UPDATE: Sen. Warner Calls for Token Drawdown by Xmas
By: The Grey Havens
Published On: 8/23/2007 3:52:25 PM
UPDATE: While the traditional media is giving this an amazing amount of play, there's clearly no sign that Warner will vote in any way to curtail the President's powers, support Democrats in Congress or work to end the occupation of Iraq. The reality here is that John Warner is offering more talk in the face of a failed occupation that America no longer supports.
Why can't Republicans accept victory? We won the war when major combat operations ended. "Mission Accomplished" was right. We won, Saddam is dead. Now all we're doing is sacrificing American lives and investing in the expansion of Al Qaeda in order to protect the legacy of the worst President in American history. We won. Let's fight the rest of the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban with two victories under our belts and maybe a tad less stupid in the mix.
Via CNN
Senator John Warner (R-VA) just called for a large-scale token drawdown of Iraqi troop strength by Christmas of this year.
Leading Senate Republican calls for Iraq pullout to start
WASHINGTON (CNN) - One of the Senate's top Republicans has called on President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by Christmas, telling reporters Thursday that a pullout was needed to spur Iraqi leaders to action.
dday at DailyKos has the quote from Warner:
"In my humble judgment, that would get everyone's attention the attention that is not being paid at this time," said Warner. Warner said the president and other leading Bush administration officials have repeatedly said the American commitment to Iraq was not open-ended.
"The time has come to put some meaningful teeth into those comments -- to back them up with some clear, decisive action," Warner added.
dday's analysis is right on the money:
It's unclear how large a pullout this would be, or just a symbolic one. It's unclear whether there's any kind of end date for the complete removal of combat troops here, or not. It's unclear whether this move by Warner would change anything on the ground in Iraq or help get our troops out of harm's way and end the occupation of Iraq.
But politically speaking, this is huge. It changes the narrative from "Dems in disarray, forced to acknowledge progress" to "GOP in disarray, some leaders calling for pullout." The NIE was the impetus for this, I believe. Suddenly, everyone will be asking GOP Senators and Congressmen whether or not they agree with Sen. Warner.
I think this is a big step toward the end of the occupation.
Warner is only calling for maybe 5,000 troops out of Iraq by Christmas, but the media is hyping it as a MAJOR REPUBLICAN DEFECTION.
More from CNN, ABC, and Think Progress (with video).
The Daily Press was expecting the announcement:
The Republican centrist, who spent two days in Iraq last week, offered a gloomy assessment of the war in a written statement, saying he was ``not optimistic" that the Iraqi government could reach a political settlement to end the conflict. But he has declined interview requests.
Warner planned to meet with White House officials this morning before speaking publicly about the war at an afternoon press conference at the Capitol.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, accompanied Warner on the trip and called for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Levin described al-Maliki's government as ``nonfunctional."
Comments
Good ! (norman swingvoter - 8/23/2007 4:12:46 PM)
Remember bush started this surge to give the Iraqi government time to come together and it announced it was going on vacation for 2 months. That told me a lot about what sense of urgency the government has. I think that something like Warner's idea is the only hope to get these people moving.
You (leftofcenter - 8/23/2007 4:21:43 PM)
know we've heard this before from him and then when it comes time to actually VOTE he stands with Bush. All bluster. What a bunch of political bull.
Of course... (The Grey Havens - 8/23/2007 4:38:34 PM)
Warner is a loyal Bushie, regardless of his talk, but in this case, it's the talk that matters. This really does change the discussion.
Republicans are in disarray...
He'll never vote against the president, but simply thinking for himself makes him the mortal enemy of the remaining Bush Republicans.
COME ON (Gordie - 8/23/2007 10:42:14 PM)
Warner is a talker. That is all he has ever been and all he will ever be and talk does not get the job done. He is a blow hard, from the word GO.
I knew this was going to happen since June '06 when Warner (beachmom - 8/23/2007 4:44:31 PM)
asked Kerry for a colliquy on the Senate floor to debate the Kerry/Feingold amendment -- timetable for withdrawal. If Warner hadn't thought there was merit to that plan, he never would have debated Kerry in such a thoughtful way.
E... no offense (The Grey Havens - 8/23/2007 5:09:19 PM)
but you may need to diversify your hobby portfolio.
That's way too much concentrated wonk for one person.
I kid because I love :-*
Did you watch the colliquy I spoke of? (beachmom - 8/23/2007 6:11:30 PM)
It was stunning. It was June 2006. It was obvious that Warner did not want this war, but was cautious on changing course. It got at what his thinking was even back then. At the time he said we needed to give the government more time. Obviously, today he felt that time was up.
Warner Thinks Time is Up (Gordie - 8/24/2007 11:41:03 AM)
Lets see in May '07, he helped pass a bill that gave the troop surge till Sept. Then in July '07 He spoke against the war, but lets give the troop surge to Sept.
Now it is August and he is saying lets give the troop surge till Christmas.
Come Christmas he will say give the troop surge till May.
When the military is broken, Warner will be saying in May '08, lets give the troop surge till Sept. '08.
It never ends with this guy, he is an absolute liar. He may even beat Bush and that is hard to do.
John, please call Tom. (jsrutstein - 8/23/2007 5:19:03 PM)
If john Warner wants to be taken seriously, he needs to offer to take a leadership role in getting the critical number of Republican Senators to join the virtually unanimous Dem Senators in demonstrating to Bush that if he doesn't lead, the Congress will. And because it takes two chambers, and because Warner won't be able to convince other Republicans to fall in line unless he can sway his nearest and dearest, I think Warner's next best step is to appear publicly with Tom Davis and have Davis say he completely agrees with Warner.
John Warner's Media Blitz (jsrutstein - 8/23/2007 6:40:14 PM)
I just watched John Warner interviewed by Judy Woodruff on tonight's Newshour (it'll reair on WETA ch. 26 at 7pm). You all can make up your own mind, but I have no idea how serious Warner will be come voting time this fall, assuming Bush doesn't just meet or beat Warner's proposal for a mini-withdrawal by this Xmas. Warner says he felt compelled to make his proposal first privately to the White House and now publicly because of his own knowledge from his recent trip to Iraq and the assessment in the NIE released today. Warner says Bush ought to take up Warner's proposal, but if he doesn't it's up to Bush, not Congress, to decide what to do next, if anything, in Iraq. Warner pledged to continue to vote against Congressionally mandated timetables for withdrawal. I simply can't see how Warner can sustain this posture in the face of almost certain Bush rejection of any mini-withdrawal any time soon. We're almost certain to hear from Bush and Petraeus that reality will force some withdrawal by next spring, but not because they'll admit the surge hasn't worked, nor because Iraq has achieved some ability to defend itself, but because we just don't have the ability to sustain the surge that long. One would think, too, that politically the GOP will find some way to force Bush to stage emotional homecomings throughout next year's election year. Getting back to Warner, though, I still think if he's serious today will prove to have been step one in a much bigger break with Bush. Warner thinks Bush's prior statements about our commitment not being open-ended will not be believed absent actual withdrawal no matter how minor and symbolic. Ultimately, unless the Congress really does cut off funding (yeah right), only Bush can get us off this horrible course of a practically permanently large military presence in the middle east that would only make more likely an expansion of the war, probably starting with Iran.
Thanks for Heads Up on News Hour Tonight (FMArouet - 8/23/2007 7:09:02 PM)
While this news from Senator Warner is good, your analysis seems sound.
Warner may have more grace and dignity than, for example, Senator Arlen Specter, but it is hard to imagine that Warner, any more than the hapless and totally predictable Specter, would defy the Bush/Cheney White House when push comes to shove and his vote is on the line.
Unless events on the ground in Iraq--and MSM reporting on those events--change substantially for the worse in the next two weeks, we can probably expect more of the "same old": general Republican solidarity, with a few endangered incumbents offering token rhetorical doubts. A few, such as Senator Hagel and Representatives Walter Jones and Ron Paul, will express more principled opposition. Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Hoyer will count heads. Senator Reid will insist that he is really upset. And the Blue Dogs will cave again. The "Surge" will proceed with more time and more money.
As Atrios points out, there is also a rising X percent chance that Maliki will be replaced in coming weeks as the Iraqi Prime Minister. Then of course the Administration argument will be that the new government must be given Y amount of time (another six month F.U.?--perhaps two F.U.'s?) to establish itself.
Bottom Line: Warner Signalled that he will Cave (FMArouet - 8/23/2007 9:27:31 PM)
As Sen. Warner said during his interview on
News Hour tonight: "It's up to you, Mr. President, in consultation with your commanders."
Warner also noted that he had voted against timetables for withdrawal of troops and would continue to vote against them.
Warner's suggestion that Bush consider a withdrawal of 5,000 troops by December is perhaps better than just another mute and robotic salute, but it does not bring any real pressure to bear on the Bush/Cheney White House.
Speaker Pelosi, where are you?
Are there any sentient adults left in Washington?
This war needs to be defunded before these neocon maniacs start another one with Iran .
Read Digby's post about John "Tectonic Shift" Warner (beachmom - 8/23/2007 10:33:13 PM)
http://digbysblog.bl...
Digby, unfortunately, tends to be right about everything.
Quote:
So, here's how I see the narrative: The surge is working so well that we can bring home 5,000 troops to fight the war on Christmas. But we mustn't set forth any timetables beyond that because things are really starting to move politically over there. Haven't you heard? Everybody's saying that the Prime Minister is on the rocks. That signals political change --- just what we've been waiting for! Hallalujah. All we need to do is hang on just a bit longer to see how that all pans out. (And those troops coming home for Christmas amidst a media blitz not seen since 9/11 no doubt will make the Iraqis believe we are really serious about leaving. Neat huh?)
And then once Maliki is gone, the new PM will need more time, of course, to set in motion his new pony plan. I'd say it's bound to take at least until January 2009.
Digby, Atrios, Kagro X, Hunter, BarbinMD, McJoan, Josh Marshall, Paul Kiel... (FMArouet - 8/23/2007 11:33:32 PM)
Glenn Greenwald, Scott Ritter, Robert Parry, Seymour Hersh...at least we have a few reliable observers--mainly on the web--who almost always seem to be able to see past the fluff and spin to get it right.
As for the MSM, except for Keith Olbermann, Frank Rich, and Paul Krugman, I have just about given up. Pravda on the Potomac, formerly known as the Washington Post, is becoming more credulous and less credible by the week. Fred Hiatt's editorial policy is an embarrassment. The NYT uses Michael Gordon as a transcribing medium in the same way that it formerly used Judith Miller to disguise the neocon agenda as "hard reporting."
Oh yeah, I forgot about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the most sensible ways to view the daily news. The "fake news" programs are now more insightful than the "real news" programs.
Thanks for that info, jsrutstein (beachmom - 8/23/2007 10:26:08 PM)
I don't think this news is as good as it appeared at first. 5,000 troops home at Christmas? That's not a real withdrawal. And he said no to the timetable. And that Bush can ignore even that. I think we all need to get on the horn and urge him to move more than this, and vote for the Democratic plan.
You Are Both Right (norman swingvoter - 8/24/2007 12:01:09 PM)
I saw part of the interview on late night. Warner was backtracking so much, I don't know why he even called for a withdrawal except to make a headline. I totally agree that bush will never be willing to bring our troops home.
5,000 troops is NOT a "large-scale drawdown" (Lowell - 8/23/2007 11:02:25 PM)
So far, I don't see anything here except the usual misdirection from Republican politicians and the usual media credulity and cluelessness.
Warner's warning (Rebecca - 8/23/2007 11:07:24 PM)
Warner is warning Bush with this. He is basically telling Bush that Iraq is a mess. Bush won't get it because the reality in Bush's head trumps the one before his eyes. Besides the neo-cons think it worth the "sacrifice" of lives to achieve their (the neo-cons') goals.
Warner gives away the game plan (David Campbell - 8/24/2007 1:46:28 PM)
Warner will announce his retirement next month anyway, but he is telegraphing the Republican's secret plan to win reelection: After the September report (written by the White House), Bush will announce a withdrawal (maybe just the 5,000 suggested by Warner, maybe the whole 30,000 "surge," but still retaining more than 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely) and begin implementing it just before the election. Democrats will run in favor of withdrawal. Republicans will protest "but we are withdrawing!" The more the issue is muddled, the more it helps Republicans.
Yup. Believe you nailed it. (FMArouet - 8/24/2007 2:06:32 PM)
Now we can watch for:
(1) The impact of events on the ground in Iraq.
(2) The MSM's reporting of those events.
(3) The Democrats' response and degree of cohesion or disarray.
(4) The timing and consequences, both predictable and unintended, of Cheney's desired attack on Iran.
I think this is also about Tom Davis (The Grey Havens - 8/24/2007 10:14:29 PM)
Warner has all but anointed Tom Davis his heir.
The very day Warner breaks with Bush, Tom Davis willingly runs the spankin' line with Anti-War Dems.
They've seen the numbers, they need to give Tom Davis anti-war cred to win the anti-war I's and R's as well as NOVA Dems away from Mark Warner.
I think we've read the tea leaves. What's the response?