Dodd: Escalation is "Insane", Non-Binding Resolution does "Absolutely Nothing"

Chris Dodd in Dover (4.00 / 1)

The Strafford Dems hosted a Town Hall with Chris Dodd earlier in the day.  Barbara Hilton did a write up for Democracy for America

Just a few excerpts that are relevant to this report:

The first was a two part question about Iraq and whether Dodd would support HR 508, Rep. Lynn Woolsey's Bill introduced to the Congress on January 18, 2007, to require United States military disengagement from Iraq, to provide United States assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq, and for other purposes, and whether, since money was already in the pipeline for the next six months, he would support an end to funding of the Iraq War.  He said that he would introduce a bill to put a cap on troops; that the "surge" was a major mistake and that we need a political resolution.  He said that a reduction in the number of troops in Iraq should happen immediately; that we need an escalation of troops in Afghanistan; we need to support our troops with anything they might need, such as body armor; military recruitment officers ought to be on campuses;  he had concerns about our combat readiness since Donald Rumsfeld's tenure; but primarily he advocated diplomacy.

Dodd's opening statement, after being introduced by Congresswoman Shea-Porter, was rather brief and most of the hour and a half was consumed by answers to questions from the audience.  Two individuals asked questions about doing a proper investigation of the events on 9/11, which Dodd seemed not to have given much thought to.

He doesn't seem to have given much thought to the unanticipated consequences of HAVA either.

State Rep. Marcia Moody took up the issue of HAVA. She said that a paper trail was the only legitimate way to hold democratic elections.  Dodd responded by talking about the disenfranchised in 2000.  He said that this may not be the perfect bill but there were no federal standards at that time and standards needed to be set. He then went on to talk rather passionately and somewhat agressively, I thought, about his sister who was legally blind not being able to vote privately until this legislation (HAVA) was passed.  He continued by saying that he "had no objection to a paper trail if it can't be tampered with."  They started with this, wanting to make the system better and although the issue needs to be looked at he was proud to have improved the system.

No doubt, the Senator's many years in the public eye have schooled him in how not to answer questions he's not prepared for or doesn't like. 

Next up was Paul O'Connor, President of the Metal Trades Union at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. His question was about the defueling and decommissioning of submarines that is now going on at a rapid clip with the justification being that we can't afford them, yet the military is spending billions on stuff that isn't needed.  He asked Dodd how he could ensure that military spending was being wisely done.  Dodd spoke briefly about the pentagon mistakenly stepping away from what he considered critical technology such as submarines, citing the growing submarine fleets of other, not necessarily friendly, countries.  He spoke of Rumsfeld's one-man show and that people who spoke out under him were fired or demoted.  He said that we need to encourage people to speak out.  He was concerned about the vote dismissing the right of Habeas Corpus.  He, as well as many military leaders, is worried about the consequences of this action. He said he was concerned about the loss of international cooperation and that we need greater accountability.

Although I was present at the event, I didn't notice at the time that Dodd gave no hint of a need of greater accountability from the Congress.  Other than noting that his vote on Iraq was a mistake and he would move for a new authorization, which would provide an opportunity for debate, he didn't seem ready to make a decision on anything much.

Perhaps that's too harsh.  Barbara Hilton's report is much more fair and balanced.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:05:44 AM CST

I saw Dodd in Deerfield... (0.00 / 0)

Hey drew an alright crowd for 12 months away from the primary.

What I was struck with, and the only reason I think that Dodd has a (small) chance of winning the nomination is that he was willing to run to the left of Clinton and Obama on cutting off funding for the war (but not Edwards who I still think is the man to beat).

I had to push Dodd with a follow-up question to get him to say he would explore cutting off funding for the whole war however.

I also agree with you Dean, he is great on the stump and hits alot of the right notes. That counts.

Happy monday

Get Smarter - Laugh Doing It

---

by: Monday Morning Clacker @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:32:43 AM CST

Scary... (4.00 / 2)

How scary is it that I recognized Peter Burling's Fireplace?

If there are any photos, the Flickr Group would love an update.http://www.flickr.co...

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 15:10:31 PM CST

Absolutely Nothing? (0.00 / 0)

I'm getting a little tired of our crop of candidates jostling for position on the war instead of trying to actually end it.

The resolution gets waverers on record in opposition to Bush policy. That is not "absolutely nothing." At the very least it  further undermines the GOP Noise Machine and makes it more acceptable for the politically timid to oppose the war.

I'm hopeful it's more strategic: once Bush thumbs his nose at the resolution, further action will be more likely. Some people think that's being deluded, and Congress will try to walk away after the resolution. But even if you have that concern, this is not "absolutely nothing."

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 17:53:43 PM CST