| So, there is a fairly large news item this morning about Jim Walsh, one of the most endangered Republicans in the country, supposedly breaking with his party and favoring troop withdrawal from Iraq. However, consider me dubious, to say the least. For starters, this is the same Jim Walsh who said he opposed a blank check for Bush on Iraq back in May, just after he voted to uphold Bush's veto of a bill for a timeline in Iraq:
Yet, while voting again and again to give President Bush a blank check for Iraq, Walsh incredibly claims that President Bush "should not have a blank check to continue the conflict." After voting against hearings on President Bush's policy on Iraq, Walsh had the audacity to claim that he would not abdicate his "responsibility to provide needed oversight."
In other words, he has said that he opposed Bush on Iraq before, and then voted in lockstep with him.
I was also struck by how there was no mention of timetables in the article where Walsh supposedly makes his big break. So, I called Walsh's Syracuse office to see if he was now in favor of a timetable for withdrawal (my driver's license is still registered in the district). While the person answering the phone said that he did not know for certain, his impression was that Walsh would not favor specific timetables, and was actually in line with what Petraeus said yesterday about a gradual drawdown of troops starting next summer. I also asked if this meant Walsh would sign on to any bill apart from the one he already is co-sponsoring that suggests withdrawal should be a goal, but does not actually mandate any withdrawal. The person answering the phone said he did not know.
Looking for further guidance, I turned to Jim Walsh's House website and campaign website. The House website does have a news release from yesterday, but instead of it focusing on Iraq it is about bringing home money to the local fire department. This was released the same day as his big break with Iraq, which one would think would also be worthy of a press release. On his campaign website, there is no mention of Iraq, or any issue, in the issues section, and there hasn't been an update to the news section in almost four months.
So, what does Walsh's big break mean, exactly? It does not seem to mean that be favors a timetable for withdrawal. It is not clear whether it will mean he will support any legislation apart from the bill that suggests withdrawal would be a good idea, but does not actually mandate it. It might very well mean that he agrees with Petraeus about troop reductions, which is to say the escalation should end in July of 2008, one month before it would have ended anyway simply because we would run out of troops to send to Iraq. And this is all coming from someone who, since he narrowly won re-election in 2006, has been talking about withdrawal, oversight and "no blank checks," but during the 110th Congress has voted with Bush every step of the way on Iraq (source).
I am from the Syracuse area, and I remember growing up how Walsh was regularly credited with being a moderate who broke with his own party. However, as time went on, I started wondering if it was all rhetoric, since I could not find all that many bills that Walsh actually broke with his party on, from New Gingrich to George Bush. He talks a good game, like he has been talking withdrawal since December, but whatever actually happens? It is hard for me to decide if voting to continue the war makes me angrier if those votes come from people who claim to oppose it, than if it comes from those who claim to support it. I'll believe that Walsh is now opposed to the Iraq war the moment he becomes a co-sponsor to, or voted in favor of, a piece of legislation mandating troop withdrawal, not just suggesting it. Until that point, about the only thing I can imagine this "break" with Bush on Iraq accomplishes is to assist Walsh's re-election chances.
Dan Maffei is Walsh's opponent in the Democratic-leaning NY-25. Unlike Walsh, he has information on where he stands on Iraq on this campaign website. That includes a timetable for withdrawal. |
