- Schaffer vs. Udall
- View From A Height
- Thinking Right
- Mt. Virtus
- Rocky Mountain Right
- Slapstick Politics
- Daily Blogster
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fox News
- Real Clear Politics
- Rocky Mountain News
- Denver Post
- Debka Files
- Talking Points Memo
The Senate Race
Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs, 2.0
My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
|The Man Who Would Be Senator|
So the Democrats finally have a plan . . .er, a NEXT plan. Oy.
At any rate, here's part of what Rep.-who-wants-to-be-Senator Mark Udall had to say after the veto:
I supported the legislation and voted to override the president’s veto. But now that the veto has been sustained, I think it is essential that a way be found to bridge our differences so that agreement can be reached both on a funding bill and a change of policy to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion. In this regard, I am hopeful that the wisdom articulated in the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report may serve as a good bipartisan foundation for a new policy.
Here's part of the Democrats' new plan:
House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.
In other words, if "conditions do not improve," then the money for the war will end on July 31st.
And, just for grins, let's take a look at what the ISG report ACTUALLY says--for those of you reading along, this is from p.30:A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater
sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse
consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum,
greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.
So, Udall wants us to follow the ISG, the ISG says premature departure would almost certainly lead to "adverse consequences," but the Democrats are putting forward a plan that gives them the option of stopping the war instantaneously.
So we should be able to count on Udall to oppose this plan, right?
Is somebody writing this stuff down for the next campaign? This guy writes our commercials for us, if anybody bothers to notice.