About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Judd Gregg's Withdrawal Language is Unconstitutional

by: Dean Barker

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 22:21:52 PM EDT


Judd Gregg (29 March 2007) on his vote simultaneously to strip our soldiers of the funding they need and to keep them in Iraq indefinitely (after four years of war and thousands of American lives lost):
Republicans are refusing to allow any withdrawal dates be a part of a compromise on funding. Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said the Senate's withdrawal language is "unconstitutional."
Judd Gregg (19 March 1999) on a 30-day US involvment in Kosovo that resulted in the loss of not one American soldier's life:
As far as I know, this administration has not really defined an entrance strategy. They have sort of stumbled into that, so, clearly, they have not found any exit strategy. In fact, if you ask them, all they have thought about is the first bombing raids. They have not even thought about the second--they may have thought about the second series of bombing raids, but they have not thought about what they do after that. There is no exit strategy. In fact, there is very little strategy at all other than what the military has been willing to do and has to do in order to prepare itself to execute public policy which is so haphazardly designed.

  We could be there a long time. I mean, since 1385 or 1355, it has been 600 years. Are we going to stick around another 600 years in order to pacify this region? I think we might have to if our intention is to accomplish that goal.

  ...So where is this policy going? It appears that it is a policy that is undefined, that cannot give us a legitimate national reason, that cannot proclaim that the introduction of American forces will settle the situation. And it cannot give us a definition as to how they are going to get out of the situation once we get into the situation.

  It is a bad policy. It is one that, unfortunately, puts many American lives at risk if it is pursued. But this administration seems insistent on going down that road. And I think that is wrong.

(h/t shoeempress. I can't find a way to link to this second quote on a non-temporary url, but for sourcing: visit thomas.gov, click "Congressional Record," select the 106th Congress, put "Gregg" and "Kosovo" in the search line, and select the 98th item on the list, "KOSOVO -- (Senate - March 19, 1999)")
Dean Barker :: Judd Gregg's Withdrawal Language is Unconstitutional
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ah, see (0.00 / 0)
but you forgot the eleventh commandment:

Thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican.


There's the rub (0.00 / 0)

  Are we going to stick around another 600 years in order to pacify this region?

The notion that it's the Americans' obligation to "pacify this region" or any other.  That's what needed to be questioned then and continues to need to be questioned.  Because, that's exactly the mission the U.S. is on: to pacify the Persian Gulf region.  Never mind just dealing with a couple of murderous individuals and clans!  That's far too modest a goal.  Nothing but universal pacification, preferably through intimidation by holding up the dread nuclear bomb, will do.
What a joke.  At the rate things are going in the quagmire that is Iraq, we'll be lucky if we're out in six.  It took seven years to get out of VietNam after it was clear that was a lost cause.

Does Gregg realize how stupid he sounds?  Not likely.  He's doubtless convinced that's what governments (all governments, including this one) are for--to pacify the population.  He probably can't even comprehend that the purpose of the rule of law is to keep the agents of government in check, not the other way around.


Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox