Dick Lugar (R-IN) just picked up his toys and went home:
Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush’s Iraq strategy was not working — and that the U.S. should downsize the military’s role.
[…] His position of not even waiting until the “surge” report due in September lines up with the recent editorial in the far more liberal Los Angeles Times. Few newspaper editorials have called for the start of a withdrawal. Polls have long shown that the public backs such a move by roughly 2 to 1, and that about 70% give President Bush a negative rating on his handling of the war.Lugar’s speech came as a surprise. Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush’s recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was 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.”
A wingnut’s wingnut, Lugar’s move provides massive political cover for other GOPers looking to jump ship while there’s still political mileage in it. I don’t know how many elected Republicans relish the idea of losing in 2008, but something tells me that the ridiculous public tide against them will sweep up a good number more before September.
Happy words aside, Dick Lugar could scribble his speech in a men’s room for all the practical good it will do. Unless Lugar has a veto-proof majority in his pocket, our present stalemate will go on at least into 2008. The Dems’ brilliant strategy of blinking first on the last supplemental pretty much guaranteed that. Lugar’s speech made clear that he has no plans to vote with the Dems, and Bush, as always, only listens to president Dick so I really have a hard time seeing what practical good these come-to-Jesus moments will do anybody.
Well, I do see one upshot. Lugar’s speech, which basically lays out the same pullout while keeping residual troops in Kuwait that “crazy” Jack Murtha proposed years ago, will inspire David Broder to wax lyrical about the hardheaded, realistic new thinking from Republicans.
***Update***
John Cole, who knows from Republicans better than I do, thinks that on international topics Lugar is less a wingnut’s wingnut and more Chuck Hagel in a dress. If so I stand corrected.
Zifnab
Dick Lugar, Arlen Specter, and the ghost of John McCain’s dignity can all join some sort of club. They can call it the “I oppose our President’s Policies, but don’t have the balls to vote against them” Club. And there can be cocktails and h’ore deviors, and they can invite David Broder and Chris Mathews and talk about how good Mitt Romney smells.
Then they can all go get in a pile and fuck themselves.
John Cole
Richard Lugar is not what many would consider a wingnut. He is widely regarded by many in the, well, wingnut community, as being a french loving peacenik who believes in international organizations.
ThymeZone
We said, on these pages last November, that this summer would be the point in time at which the Republican members would start putting distance between themselves and Bushwar.
Everything, and by that I mean everything, about congress is centered around counting votes. Lugar is taking the point here and the others are watching. We have reason to expect that the hole in the dike is going to get much bigger in the coming weeks.
If you strip away all the sophomoric frypan banging that goes in the blogs, what we are seeing is the predictable, expected and perfectly normal action of a political body (the GOP on the hill) under stress.
With the caveat that, of course, they are putting their political fortunes ahead of the interestes of the country. But all politicians do that, the Dems are doing exactly the same thing. Their reticence is entirely based on the knowledge that the Republicans have to crack, and they are content to stand back and let them crack in their own sweet time. It’s a game of political chicken now.
Well, with the troops being used as sacrifices to the god of chickenry, of course.
Zifnab
Yeah, him and Linsey Graham. That doesn’t really say all that much coming from wingnuts though.
Jake
Then fuck him. This isn’t an attempt to do anything other than go on record as opposing the surge. His speech is nothing more than a long-winded version of “Vote for me in the next election.” I suspect various quotes will wind up in campaign commercials.
Once a dick, always a dick.
Tax Analyst
Well, in the interest of trying to end this fucking dumb-ass, tragic war I’d say that any movement in that direction is somewhat positive, but I’d sure like to see Lugar and any others who might start to speak out “Walk the Talk” when it comes time to vote…otherwise it’s just like re-arranging broken deck chairs on the Titanic.
Punchy
So, instead of sodomizing sheep, he just plays grab-ass with 16-year olds.
Glad to see he’s not such a bad guy after all.
Tsulagi
Lugar is just being mavericky. It’s fashionable for today’s self-acknowledged “independent” Republicans. Just like strolls in Baghdad.
Bruce Moomaw
Given the speed with which the Congressional Democratic leadership folded COMPLETELY on the Iraq appropriation — instead of taking the obvious next fallback position by demanding that mandatory benchmarks be attached to the bill to replace that mandatory timetable (something that FIVE-SIXTHS of the total American people backed in a poll at the time, including 57% of Republicans) — I find myself wondering whether they didn’t really decide to execute a cold-bloodedly cynical strategy to make sure that the Iraq War is still stinking up the GOP by the time of the 2008 campaign, while detaching themselves from the impression that they had explicitly authorized its continuance. Cold-blooded cynicism or simple idiocy — lovely alternative explanations for their behavior.
Crza
Lugar’s my senator. He’s always been one of the more genuinely respected folks in DC from either side of the aisle when it comes to foreign policy (most articles I’ve ever read about him do draw strong comparisons between he and Chuck Hagel), but he’s pretty firmly right-wing otherwise.
And while he’s talked a decent talk about Iraq for years, he’s taken no meaningful action. Thus my reaction to this story is “thanks for more of the same, pal”.
ThymeZone
And why not? The GOP, under Rove, set out to make the war the centerpiece of a new permanent Republican majority and rule. To say that they failed would be a rather gross understatement. If I am a Dem in DC, I am saying, what goes around comes around. The war isn’t going to actually stop. So why not make sure that its effects here at home are as painful to the motherfuckers who gave it to us, as possible? It ain’t pretty, but it’s just. It’s deserved. It’s fair. And it’s good for the country, in it own ugly way. Anything that keeps these crazy fucking people another inch away from power for one more election cycle is good for this country. Yes, I think they are that bad.
grumpy realist
To quote a great philosopher:
“‘Stupidity’ is a good word, too.”
Pb
Think of the children? No, really. And thanks, WaPo, for reporting it…
mrmobi
Well said TZ.
Although I’m still disappointed in the new Democratic majority, at least we have the beginnings of some oversight now. I’d like to believe that this isn’t just a cynical calculation, but let’s remember here that any bold action by Democrats on Iraq will be met with withering invective and dirty tricks (possibly including violence) by Rove & Co., and by the full complement of his MSM accomplices. There is no underestimating the power the administration has in its’ accomplices in the media.
So, can I blame Democrats for not stepping out on that limb and sawing it off? No.
If it is a cynical strategy, I hope they are good enough to turn it into a Democractic President, a larger majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Time to try one party rule by the party that isn’t completely fucking insane.
ThymeZone
Heartbreaking story. Something to remember the next time you hear the lying cocksucker potatoheads telling you we are seeing progress in Iraq.
Zifnab
Bullshit. If there’s one thing about dirty tricks, its that people warm to them over time. By all means, let the smearing fly. The more Hannity screams “traitor!” while O’Reily accuses Pelosi of converting to Islam and David Broder pooh-poohs Democrats for not getting along with their civil Republican neighbors, the more people get sick of it all.
The Dems caved because a large DINO population held to the goofy notion that if they didn’t, they’d pay for it with a conservative backlash in ’08. “Moderate” Dems are horrified of ‘Pub dirty tricks to the point that they can’t cast a vote against the war without wetting themselves. This isn’t cunning or shewdness, this is rank cowardice.
ThymeZone
Nice rant, but I’d be surprised if you can supply a single data point to support these assertions.
It looks to me like you are just arranging the story to fit your outrage.
Almost all modern American national politics is grounded in shrewd use of theater and managed tableauxs. Whether these always work or not ….. problematic. But that’s what’s going on. I don’t see how this kind of rant serves any purpose.
Unless I am missing something, your speech is based on the idea that if you were somebody else, and had power, and could influence events, you’d do something different.
I think we all indulge these kinds of thoughts, it’s called “singing in the shower.” But in reality, we are who we are, we don’t have power, and we aren’t going to do anything. So it does no good to make up that fantasy and then yell at the real world for not acting it out for you.
Do you think? I’m just saying. No answer is necessary.
Rome Again
Zif, the numbers aren’t there. If we had a larger majority, I’d agree with you, but, we don’t.
mrmobi
Well, I don’t agree.
The fact is, despite poor ratings, none of the major networks, cable or otherwise, seems ready to dump O’Reilly, or Hannity, or even Glenn Beck, whose ratings have tanked completely. Why do you suppose that is?
Also, did you notice that Tweety is having Ann Coulter (who has just recovered from her sex change operation, an Addadicktome) on his show. Ann Coulter, for fucks’ sake!
If we had the same press that we had during Watergate at present, this president and vice president and attorney general would have been impeached six months ago. We don’t.
Also, good luck with electing that new class of politician who always does the right thing, regardless of political cost.
ThymeZone
We call them “Naderites.”
Jake
They had better pull some fucking awesome benefits for the vets out of their arses. That is the only problem with this being a cunning plan. People are getting killed and maimed. Remember the movie Johnny got his gun?
If this is a political game, someone needs to be kicked in the balls. If this is a case of too many chickenshits, a kick in the balls is still required.
OT: Did anyone catch the piece on Tammy Duckworth (I think it was Anderson Cooper) last night? Now her husband’s been deployed. Call me an unwashed hippy but I think soldiers with permanently disabled spouses should be allowed to stay home.
ThymeZone
You, sir, are an unwashed hippie!
mrmobi
Yeah, Jake. I agree. Or, there should be a special provision whereby, when the spouse of an active duty soldier is permanently disabled, a replacement for that active duty soldier is picked from the family of the Vice President. If there is no eligible family member, the Vice President serves.
If the Vice President is unable to serve, he gets kicked in the balls, and the process starts again with the family of the President.
I was a very well groomed hippie, myself.
LITBMueller
Hey, Republicans never seem to let a lack of numbers…or common sense…stop them from taking action, so why should Dems?
Examples:
Bush: “What, ony 28% support me? Send more troops!”
Frist: “I know that doctors who have physically examined Terri Schiavo say she’s brain dead, but I just watched a video, and…she’s alive!!! Call the Congress back for a vote! Send SWAT in to rescue her!”
Rome Again
Because they are not living in a true reality and the longer they keep up this charade the harder they’re going to fall? I’d rather not throw stones at glass houses if you don’t mind. I’d like to stick with reality, facts and the knowledge that all this is going to eventually blow up in their faces. We cannot walk into that make-believe world, sorry.
Lynn Lightfoot
to ThymeZone at 4:34pm yesterday:
It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that Tammy Duckworth’s husband was deployed at the behest of Karl Rove or one of his Roveclones. No more than she deserves for opposing the war and running against a Republican!
Zifnab
The numbers aren’t there to override a veto. Well… no duh. But in the Iraq War Supplemental, Bush didn’t have the option to veto only the timetables and still get the money. He had to have a willing and complacent Congress – people willing to chant “If you’re not for the money, you’re not for the troops” – while writing up a bill that would garantee another thousand dead by ’09. A united Dem majority could have kept handing Bush limited funding bills or they could have nodded sagely and said, “I see you don’t want the money,” then immediately moved the Reid-Feingold or McGovern bills to the floor. Senators who refused to vote for troop funding, then refused to vote for troop withdrawl, could easily have been pillaried for their hubris.
But you can’t pull a manuever like that without the support of all 50 Dems + one or two Republican defectors. And that’s not even mentioning the House. DeLay pulled strongarm tactics to railroad through bully-bills all the time back in ’02 and ’03. With a united front, Dems could have done the same.