation I offered seems more likely, and utter reprehensible: a desire to let the GOP hang themselves with Iraq while our troops die needlessly.
Gabby said during the campaign that she opposed immediate withdraw. She has been pretty consistent on this issue.
I’m far from being a worshipper of politicians, Liza. I want our troops out of Iraq, but the situation dictates that things be done carefully, and our actions need to be well thought out. We ended up there because rash, poorly thought out decisions. Pulling out in the same manner will be a disaster also.
Maybe you should read the text of HR 2237, if you have not already, especially section 1e.
Timelines and benchmarks? That is just the latest blah, blah, blah from politicians who do not know what the hell to do with the quagmire. Democrats are pressured to enact the mandate of the 2006 election and a good way to stall is to apply a whole new line of verbage to the war. Let’s apply the rules of business to the rules of war. What a great idea. Except for all those dead people.
Okay, here’s an example of a benchmark. The new Oil Law that provides for an equitable distribution of oil revenues being passed by the parliament would be a benchmark. EXCEPT for the fact that it opens all of Iraq’s oil to privatization and, if passed, is more likely to escalate the violence in Iraq than it is to slow it down. You see, azw88, the Iraqis aren’t quite as indifferent to the plundering of their oil as we are in the US because it more or less represents their only chance to reverse the humanitarian crisis that we created for them.
I am out of patience, just totally out of patience with our failure to do what is right for Iraq. If you want to adore politicians, go right ahead, but count yourself as part of the problem and not the solution.
I feel that Gabby cast her vote based on what she thinks is best based on the info she has. a blanket immediate pull-out just won’t work. I believe that a timeline/benchmarks are needed. cutting and running on short/no notice would be bad policy.
Excellent and brave post, Michael. (Or, maybe speaking out against Giffords is safer than it used to be?)
Giffords is turning out to be exactly the kind of representative that I thought she would be. And, I don’t have a crystal ball. Its just easier to judge candidates when you’re not blinded by loyalty.
Throughout her campaign, Giffords grasp of US foreign policy seemed to be no deeper than that of someone whose sole source for news is the eight second CNN sound bite. In the first few months of Gifford’s campaign her Iraq position was nonexistent and later it was just deliberately vague. I have no idea what she said at the end. I have a vague memory of reading on her website that the US “should not have permanent military bases in Iraq.” Now, of course, after four months in Congress, she is the newest expert on US foreign policy and her constituency just needs to understand that she knows more than they do.
I didn’t vote for her, or Graf, and I have no intentions of voting for her in the future. One Giffords more or less in Congress will make no difference whatsoever.
I suspect that Gifford’s latest Iraq vote has everything to do with being re-elected and nothing to do with the war itself. In CD8, there is somewhere between 35 – 40 percent of the electorate that Giffords can’t reach. They will vote Republican even if the candidate is the devil himself. The progressives, let’s face it, are a minority mostly on the far left who have no real political clout in CD8. They cannot advance their own candidate in the Democratic primary, so they end up with a choice of the lesser of two evils. They will have to vote for the Democrat and they are not important to a Democratic incumbent. To win re-election in 2008, Giffords has to retain the support of the moderate independents and Republicans.
It’s all about her, you can bet on that.
Does Giffords actually caucus with the Blue Dogs?
They all need to be targeted in 2008.
Their existence weakens the ability of the House to pass the necessary reforms to bring this nation into the 21st century.
Does Giffords actually caucus with the Blue Dogs?
They all need to be targeted in 2008.
Their existence weakens the ability of the House to pass the necessary reforms to bring this nation into the 21st century.
I don’t recall now.
Does anyone have a recollection of Giffords declared position on the war before her election?
x4mr….
“Said another way, in tis particular context, give the GOP/Bush Administration all the rope it wants, since it is doing an extraordinary job of hanging itself.”
Absolutely.
So what is the motivation to join them on the gallows?
Does Gabby think the majority of Americans who have expressed a desire for an immediate end to the war won’t notice her siding with the tone-deaf GOP?
Every week a kid from her district is killed in Iraq.
They are there because Bush needed a “war” to get re-elected.
This ain’t rocket science.
Gifford and Mitchell were stupid.
America is running out of time to indulge in the luxury of stupid leaders.
Been there way too long, and the damage is extensive already.
I share Michael’s anger and frustration. Every day, people are dying – American troops, Iraqi adults and especially children. The statistics of death of Iraqi children drives me crazy. Pro life? Pro whose life?????
Some of the Blue Dog Democrats did cross the line and voted for the McGovern amendment. We should give Giffords and Mitchell plenty of opportunity to explain their logic. In fairness, maybe there is something here we are missing. I don’t think so, but I’m willing to hear them out.
With all due respect to Metacomet, more was involved, and I am sorry Michael that I do not have a satisfactory answer to your legitimate question.
My cynicism suggests that behavior is occurring in the context of the 2008 election, with the blue engaging in strategic initiatives and votes designed to maximize their interests in the next election.
Said another way, in tis particular context, give the GOP/Bush Administration all the rope it wants, since it is doing an extraordinary job of hanging itself.
Their vote was stupid.
They voted with the stupid president.
They are stupid.
War votes will be remembered in 2008.
Let’s start looking for a serious primary candididate …….now.
Just electing Democrats was only ever step one.
Step two is electing thinking, reasoning progressives.