Sen. Dick Lugar gave a speech in which he said that the President’s Iraq strategy was not working.
“In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved,” Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. “Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.”
Lugar’s statement, in my estimation, is not a big deal. Sen. Lugar has often made accurate statements about Iraq and our policies there. Either shortly before or shortly after the war in Iraq started, he noted that we did not have a good plan for the occupation. However, the occasional critical words aside, I believe Sen. Lugar has given the Bush administration everything it has ever wanted for Iraq. He has given the administration the votes it has wanted and the money it has wanted.
However, [Lugar spokesman Andy] Fisher said the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.
In January, Lugar voted against a resolution opposing the troop buildup, contending that the nonbinding measure would have no practical effect. In spring, he voted against a Democratic bill that would have triggered troop withdrawals by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pull out in six months.
Words and persuasion mean nothing to the Bush administration. If you lack power or the will to use it, this administration simply is not going to listen.
I can’t agree that Lugar’s public stance is meaningless. Coming from a fellow party member, and from someone who is recognized as the foremost Republican expert on foreign policy in the Senate, Lugar’s words have to sting in the White House. They position the party to drop Bush’s policy when Bush leaves presidency. I can understand his unwillingness to cast votes that could wreck his standing in the party and, I would guess, cost him his ranking position on the foreign affairs committee. It seems to me a judgment call as to whether voting against continuing the policy would be effective in producing a constructive change. Otherwise I just don’t get the impression that such a vote, which would be in effect resigning his positions in the party hierarchy, would have the effect that resignations from the cabinet used to have in the British system where they could bring down a government.
I can also understand a desire to see Bush humiliated. But pleasant as that might be would it really be good for the country? I don’t really intend that as a rhetorical question but as one to answered very carefully before urging Sen. Lugar to cast votes seemingly more in spirit with his words on Iraq. And it doesn’t all begin and end with Iraq. I am sure that the Senator believes that he does long and valuable service in dealing with Russia’s nuclear arsenal and that there remains work in that sphere for him. Would that be jeopardized by openly siding with the opposition on Iraq?
I found the Senator’s comments mild. The “surge” might (or might not) have worked four years ago but it can be seen to be to little to late if indeed it ever would have been timely. Right now all we seem to be accomplishing in Iraq is to have set the world’s foremost, open air, highly realistic, “terrorist” training school. Each change in strategy, usually well announced and debated here, is simply a new course in the syllabus.
There are good reasons for Lugar to avoid opposing the administration through actions with practical consequences. But, absent practical consequences, I don’t think this administration is going to alter its policies.
As I mentioned, years ago, Lugar criticized the administration’s plan for occupation or lack thereof. But, as far as I could tell, the administration didn’t listen to him, and he didn’t make them listen.
It’s nice that Sen. Lugar is smart enough to see what is going on in Iraq, but, at the end of the day, “so what?” He might as well be blogging.
Oh, and I think it would be good to see Bush humiliated. Obviously I’m biased. But, I think that in the long term it would be helpful if Bush and administration officials were exposed and ruined for their cynical approach to war. (Or at least thoroughly investigated as to whether their approach was, in fact, cynical.) It seems to me that the tool of war was used lightly and unnecessarily in the case of Iraq. There ought to be some fairly heavy consequences for that.
After Vietnam, it seems that a mythology was allowed to grow wherein the U.S.A. would have defeated the commies if it weren’t for the backstabbing of the hippies and liberals. The real lesson, among others, was stay the heck out of a brewing civil war in Asia.
The problem with a humiliated Bush is that he is still President, still our face to the world with the world knowing he is powerless. We are stuck with Bush for another year and a half unless he is impeached and convicted, and I sense absolutely no will to do that even on the part of most Democrats.
I rather wish we had votes of no confidence in our system.
I don’t support impeachment based on what I know or suspect so far. I think he compounded bad, self-serving policy with lies and/or misrepresentations. I don’t think this constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
If we can humiliate a President over a blowjob, we should be able to find the will to humiliate a President over his role in the worst foreign policy blunder in our lifetimes.
When deciding the proper course to take, “but it might humiliate the big guy with all the bad ideas” shouldn’t be a factor. He isn’t the country, and the country’s wellbeing comes first. If he wanted to be held in high regard, he shouldn’t have been such a collosal f-up. This is not a good man, this President of ours. He’s an exceedingly small man, petty, with no regard for policy other than if it will be pleasing to a small cadre of supporters. It would help our nation’s standing on the world stage if some of our legislators demonstrated that they are able to judge his character as poor and act accordingly. For everyone to stand around and pretend they don’t smell that he’s soiled his big-boy pants makes us look like fools to the world.
I don’t support impeachment either, which is why I prefer parliamentary systems of government which don’t mix the offices of head of state and head of government. When the executive/prime minister/head of government is a creature of the legislature he or she can be quickly disposed of before the stench of incompetence becomes unbearable, or at least government policy can be restrained by the cabinet. The lesson I draw from Bush is that having made the office of President of the United States (aka “Leader of the Free World”) larger than life, it is too large to be trusted to most men or women (particularly the current president).
I’d note that I didn’t write that Bush should never be taken down, just that one should be very sure of oneself before taking the step. Briefly in response to T, pointing to the Clinton episode is what I would term relying on bad “precedent”.
I wasn’t saying it was good precedent. I think the impeachment then–and lack of one now– is an accurate reflection of where we are as a nation. It’s an accurate reflection of what a small issue we’re willing to feel prolonged and deep outrage about, and what matters of great import–like thousands of needlessly dead soldiers–we’re willing to just go along and tolerate. It’s reflected also in things like people wondering if humiliating the president is a bad thing. If an observer–be it an average citizen or a member of congress–makes the obvious observation that our president has been an embarrassing failure, that embarrassment is born of the president’s own actions. And straining ourselves to consider whether said humiliation would be bad for the country or not is to consider whether facing reality is better than living in denial. The question is whether we should externally try to not note poor performance because that would diminish our president on the world stage to our detriment. I again suggest that we would be more hurt by appearing to hold a poor leader in high esteem, or by giving him passes when he does not deserve them.
I’m all for impeachment.
Of Dick Cheney.
Dubya doesn’t have what it takes to manage the second branch of government, which is why Cheney created a fourth.
With Cheney gone in disgrace, Papa Bush will have to swoop in to surround Dubya with more handlers (Condoleeza isn’t sufficient).
We’ll then end up with an administration as weak-willed and simpering as the first Bush presidency — which would be a welcome change of pace, actually.
Doug is correct in casting Lugar’s 6-25 speech in the context of his paradoxical statements in opposition to but continue votes for the president’s conduct of the war. I believe this reflects the reality in which our long-standing and well respected senator found himself on Iraq. By early 2003, the GOP was riding high on all fronts. Lugar naturally supported his party and the president to the greatest extent he could. When things started going south, Lugar, not a fool, promptly spoke up to distance himself from the delusions coming out of the White House, the Pentagon and the CPA in Baghdad. Lugar is not a maverick; he is a respected party elder. A Republican president has to sink pretty low to lose the Old Guard. And that is what is happening.
I concur with Doug that Lugar’s actions will speak louder than his words. But it is hard to understate the political importance to the Republican Party of Lugar’s break. He and John Warner have created a safe harbor for those in their party who seek a realistic approach to Iraq. By definition, this crew will now be opposed by conservative dead-enders. I bet this is the last thing Lugar wanted to invite. But look at where Lugar and the GOP find themselves today. The House GOP has zero power. The White House can do no more than order troops into battles deemed nondecisive by all observers. The Pentagon and State Department are working more closely with Democrats. Only in the Senate, by virtue of the 51-49 split, is there any power left in the GOP — and notice how it is being wielded by high ranking Republicans such as Lugar. Like Barry Goldwater amid Watergate, Lugar and Warner, in opposing their partisan president, are trying to lay the groundwork for a rebirth of GOP fortunes once Bush is gone.
Branden –
What articles of impeachment would you bring against Dick Cheney?
Parker,
Dennis Kucinich’s work for me.
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf