Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Art in the Streets | Ice Cube Can Take a Joke; His ... »

Friday, April 28, 2006

Cantwell on Iraq

Posted by on April 28 at 10:56 AM

Sen. Maria Cantwell issued a statement on Iraq today. In my opinion, the statement doesn’t say anything substantive to differentiate her position from President Bush’s position. In fact, her statment is even vaguer than Bush’s calls to train more special forces, reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil and make 2006 a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty. I’ve linked the whole thing below. Decide for yourself.

Cantwell applauds the recent Iraqi moves to appoint a prime minister and says we need to bring the troops home after stability is achieved. (There are 133,000 troops in Iraq. There is talk of bringing 30,000 home by the end of the year.)

Cantwell does criticize Bush, sorta, kinda: “In the past, President Bush has not provided all the leadership necessary to build international support for stabilizing Iraq and getting the Iraqi troops trained.  The President must act with urgency.”

Not the hard-hitting kind of criticism that will satisfy anti-war activists, like the group who staged a sit-in at her office earlier this week, or fire up the anti-Bush base that needs to spark her campaign this fall.

Speaking of statements on Iraq and the sit-in at Cantwell’s Seattle office: The sit-in 7 also issued a statement today as a follow-up to Tuesday’s action. I’ve posted that below Cantwell’s statement.

Cantwell Statement Following White House Meeting on Iraq

WASHINGTON, DC U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell released the following statement after voicing concerns on Iraq in a meeting she attended Thursday at the White House with other senators and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley:

"Today, I took my concerns to the White House regarding our current course in Iraq.

"By selecting a speaker and prime minister-designate, the Iraqis have achieved an important benchmark. I urge them to continue working in the days ahead to support a government of national unity. Much work must still be done.  Political and security progress are key to stability in Iraq. We must make this a year of transition for Iraq, leading to less American involvement in the country.

"I was glad to see news reports that the U.S. military is considering bringing as many as 30,000 U.S. troops home by the end of the year. It is a good start, but we need to see more. At the White House, I made it clear that the Bush administration must ensure that the new Iraqi government has the international support to succeed and that Iraqi security forces can take over security.  As these benchmarks are met, we must bring our troops home.

"In the past, President Bush has not provided all the leadership necessary to build international support for stabilizing Iraq and getting the Iraqi troops trained.  The President must act with urgency.

"The U.S. must get the Iraqi people on their feet and get our troops home. We must ensure that the new Iraqi government has the international support needed to succeed on its own; that more Iraqi security forces are prepared to take over their own security; and that critical infrastructure, like oil pipelines and the electricity grid, is harnessed as vital resources for success instead of being a constant target of terrorist attacks.  As these goals are accomplished, we should begin to bring our troops home from Iraq.

"Last December, I personally witnessed the Iraqi elections, when nearly 10 million Iraqis voted in a successful election, meeting another critical benchmark. But in the four plus months since, Iraq has faced serious challenges. Sectarian violence plagued Iraq and threatened to turn into civil war.  Now the prime minister-designate must get key cabinet ministers in place who are capable of helping to lead the country by stopping the militias and sectarian violence.

"The formation of the Iraqi government offers a new chance to succeed.  But we need to set clear objectives and hold President Bush, Congress, U.S. military leaders and the Iraqis accountable for meeting them.”

# # #

Statement from the Sit-In activists:

(1) (a) The senator has agreed to meet with us again on May 6. We
are saddened and disappointed that the meeting will remain non-public.
Past meetings (with ourselves and with other groups) have lacked any
mechanism to provide for follow-up and accountability. We offered the
Senator's staff numerous mechanisms for making the meeting public, as
a step toward guaranteeing follow-up and accountability, including
simple procedures such as providing a publicly accessible verbatim
written transcript. The Senator's staff has declined all such
suggestions.
(b) There will be a mutually agreed moderator at this meeting
to keep it focused and productive.
(c) There will be core questions we will submit to the
Senator's staff in advance, questions we feel the Senator has failed
to answer. We would like for the discussion to remain focused on two
themes, which are the rationale for removing US armed forces from
Iraq: (i) how to reduce US casualties in Iraq, and (ii) how to end
civilian deaths which the US bears responsibility for. We are not
simply calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, we are also
calling for an end to US aggression against Iraqis.

2) Out of consideration for two staff members, who remained in the
office with us all night, we wanted those people to be able to resume
their normal duties and their personal lives and responsibilities. They were forced to sleep on the same miserable floors we were. At
all times the staff have been respectful and considerate, going beyond
what they were required to do. We were given a conference room,
water, and full access to a bathroom at all times. The fact that we
did not have access to food, beyond what we brought in with us, is
completely irrelevant: we did not sit-in at the Senator's office to
dine and/or be entertained. Those in our group who have medical needs
were provided breakfast on Wednesday. We all deeply appreciate the
behavior of the staff and regret any inconveniences they experienced.

Joe Colgan,
Father of 1st Lt. Benjamin Colgan, KIA Iraq 11/01/2003

Joshua Farris,
US Army Spc., Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Stacy Bannerman,
wife of Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran; Advisory Board of Military
Families Speak Out, author of 'When the War Came Home' (2006,
Continuum)

Rev. Richard Gamble,
Pastor Keystone United Church of Christ; Co-Chair of the Interfaith
Network of Concern for the People of Iraq (Program Affiliate of the
Church Council of Greater Seattle)

Abe Osheroff,
Veteran of the Spanish Civil War and WW II

Howard Gale,
Organizer of the 2005 Iraq Veterans Forum at Seattle Town Hall; Research Psychologist & Consultant


CommentsRSS icon

i think ur jump link is busted.

Fixed.

"Sectarian violence plagued Iraq and threatened to turn into civil war. "

Ahhhh, Iraq is hell on earth for most Iraquis. There has been civil war for some time now. Perhaps the Distinguished lady from Washington should be given the link of unembedded war photographs that Jen posted.

http://www.unembedded.net/main.php

Im sure when she visited Iraq, like most politicians she remained in the green zones and was guarded better than a stack of Maxim magazines.

Her whole rap about the success of the Iraqui elections is the Equivalent of a blow job to Dubya.

Elections are great, but to say that they helped the ordinary Iraqui people is obsene. Most Iraquis live in hell and in constant fear and their cities and infranstructure have been completely bombed to the stone age.

The US, builds Sadam style palaces and calls them Embassies and the rest of the country lives in a hell that few people can imagine created by the occupation and Islamo fascists.

Not to worry- resident party hacks at slog will soon come to the senator's rescue. And remind us that to talk bad about Senator Cantwell in an election year is to help McGavick, and how the senator had nothing to do with the carnage in Iraq and remind us of her progressive record on the enviorement.

Any minute now...

I am continually annoyed by the Senator and her positions, her staff, and her campaign.

She's a Democrat, in a Democratic State, elected by one of the most politically liberal regions in the country...and she acts like she's Senator from OHIO or something!

I don't get it...and I don't like it. She sure seems like a DINO to me.

what an idiot. so basically she says we need a real leader, but hey, it's not going to be me!

as much as I hate mcgavik and feel that wee need more democrats, democrats just don't get it, so I'm voting all fucking red next election.

get a clue! you're in a blue state! ACT THE FUCK LIKE IT!

Does anyone know, really, why she seems so intent on avoiding direct provocative criticism of the Bush policies in Iraq? I mean, can anyone name the consultant group, or is it there a promise of a committee chairmanship or what? If she loses, her lack of passion on this topic will be the reason why.

I mean, say something about the outrageous war profiteering, or the travesty that followed our retreat from the Geneva convention, or something fer chissakes! This 'cold' shit will lose.

Bush and his war are unpopular. Work it, Maria! And fire the losers that are holding you back.

This statement is baffling. I've been on the support Cantwell bandwagon, but it continues to be an ambivilent position. What is her exact constituency? She could go way more critical than this, inspiring the Democratic base and making moderates and independents feel more secure by showing some back bone. Is this some kind of post-political job security calculus on her part? Is she Lieberman without the kissing and dissing? I'm still going to vote Cantwell, but I'm having trouble seeing myself giving her any of my family's hard earned green or my volunteer time.

at least she has a position on Iraq - Bush's position is Spend More US Tax Dollars On My Quagmire.

I'm Adam, one of the seven at the sit-in. In the conference call we had with D.C., the first day, we asked her to explain why she doesn't support Kerry's statements made in his “A Right and Responsibility to Speak Out” speech on April 11th. Of course we didn't speak with her, but her foreign policy experts. They circled jerked us with non-answers that were tantamount to asking if we liked Iraqis to have electricity, hospitals, etc. These weren't rhetorical questions either, they were seriously asking us. They said all this while ignoring the fact by every conceivable metric Iraq is getting worse.

We simply couldn't fathom why she refuses to take a leadership role here and publicly endorse Kerry. She is quick to point out the shortcomings of the administration but when given a chance, Feingold's call for censure, she didn't open her mouth. Censure doesn't mean squat! It's the political equivalent of thumbing your nose at someone. She couldn't even do that, how sad.

At this sit-in we urged her to stand up, and galvanize the citizens against war. Russ Feingold is blazing a path that she needs to follow.

I know this is bad for her campaign now and that this is seen as a clandestine ploy by and for McGavick. That's simply untrue. The truth is that the time to hem and haw while waiting for someone to act is over. That doesn't mean we're going to wait for the Dems to take the majority and suddenly be anti-war. Fuck that, if they aren't anti-war now they won't be later. Kerry said it best in his speech: "The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power."


This was my first action toward pressuring the Senator. Everyone else there had previous meetings with her as far back as November of last year. Back then she couldn't have been troubled to read Joe Colgan's two hundred word op-ed prior to the meeting. She read it there on the spot, and it really pissed off Abe.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/257833_veterandad02.html

At least at this next meeting her staffers promised that Cantwell would be able to respond to 10 questions that we are submitting prior to our meeting. At least she can give us that. Let's hope she can do more.

Hey Richard, in regards to the consultant group thing you asked. During the time there Josh was getting all kinds of pissed when we were getting nowhere. By 9 or 10am, after we had been there for nearly 24 hours, he starts railing poor Kurt and Charla for Cantwell running a safe campaign. That she's playing the middle because that's the least offensive to all the voters. He quickly pointed out that by doing that she's doing herself in since she won the election by a very narrow margin, something like 2000 votes. Aaron Dixon is running on a anti-war platform and if he's successful enough he can cause her to lose the election on that issue alone.

She needs to do something, because this "benchmark" and "2006 is a year of transition" bullshit is tired.

The Bush administration is lousy with flat out war criminals and the people know it. Witness his poll numbers.

Successful polititians of the moment need to distiguish themselves from Bush's disaster. Just being a Dem is NOT good enough because many Dems helped Bush get us into this mess. Witness the fact that Dem approval rates, last I heard, were in the forties.

A Dem will win popular support by admitting their errors and standing now for a firm correction in policy.

Maria, give us some juice!

From PEW research Feb 13, 2006


Nonetheless the Republicans have one significant life line in a sea of discontent about President Bush and national conditions generally: failure of the Democrats' leadership to distinguish itself. Despite a lack of confidence in the GOP's ability to handle most issues, the party is given an edge in the Washington Post/ABC poll for having stronger leaders, and in the Pew survey for having better leaders. And a Pew survey last month found that while just 33% approved of Republican congressional leaders, only 34% approved of the way Democratic leaders were doing their job.


http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=2


The saem survey showed that while only 38% of respondents approved of the way Republicans were addressing "Iraq" (as an issue among twelve others like 'crime', & 'the environment'), the approval for Democrats was 41%.


Don't these indicate a Dem message machine that isn't working? Maybe time for a new approach?

This is a no win situation and she has nowhere to lead. Pulling a large number of US troops out will open the way for opponents to take over and take control of the oil. If Cantwell or the Ds lead the way for that, they'll be skewered and blamed. In a no win situation, it's better to let the Rs lead. Bush got us into this and now he needs to reap the full blame as the bloody leader. Yes, i know our boys are getting killed for the freedom to drive SUVs.

The kind of leadership that Cantwell and the democrats need to show is to reduce our need for oil while keeping us strong economically. Tax wasteful companies and give HUGE incentives to innovative companies who can quickly come up with green, clean energy alternatives. Build up railroads and shipping to move products. Do everything possible to encourage locally grown and produced goods & food. Make US pride synonymous with less guzzling. The quicker we can reduce our reliance on oil, the safer our world will be. And INSIST that our govt sit down and negotiate with IRAN, or we'll have total all-out world war.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).