Lugar: Plans To End The War Are ‘Very Partisan,’ ‘Will Not Work’
Lugar: Plans To End The War Are ‘Very Partisan,’ ‘Will Not Work’
Earlier this week, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) delivered a major speech on the Senate floor calling “victory” in Iraq, as defined by President Bush, “almost impossible.” Abandoning his unyielding public support for the war, he called on the President to downsize the U.S. military presence in Iraq in order to “strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities.”
Unfortunately, Lugar has no intention of acting on his rhetoric. Speaking this morning with NBC’s Matt Lauer, Lugar said that Congressional measures aimed at curtailing U.S. military involvement in Iraq, including “so-called timetables, benchmarks,” have “no particular legal consequence,” are “very partisan,” and “will not work.”
Watch it:
While Lugar now decries legislative solutions to Iraq as “partisan” and of no “legal consequence,” Lugar himself voted in favor of cutting funds and setting a timetable for redeployment of U.S. forces out of Somalia in 1993.
Also, several prominent members of Lugar’s own party have already expressed support for a legislative solution in Iraq. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) said, “I think that many of us are going to look at legislation that will limit the number of troops” and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) called the administration’s September reporting date “too long to wait to revise U.S. war policy.”
Transcript:
LUGAR: … [S]ince the Baathists were knocked out along with Saddam, much of Iraq has been governed by small militia in various towns and villages — no law and order. There is no general law and order. That is, constituent services are not given by the Iraqi government. The oil is frequently siphoned off and stolen.This is all occurring now. It has been occurring for a long while.
But whatever the plan is, it does not really pertain to a free, democratic, governable Iraq. So what I’m suggesting is we had better get into a position where our troops are safer, where, through diplomacy with the surrounding countries as well as the Iraqis, we are patiently, over the course of time, going to try to work our way to a better Iraq, but at the same time maintain a reasonably stable Middle East.
LAUER: But, Senator, Democrats are going to put forth some amendments over the next couple of months to try to force votes on anti-war amendments: namely setting timetables for troop withdrawals and even to possibly rescind the 2002 Congress authorization to go to war.
You said you won’t vote in favor of those things. Why not back up your words with a vote?
LUGAR: Well, those particular resolutions do not have great effect. The president of the United States, as commander in chief, still is in charge of our armed forces. And a huge majority of the Senate are not going to vote to take money away from our troops, so that they can at least defend themselves in the midst of all this. Therefore, the resolutions usually deal with so-called timetables, benchmarks which have no particular legal consequence. They may be a venting of emotion.
There may be resolutions or plans that the Congress could adopt that have some effect on this. But my plea is to the president — not to the members of Congress, to the president — to come forward with a plan now that gives us a chance of a bipartisan conclusion. All the rest of the conclusions are very partisan, and I think will not work.
LAUER: Senator Richard Lugar, at the Capitol this morning.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
53 Responses to “Lugar: Plans To End The War Are ‘Very Partisan,’ ‘Will Not Work’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just as long as we make profits we will be there. Got it? Thank you. Now, go shopping and drinking margaritas with those little, colorful umbrellas.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pm"While Lugar now decries legislative solutions to Iraq as “partisan†and of no “legal consequence,†Lugar himself voted in favor of cutting funds and setting a timetable for redeployment of U.S. forces out of Somalia in 1993."
So he was FOR timetables before he was AGAINST them? Classic.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmDick Lugar. Sounds like a gay pornstar.
-GSD
June 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pmSo what was the point of what Lugar said? Really, an appeal to the President? Why didn't anyone think of this earlier?????
June 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pmWow, talk about flipping. That was the quickest flip I have ever seen. I guess that Lugar's "going to the woodshed" visit to the White House had the desired effect.
Hopefully Lugar's constituents will show him the way in 2008!
June 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pmCold water works best for removing blood.
No shortage of the water, you have been carrying it for YEARS!
You see America there is a lesson to be learned when you enable, support and excuse a Dry Drunk AWOL Male Cheerleader who takes his directives from a 5 defferement maggot.
BTW, Any other President lose two wars simultaneously?
June 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pmWonder how much that invite to the WH changed his tune. Hunting invitations with Cheney has that effect on people.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pmI knew it.
F*ck off, Lugar.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pm"LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TROOPS"
Much much different then the idea the libs have. The lefties want to declare victory for the terrorists, then turn tail and go home completely. I agree that we should limit the number of troops in Iraq, but we can't stop fighting completely in the middle of the war on terror. That would be deadly for Americans.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pmso it's all grandstanding - what a surprise! these politicians never cease to amaze me. Even when they get on the right track - it turns out that they're just pandering for a headline...
The time to end this war is now, then we need a complete about-face in our foreign policy of war and aggression.
Some reading:
"A Foreign Policy for America"
June 27th, 2007 at 5:58 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/a_foreign_policy_for_america
Roger_Roger,
Your a loser!
"The lefties want to declare victory for the terrorists, then turn tail and go home completely." - Name one 'leftie' that has said they want to declare victory for the terrorists.
"I agree that we should limit the number of troops in Iraq" So you weren't behind the surge? I doubt that.
"but we can’t stop fighting completely in the middle of the war on terror."
We are losing that war (a war which must be fought on the level of hearts and minds) because theis President is occupying foreign nations and creating new wells of fundamentalists.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pmThis is exactly what Thom Hartman predicted.... end the US led invasion/massacre now occupation to rally support with the Republicans in time for election '08. To manipulate events for political support, as this has been done since Aug '01 with Bush and his WMD babble, is nothing but murderous.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pmthat aint what he was moanin' in the cabana!!!
June 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pmRR,
"The lefties want to declare victory for the terrorists"
Oh, give that shit a rest.
The Republic666ans that launched this war, check that, these wars have assured victory for these thugs. It's called incompetence. Rumsfled, Cheney, and their ilk said we'd be out in six months, these are the architect's that have assured victory to the enemy, just to line their own pockets. Don't lay this at the feet of "Libs".
Next talking point.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pmPerhaps you would go to Iraq and peddle your drivel to soldiers you are condemning to death? what about it tough guy? you are useless in congress, might as well do something to back up your killer instincts. I think the troops would frag him.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pmwonder how many officers are being fragged in Iraq now? we haven't heard of any since the guy did it in Kuwait have we? that would be bad news for the public. do you think they eliminated that kind of reporting from the news from Iraq? darn it, forgot. we don't get news from Iraq.
Limiting the number of troops is a complete waste of time. There is only one sure way to win this war and it's been there since the beginning, 400,000 - 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. We're losing the PR war in Iraq and that's due to every poor soul over there feeling like they're going to get gunned down on their way to drop their kid off at school. All that being said, since nobody will support that massive increase in troops, we need to get the heck out of there. Bush messed up the beginning of this war and is trying to pin it's failure on the "If we pull out we give victory to the Terrorists" Democrats. Suck it up, this was has been lost for two years. The same reason Isreal appeared to lose it's war last year is the same reason we've already lost this war, the terrorists are playing for a stalemate while anything but a complete and total victory is a failure for us. We've already crossed the "losers" bridge folks by not obliterating them from the beginning.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:10 pmBTW, Any other President lose two wars simultaneously?
Comment by Heterodoxy
OUCH!
Stangely, I hadn't considered that. And the answer is NO.
WOW.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pmand I forgot, Lugar is an idiot.
http://beforeyougopostal.com/
June 27th, 2007 at 6:13 pmMore blackmailing of the Congress.
How does one change one's tune, within one day, without being totalling bribed, or blackmailed?
The right is SO DIRTY, I wouldn't put anything past them.
Why else could all the great civil rights leaders and spokespeople from the 60's be murdered? The mind of a conservative is NEVER to be trusted, especially when said person is in a position of power.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pmI think the troops would frag him
Comment by oldtree
I have seen that word frag used so many times by veterans of Iraq. I was very surprized when I found out what it meant. But I understand the anger.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pmGeorge W. Bush is losing two simultaneous wars against 5th rate military powers by mismanging the most powerful and well funded military in the world.
All to the cheers of his supporters.
Remind to never call these Bushie clowns for back-up.
-GSD
June 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pmYou all are so desperate for a "savior" that you'll follow any Johnny-on-the-spot who says something that tingles your toes.
And then you boohoo about how you were fooled.
And then you immediately jump on the band wagon of the next shyster.
Rinse and repeat.
Karl Rove isn't a genius, he just knows how easy it is to manipulate fools. And many here are all too willing to accommodate.
Progressive indeed.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:20 pmLugar , just like Senator Specter and company..they all talk good to the media,but will not give you the Vote you need.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:20 pmShow 'em evidence, FED the Fcuk Up!
June 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pmLet 'em have it!
Show 'em the copied of copies of checks!
Don't hold back! Bust it wide open.
Truth be told Bush has lost two wars to people in "flip-flops" Now that is poetic irony.
How do you like your Boy King now?
June 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pmI predicted it here.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pmWhat? Did Cheney call him? Was he told to get back in the fold?
This flip flop occurred in 24 hours.
Typical repugnic behavior -- say one thing, let people think you may be reasonable, then take it all back.
Like Lucy with the football - and the public is Charlie Brown.
These two-faced repugs make me sick.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pmi heard he was summoned to the w.h. this afternoon...
June 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pmwonder came of that meeting...
will he came completely? ...
wouldn't you think roger_roger would be tired of typing the same old tripe day in and day out?
June 27th, 2007 at 6:33 pmHe must have it on a one-key macro in his computer.
So then Lugar just pulled an Arlen Specter?
Talk big, vote NeoCon.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:34 pmCheney: Mr. Lugar, about your recent Senate speech. I would like you to meet Agent Bauer. Place your nuts in the vice please.
-GSD
June 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pmso assuming he is serious about his critique and not just trying to get on the TeeVee (which is doubtful)...WHAT'S HIS SOLUTION?
Limit the number of troops and then they will magically not be killed any more by insurgents? Let the president decide when to withdraw (aka never)? He should at least get behind Murtha's plan that would ensure those who are in Iraq are properly trained, equipped, and rested.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:51 pmProgressive indeed.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 27, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, this clown is not a liberal. He is a right wing troll, trying to sow dissent in the ranks, and divert from whatever the left wing gets behind.
FYI
:|
June 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pmHey its cool Loogy spoke up, but I already told you it won't make a difference.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pmCan anyone that voted for Dead Beat George ,tell me what have we gained from going to war with Iraq? Be truthfull.Thanks!
June 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pmYeah Spudge, I think he pulled an Arlen Specter. Phil Specter's brother.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:31 pmCan anyone that voted for Dead Beat George ,tell me what have we gained from going to war with Iraq? Be truthfull.Thanks!
Comment by Bruce from Texas — June 27, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Medical and recovery services for tens of thousands of wounded vets? Hundreds of millions of dollars.
War with Iraq. 700 Billion Dollars and counting.
The enmity of the entire world..... Priceless.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:21 pmNow, now ... is this loser changing his tune AFTER meeting with the White House?
They are all TRAITORS to Democracy.
Get rid of all GOP representatives in 2008!
June 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm. Might this be considered a VERY special interest issue?
Comment by Mycelium — June 27, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Yes. A VERY special interest issue.
That issue? The security of the United States of America.
We have discharged close to 100 language experts from the Pentagons DLI, and other areas, who speak Farci and other arabic languages so desperately needed right now.
These men are highly trained and highly specialized, so yes, it is a special interest issue.
You bet it is.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:09 pmNational security experts have identified the shortage of Arabic linguists as contributing to the government's failure to predict the September 11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission Report's assessment of the nation's preparedness for those and future strikes indicated that the government "lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in a significant backlog of untranslated intercepts." A 2002 General Accounting Office study concluded
that staff shortages in Arabic and Farsi "adversely affected agency operations and compromised U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism and diplomatic efforts." And an October 2001 House Intelligence Committee report found that "thousands of pieces of data are never analyzed, or are analyzed 'after the fact' because there are too few analysts, even fewer with the necessary language skills."
Nevertheless, the available data now confirm that, in addition to those fired before September 11, the military has continued to discharge gay language specialists despite the ongoing shortage. In total, according to Pentagon data, there were at least 73 people discharged from DLI for homosexuality between 1998 and 2003. At least 37 of these discharges took place after the September 11 attacks
From the New Republic
June 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pmSorry TP. Posted these in the wrong thread. Feel free to delete them.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pmI think there need to be some partisan fisticuffs on the floor of the house and senate. It seems to be the only thing some of these asses understand. Truth, honesty, integrity... don't look like they mean anything anymore.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:38 pmLOL Karl Rove showed the pics of Lugar naked with little boys to him and that is why he has changed his tune.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pmHarry Reid sure bit hard at Lugar's stink bait. He called Lugar's cover-my-ass speech "brilliant." He must be embarassed to have been led down the garden path yet again by this Republican snake oil peddler. Lugar's speech has been labeled an historic turning point and other gushing nonsense. Harry, do you really think Lugar is going to cooperate with your plan for Iraq? Get a grip, man. These Repubs are just maneuvering to discover who they can blame for their massive Iraq failure. Better shut up, Harry, or they'll blame it on you.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:50 pmSomeone with Sen. Lugar's experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should know better than to say that timetables and benchmarks "have “no particular legal consequenceâ€. This is clearly not the case. Timetables and deadlines provide the American people and the Iraqi government with a plan to end our military presence in Iraq. Right now we have no plan to get out of Iraq. We need a deadline to remove not some but all combat troops from Iraq. We need a deadline to leverage the Maliki government so that they know that they are on borrowed time. Having non-negotiable benchmarks that the president can't waive or ignore tells the Iraqi government that they must meet these benchmarks or face the consequences.
Political and diplomatic progress must be made in Iraq if we are to get our troops out of there. We can no longer win this war militarily. If Sen. Lugar can vote to cut off funds for the Somali conflict then there is no reason that he can't vote to cut off funds for the Iraq war. If he can vote to set a deadline to remove troops out of Somalia then there is no reason to not do so for Iraq. If anything, senior republican senators can step up to the plate and make this issue of ending the war in Iraq a non-partisan one by simply calling the foreign policy in Iraq what it actually is - a failure.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:57 pmThe comment about Bush losing two wars concurrently is a forerunner of what future historians will be forced to conclude. How about that for a legacy? Now, if he takes on Iran, Bush will win the trifecta.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:02 amWhoaaa..., didn't this idiot earlier today decry a withdrawl.... Granted... that was before The Luger, Clear Your Throat Call...
June 28th, 2007 at 12:44 amLugar is saying that the surge won't work and that withdrawal isn't an option, and so the president needs to come up with a "Plan B". But there is no plan B and won't be, given all those stirred-up Iraqis resisting the brutal US occupation. Just more political blather.
Lugar: ". . . the[ISG] report provides a useful starting point for the development of a 'Plan B' and a template for bipartisan cooperation on our Iraq strategy." Sounds like micromanaging the military, to me. Won't work. Time to pull the plug, which the pols have not been wont to do.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:40 amThis is ridiculous. Why does anybody even listen to this joke of a senator?
June 28th, 2007 at 4:27 amWow, Lugar is a douche!
Egan, out.
http://eganfoote.wordpress.com
June 28th, 2007 at 11:08 amHo-hum - another sneaky, lying republican.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI heard Bush and the Republicans are coming out with an Iraq War Tax so that good Americnas can show their patriotism and support the war effort. Can anyone give me any details on this?
June 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm>>The comment about Bush losing two wars concurrently is a forerunner of what future historians will be forced to conclude. How about that for a legacy? Now, if he takes on Iran, Bush will win the trifecta.
Comment by timeisart — June 28, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Argh. I hope you are wrong. It seems to me though that we are neither winning nor losing either Afghanistan or Iraq. We are unwilling to wage total war against insurgents in either place, and we are unwilling to engage the puppetmaster of every terrorist group in the region, Iran. So it is just a slow, bloody status quo that gets us nowhere.
Future historians may well wonder why we elected to fight these wars with one hand tied behind our back. If indeed we lose when all is said and done, the utter incompetence of Bush's prosecution of the war will be primarily to blame, but I must say the "progressive" rush to brand this conflict "Vietnam: Part II" will also deserve some historical criticism.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm