Warner Calls For Withdrawal!...Of Only 5,000 Troops
GOP Senator John Warner of Virginia gave a press conference today that is getting lots of attention from major news organizations, including Reuters and CNN.
The "news" at this press conference is that Warner spoke out in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. Warner calls for withdrawal!
But what did Warner actually say, and what might he actually do to make sure his new policy aims come to pass?
Warner today:
"I can of think no clearer form of that than if the president were to announce on the 15th that in consultation with our senior military commanders, he's decided to initiate the first step in a withdrawal of our forces. I say to the president, pick whatever number you wish. You do not want to lose the momentum. But in 160,000-plus, certainly 5,000 could begin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones no later than Christmas of this year. That's the first step. Let the president establish the timetable of withdrawal, not the Congress."
5,000 troops? This is speaking out in favor of withdrawal?
Warner said the surge has produced momentum in our favor and added that Bush should start talking about withdrawal — but that Bush should "pick whatever number you wish." And finally, Warner rejected any Congressional action to actually force any kind of enactment of the policy he claims to support.
Pretty forceful stuff.
Isn't Warner the same one that wrote that note about the violations of our civil rights and the wiretapping the President authorized? Didn't he put it in a safe as the information was classified and he wasn't allowed to speak about it.
He also supported this surge. Until he gets more of his GOP colleagues like Saxby and Graham to stand up with him. He is just blowing smoke and pandering for votes. Redeploy 5K? that is a pittance and not even 10%...this is nothing but puffery.
Reminds me of how Spector always jerks our chain and then turns around and lets the DOJ write in legislation to appoint interim AG's without senate confirmation.
The news is also talking and hypping up about Iran having nuclear weapons early in the next decade.
August 23, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet... this probably helps the antiwar movement, because it changes the media narrative, going from a "Dems in disarray, forced to acknowledge progress" to a "Repubs in disarray, losing key leaders."
I completely agree that Warner's tea is so weak that it's water, but it's still probably helpful.
August 23, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that was Rockefeller, a Democrat.
Warner was the one who held hearings about Abu Ghraib and then didn't try to have anyone held responsible.
Warner once had some independence and backbone, but I don't think he is ever again going to take a principled stand on anything. He just wants to retire quietly without stirring up a wingnut backlash that might cause trouble for his preferred successor, Tom Davis.
August 23, 2007 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking the same thing. I hope it works out that way.
August 23, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think it's bad for the PR blitz - now on the merits and contents of the actual proposal - I mean what do you expect, he's a Republican. Give him some credit though, the guy just invented the virtual troop withdrawal.
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!
August 23, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three. My first thought was that if a democrat said it, Drudge would have it up as a red light special in about 10 seconds, with a headline screaming:
PROMINENT SENATOR CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ!!!!
I guess just 'cause Drudge won't, doesn't mean we can't though. Anyway, I sure hope Mark Warner runs for that Senate seat this year -- since he won't run for president, dang his ornery hide.
August 23, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warner's an ass. There's no such thing as a good Republican. The ones that aren't outright fascists--McCain, Collins, Specter, Warner, Snowe, Hagel--are even worse than the actual fascists. They refuse to stand up for what they claim are their principles. They blab moderate-sounding swill for the consumption of their credulous constituents, then do whatever Bush wants.
All Republican officeholders suck. What non-sucking person would willingly put an "R" next to their name and run for office? No one, that's who. There's no such thing as a good Republican.
August 24, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But at least I have spoken out with clarity and cleared my own conscience."
Senator Warner's price to clear his conscience? I'm not totally sure, but it seems to be the withdrawal of 5,000 American troops so they will be home for Christmas.
Sigh.
August 24, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the MSM I've seen has said
Warner's announcement could be a major turning point (I haven't checked Fox; I wonder how they are spinning it?). Tim Russertof NBC likened it to Walter Cronkite's 1968 Viet Nam "Stalemate" broadcast.
Warner's key point, that to symbolically withdraw some minimal number of troops that would not harm their mission in Iraq yet send a message to al Maliki, is farcical on its face. Warner quotes several Bush and other Administration statements over the past few months to the effect that we will not be in Iraq forever and they do not have a blank check and says now we need to put some "teeth" into these statements. He says the US cannot keep making statements like this without backing them up.
First, he assumes Bush actually means them. I believe they are all for domestic political consumption. Bush isn't threatening al Maliki. He's fear mongering for his GOP base. There's no need to put teeth into a threat that isn't.
Second, Warner himself says this is a symbolic withdrawal that won't change anything militarily
yet al Maliki will see it as a threat. A threat of what? Another symbolic withdrawal that won't mean anything either? Wow. Besides, haven't all the statements and meetings with al Maliki conveyed the message that we won't stay forever and they don't have a blank check? How does a symbolic withdrawal add to that threat?
Third, Warner sounds so serious about his proposal yet he stated--no boasted--that he supported the President and would not vote for any timetables for troop withdrawal. (I believe he referred to such
efforts as "silly" or some such derogatory term.) So how serious is he, really? Serious about symbolism, I guess.
Finally, when asked what he would suggest we do next if this withdrawal has no effect on al Maliki (conveniently ignoring al Maliki's pre-emptive statement yesterday in response to a Bush comment about being frustrated with progress in Iraq, that the US should stop trying to tell his government what to do and when to do it), Warner implies we'll have to send another warning. Or is it a warning that there's a real warning coming followed by another warning if that one's not heeded.
You know, kind of like the Congress has been doing for the past 6 months with the subpoenas of documents and officials from the White House and Justice Department. That seems to be the template Warner is using here.
August 24, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink