Dodd Leads Again On Iraq Now

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:19:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via e-mail from Matt from Dodd's campaign:

Reporter: "Senator, there were reports this morning that President Bush will ask Congress for $50 billion more dollars for the Iraq war. What do you have to say about that? Dodd: "Well, I'm not surprised and I'd be very resistant to that request. I think we've, as I said we're spending well over now half a trillion dollars in this conflict. And again, it's a civil war in Iraq. This is the middle of a civil war and those who have understood this issue have argued from the very beginning that there was never going to be a military solution to the civil war in Iraq. And so I'd be very resistant and I intend to fight any efforts here, I'll do whatever I can to support whatever our troops need to have a safe and secure withdrawal from Iraq. But I don't intend to continue to fund the war over there that I think has no end. As long as we're there, I think the Iraqis are not going to come together as a people it's about time we wound down our military presence there."

(Emphasis mine.)

< Katrina, two years later | R.I.P. Richard Jewell >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dodd Leads Again On Iraq Now | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

More on Dodd at mydd: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:50:15 PM EST

Unfortunately ... (none / 0) (#1)
by Meteor Blades on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:36:55 PM EST

...Dodd's leadership won't be enough to persuade that minority of Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans who falsely equate supporting the troops with supporting Mister Bush's spending on the war/occupation.

But he can pressure the other candidates (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:00:51 PM EST

Specifically Obama and Clinton. Perhaps this time we won't have to wait until the end of the vote to find out what they're going to do.

That matters because it shifts the debate everywhere else.


: I feel a shift in the breeze today (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:17:05 AM EST

as the NIE and now a new GOA report paints a very bad picture of our situation in Iraq and then the Uniformed Pentagon disembarks from the Bush Love Boat. I sniff the wind and it smells like HOME. Last Presidential candidate not onboard the Out of Iraq Love Boat will be staying home ;) It isn't even September 11th yet and the days are getting mighty mean and the nights are getting longer for some folks out there.

Really? (none / 0) (#3)
by taylormattd on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:35:52 PM EST

Do you think this means he supports no more funding bills after a date certain? Because just today, Edwards said this:

Enough is enough. When Congress comes back next week, they should stand firm and make their position clear: No timeline, no funding. No excuses

But he also said that Congress should repeatedly keep sending Bush a bill "that withdraws all combat troops within the next year". Maybe Dodd is saying the same thing.

actually (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:11:08 PM EST

the good sen. is wrong. there can be a military solution, but it would require a return to the draft, and huge increase in monetary expenditures to accomplish.

iraq isn't vietnam, geographically speaking. given sufficient troops and arms, the US military could easily destroy the insurgency, sweeping them to the borders, and wiping them out as they attempt to escape. using the brutal counterinsurgency techniques necessary, they could eliminate pretty much all armed resistance, leveling towns along the way, if need be.

obviously, that isn't going to happen, because the public won't support it, and rightfully so. that doesn't mean it can't be done, just that we aren't going to do it.

when dodd, or any of the dems comes out and says that in public, then i'll truly believe they have a clue what they're talking about. so far, no one on capital hill will publicly opine this reality.

Possibly (none / 0) (#7)
by Demi Moaned on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:00:00 PM EST

There's no guarantees that this could accomplish even what you describe. But the expense would certainly be ruinous. Even sustaining the current expense seems ruinous to me.

As prosperity declines in the US at a certain point this grandiose mission would become impossible.


no "possibly" about it (none / 0) (#8)
by cpinva on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:55:58 PM EST

it worked quite well in germany during wwII, how do you think the allies got to berlin? the real question is: do we have the fiscal and moral stamina to do it?

as you rightly point out, the cost would likely be ruinous, both fiscally and morally. i'm certainly not advocating it (of course, i didn't advocate starting the war to begin with), merely pointing out that it is possible.

it would, in the end, be something of a pyhric victory.

ok, someone want to explain that to mr. bush?


No possibly about it? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by womanwarrior on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:37:29 PM EST

cpinva, I think you are misremembering your history. We were fighting a conventional army in Germany, not an "insurgency" or civil war in which different factions were trying to kill each other. The German army knew they were defeated and many were deserting as we motored through Germany in a race with the Russians.
German society was pretty homogeneous and tired of the war. There was not a civil war going on between religious factions who hated each other, and who were all happy to take out our troops. There were no suicide bombings going on or planting of ieds. This is a different "war."
If you are saying the bombing of Dresden represented a scorched earth policy, my recollection of history is that was not repeated throughout Germany as you are suggesting could be done in Iraq.
I truly believe that you are right that the American people would not put up with a plan to completely destroy Iraq to stop the "insurgency" or civil war.
Perhaps Congress has heard from enough citizens during the break that they will develop the backbone to refuse to give Bush another $50 billion to refuse to change his policy so he can have more young men and women killed and maimed, not to mention the complete destruction of Iraqi society which we allowed by failing to secure the weapons and explosives of the Iraqi army when we invaded. Gee, maybe we could spend some on health coverage for children without it, instead of sending them to the "emergency room." We have got to stop allowing Congress to support this incompetent, ignorant and stubborn man who refuses to recognize reality, imho.


: And a draft didn't help (none / 0) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:59:13 AM EST

an insurgency in Vietnam, it only fed it and got more people killed all the way around. Which is what I fear would take place in Iraq. Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual is a very well done military style manual that is really only a theory at this point in history. Many guys have written books about the world being flat and twice it has been a great theory but when tested was only a theory and not fact.

What is Dodd sayng about the $147B (none / 0) (#6)
by pioneer111 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:23:02 PM EST

The $50B is a distraction as far as I can see. In the WaPo
Bush Wants $50 Billion More for Iraq War

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq.......The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

The total is $197B. This is nuts. We have a surge in spending. This would pay for 2 years of universal health care.

What is Dodd's view on this??

Dodd has more friends today (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:52:22 AM EST

as the Angry Rakkasan at DK points out that the Pentagon in uniform is not with Bush and probably not with Petraeus where Iraq is concerned at this point. Party on with your bad self Dubya cuz you're standing there with the lampshade on your head and everyone went home.

: Well, everyone that is (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:54:21 AM EST

except for your used and abused "a tour is fifteen months" and on their third tour troops.

Wow is he out on a limb there (none / 0) (#14)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:33:09 AM EST

"I'd be very resistant"

Sounds like when I tell my 2 year old that we might stay up late, but I have to think about it.

How about this instead Mr. Dodd:

"Enough is enough. We are bankrupting our grandchildren with this war debt that is entirely borrowed and I cannot in good conscience support any additional funding. This administration has stated that the insurgency was in its last throes on numerous occasions and promised stabilization of the middle east with this war and subsequent democracy. With the costs approaching 1 trillion dollars and a resounding failure of the Iraq government to meet such a small percentage of the benchmarks I proffer that it is time to allow the Iraqis to take ownership of the rule of law. We deposed a monstrous dictator and have provided the Iraqi people and government freedom from Saddam Husseins tyranny, a peaceful and prosperous future is theirs if they are so inclined to work with one another to accomplish that goal. For those of you who believe that Iran will meddle its influence in Iraq and gain a stronghold there, I urge you to read the rich history of the proud Iraqi people and you will come to the conclusion that they are proud of their long history of soveriegnty (sp) and will maintain their independence as such."

Now that is a statement.

I would be resistant is a betrayal to our troops, our grandchildren and the Iraqi people.