Cheap Talk

With regard to the Dick Lugar question discussed below, the AP's coverage of his speech clarifies that Senator Lugar doesn't intend to do anything about his qualms with Bush's Iraq policy:

"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." . . .

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.

Bush can at least say that he's implementing a massively wrongheaded Iraq policy, leading to untold deaths and the trashing of American interests, because he doesn't know any better -- Lugar's doing it because, what, it would be impolite to do otherwise? Because he's just a bad person and doesn't give a damn? This stuff makes me angry.

Comments

Lugar appears to be playing 'Commentator' rather than 'Senator'. Maybe he needs to be briefed on his responsibilities.

Posted by MattF | June 26, 2007 9:33 AM

Indeed, Lugar is acting much like our dear friend Specter--talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk, slither away whistling.

Politicians with backbone, please.

Posted by terraformer | June 26, 2007 9:34 AM

i've noted before that young people like matthew are going to find out just why it is that some elements of the new left went insane in the face of the stubborness about withdrawing from vietnam....

Posted by howard | June 26, 2007 10:15 AM

This is the new GOP formula, talk against the Iraq Debacle but vote for it anyway.

Actually, it is also the Dem formula.

Posted by Armando | June 26, 2007 10:28 AM

Lugar is a Midwestern Specter. Talks reasonably, but consistently disappoints when the chips are down. Specter has to do it ot survive in PA, not sure why Lugar goes through the charade.

As I mentioned before, his chairmanship of the SFRC was pretty limp-wristed, particularly when some temerity might have had an (ever so slight) impact. But, you know..."oversight is overrated" was the MO back then.

To tell you the truth, I think Lugar's reasonableness was always a bit of fortune smiling on him, given his GOP predecessor as SFRC chair (Helms). Anyone looks reasonable compared to him.

Posted by bleh | June 26, 2007 10:28 AM

Lugar is a Midwestern Specter. Talks reasonably, but consistently disappoints when the chips are down.

it reminds me of Lugar's "the President deserves his choice" rhetoric -- as if the Senate had no role to, you know, advise and consent -- during the nomination of John Bolton. Lugar's support may have been halfhearted, but that it existed at all was shameful.

As to Lugar's speech, given that he weas voting in lockstep with the GOP a scant couple of weeks ago against any attempt for Congress to check Bush's failed policy, I say: Big deal.

Posted by Gregory | June 26, 2007 12:05 PM

"because, what, it would be impolite to do otherwise? Because he's just a bad person and doesn't give a damn?"

Because, just possibly, while he considers Bush's policy to be a bad path to go down, he thinks the Democrats are proposing a worse path?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 26, 2007 12:17 PM

Shorter Lugar: "Wow, this plan sucks ass. Ass, ass, ass. (pause) But we have to keep doing it."

Posted by Chris | June 26, 2007 12:21 PM

Actually, it is also the Dem formula.

Damn right it is. Thanks for pointing that out, Armando.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | June 26, 2007 12:22 PM

What happened to the Richard Lugar of old, the one who seemed so sincere and powerful? This new guy is so timid.

Posted by ChuckT | June 26, 2007 12:57 PM

The sad thing is that when the Repugs finally come over and declare it time to get out they will be lauded by the MSM as mavericks.

Dems who have had this position for the last couple of years, on the other hand, are treated like left-wing nutjobs or as pols just reiterating old hat on the war.

Basically, there is much more to be gained from an anti-war Republican than an anti-war Dem. Fortunately, the Repugs are too chickenshit to capitalize on America's disenchantment with Bush's War. If a mainstream conservative were to say basically what Buchanan has said previously, they could easily garner support from Republicans who have soured on Bush.

Posted by Andrew Bradley | June 26, 2007 3:15 PM

"Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term." . . .

"Vital interest must have the same meaning as "interest in the region" and our "economic interest" all of which could be summed up in one little word: OIL

I guess Dick Lugar must have gotten his hot line phone call direct from boss and Godfather Dick Cheney.

However, I am hoping that as election time looms closer, and Cheney gets closer to being out-of-office and thus, out-of-power, the more the nation's ever nasty VP is going to seem like a no-win situation to many GOP members of congress, who will face the choice of either being blacklisted or losing an election. Not that it matters to independents or Dems, because many of us, like myself will NEVER vote for anyone bearing the label Republican EVER AGAIN, not after this ugly, completely corrupt administration.

Posted by Me_again | June 26, 2007 3:30 PM

A political cartoon from the Vietnam era: in multiple panels a U.S. Senator intones,

"I oppose this war!"

"I speak against this war on the floor of the Senate."

"I speak against this war whereever I go."

(a questioner from out of frame): "Why don't you vote to bring the troops home?"

(the senator replies with shock): "I can't do that! My God, man, there's a war going on!"

Posted by dzman49 | June 27, 2007 4:13 PM