Politics U.S. Rep. Brian Baird
posted by on August 21 at 12:21 PM
Brian Baird voted against the war and has voted to withdraw US troops from what has become a civil war—but last Friday the Washington state Dem came out against pulling US troops out or Iraq. What changed his mind? A trip to Iraq.
Not every Democrat has come back from Iraq supporting a drawdown of U.S. forces in the coming months, as party leaders have advocated. Staking out positions that could complicate efforts to achieve party unity in September, a few Democratic lawmakers have returned expressing support for a continued troop presence. One of them, Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.), said yesterday that he will no longer vote for binding troop withdrawal timelines….Last Friday, Baird told the Olympian, a newspaper in his district, that he now believes the United States should stay in the country as long as necessary to ensure stability.
And how long will that take? No one knows—but we don’t seem any closer to “stability” after four years and billions of dollars and thousands of deaths. Says Americablog:
As for Congressman Baird, I’m rather shocked that he is now supporting the permanent stationing of 171,000 US troops in Iraq. I can’t imagine that even HIS district supports that. But that’s what he said. So long as the troops are needed for stability, they should stay—period, no ifs ands or buts. Well, that would be forever, under the current estimates. Is the congressman okay with our troops fighting and dying forever in Iraq if stability is never within reach?
And who are the “few” Dems that have expressed support for staying in Iraq, for ever and ever and ever? Uh… just Brian Baird. Says Postman…
…the Post has been hit with a common journalistic malady: Rampant pluralism. A careful reading shows that so far Baird stands alone with a substantive change of heart about Iraq.
I don't count, but I'm so there.
Aren't those Pentagon fellators telling us that the Army is "broken" and that we barely have enough troops to stay six more months? And aren't some of those troops on their fourth tours??
Did the Congressman explain where he's going to find more people to sign up to be Darth Cheney's Imperial Stormtroopers?
the only way to pacify iraq is to slaughter all residents & replace them with compliant third-world workers, just like they do in dubai.
the kurds get a pass from the genocide. for now.
yes, it is irony.
Why are we still involved in this civil war?
It didn't work in Vietnam when we "escalated" and then didn't draw down. Just made it worse.
Time to leave is now.
Well at the very least this proves that Democrats can still form their own opinions, which is beyond anything we've seen out of a Republican
that "accidental" pluralism is really frightening to me, anyone else? One shell-shocked senator and now staying in Iraq is a democratic stance?? One strong enough to "complicate party efforts to achieve unity"?? what the fuck?? Blatant propaganda much??
It is hard to believe. As a loyal Democrat, union member, primary delegate and resident of Baird's district I can only say his position nauseates me. Oh sure just a few more hundred deaths. Just so they aren't Mr Baird's flesh and blood. Time to get an antiwar candidate here in SW Washington. I won't cast another vote for Baird!
The pluralism isn't necessarily inaccurate...as long as you take those "few" Democrats' words out of context. For example, in her recent speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Hilary Clinton criticized the Iraqi goverment and called for our troops to come home ASAP. Of course, what line grabs the headlines? "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, IT'S WORKING" [caps lock mine].
The other "few" (or, more accurately, VERY few) Democrats include Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who, even whilst conceding that the troop build up has produced measurable results, says that the Maliki government hasn't taken full advantage of the breathing room we've provided and still maintains his stance that the troop pull-out should begin within four months (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070821/NATION/108210076/1001).
Baird himself concedes that we'll have to begin pulling out the troops eventually...albeit once they've been worn down to the bone (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=bairdop24&date=20070824&query=iraq).
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! rnjfpvncffgmqq
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).