The Fraud Caucus Continued

Am I reading this right? John Warner thinks we should bring the troops home from Iraq but "said he still would not support Democratic legislation championed by [Carl] Levin that would call for Bush to bring troops home by a certain date."

Now Warner has surely noticed that George W. Bush favors an open-ended US military presence in Iraq, and, in fact, believes that we never should have withdrawn troops from Vietnam. And Warner favors, in his capacity as a member of the United States Senate, giving Bush a free hand to conduct Iraq policy as he sees fit. Thus, if Warner gets his way legislatively, as many American soldiers as the Pentagon can logistically manage will be in Iraq in January 2009. Between now and then hundreds will die, thousands will be seriously injured, and hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent. Warner, unlike 99.999 percent of the American population, is actually in a position to stop Bush from carrying out his plan to prolong the war. But he intends to let Bush do it.

Why on earth, if Warner really does think we need to withdraw troops, does he intend to do that?

Comments

Why on earth, if Warner really does think we need to withdraw troops, does he intend to do that?

If you read the full quote from Warner, he says he wants some troops withdrawn by Christmas as a symbolic demonstration that our commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. He probably thinks that if he proposed legislation to this effect, Dems would try to turn it into a measure to withdraw all troops by a date certain.

Posted by Fred | August 23, 2007 4:56 PM

i just assume his real views are one half of this contradiction and the other half is just pure pandering.

i don't care which half is which.

he's a dick either way

Posted by cleek | August 23, 2007 4:57 PM

Gutless Turd?

Seems a requirement to be a "respectable" Dem these days.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | August 23, 2007 5:00 PM

It's worth remembering that as weak and ineffectual as the Democrats seem to us, the Republicans are utter castrati by comparison. They've rubberstamped virtually everything this administration has asked of them since 2000 and they show no signs of changing.

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 5:03 PM

This is Vietnam-style, "peace with honor" b.s. You hold the line, wait for your opponents to make the hard decisions, and then blame them for anything that goes wrong. It's craven and irresponsible.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 23, 2007 5:16 PM

Fred's comment above is pretty funny.

So basically Warner really wants a symbolic gesture to show that the American presence is not open-ended, as opposed to some actual plan to make sure that the presence is not open-ended.

But he's too afraid of those dastardly Democrats, so he resorts to an even more symbolic gesture of talking about a symoblic gesture to show that the American presence will not be indefinite.

The Dems of course are the real villains in all this -- suggest something as weak as brining a few troops home, and they'll probably run with it and force real America to submit to a world government headed by Iran and Osama bin Laden and France.

With this unfortunate threat always hanging over our head, it's no wonder Republicans can't do anything sensible.

Posted by Barbar | August 23, 2007 5:44 PM

This is John Warner's idea of a withdrawal:

perhaps 5,000 of the 160,000 troops in Iraq

That puts us about 15,000 higher than we had at the start of the surge.

Posted by Jinchi | August 23, 2007 8:03 PM

Warner is the Saint Augustine of the Senate: "Give me chastity, but not quite yet."

He must still want to run again next year, but he's afraid of an anti-Iraq tsunami, even in Virginia. So like every other one of these frauds, especially those up for re-election next year, he wants credit for pretending to try to end the war while never ever crossing the base by actually doing anything about it.

That, or he's just begging God not to send him to hell.

Posted by spinozista | August 23, 2007 8:05 PM

Anyone catch Warner on PBS talking about his (non) proposal?

What a pompous dickhead, so typical of the A-holes in Congress. His "proposal": Bush should "consider" withdrawing 5,000 troops but it should be his call and Congress should not "interfere". Wow, that's tough love, isn't it?

It's nothing more than self promotion. The media, another group of dickheads, lapped it up as usual.

Posted by kafka | August 23, 2007 11:26 PM

Shorter Warner:We should start pulling out, but god damnit there's no way we're letting the Democrats get credit for it.

Posted by Karmakin | August 24, 2007 6:15 AM

Warner is a war veteran, former secretary of navy and very friendly to the military. His critics are a signal of the disaster that Iraq has transformed: he is worried about the troops, not Iraqis.

Posted by André Kenji | August 24, 2007 9:08 AM

I heard him on NPR saying he wanted 5000 troops withdrawn by Christmas. From What I've heard, we can't maintain the surge at current levels that long anyway. He's calling for nothing, or, I should say, he's talking about caling for nothing. He's a bit to cautious to come right out and call for it at this point.

Posted by Njorl | August 24, 2007 9:35 AM

Why on earth, if Warner really does think we need to withdraw troops, does he intend to do that?

Because unlike everyone else, Sen Warner is a very serious and important person in Washington. Even though Bush has rejected all other advice on the conduct of the war, he has no choice but to do as Sen Warner says, because he's very impotent . . oops I mean important

Posted by Fledermaus | August 24, 2007 11:50 AM