3500 people and more than 50 Democratic congressional candidates have endorsed a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. I've been asking these candidates all day what they would ask Petraeus were they in Congress. Here are some of their questions.
Darcy Burner, Democratic candidate for WA-08:
Gen. Petraeus, in March 2007, a few weeks after taking charge of U.S. military forces in Baghdad, you said, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq." More than a year later, rockets are still falling in the Green Zone and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are fighting each other for power in Baghdad and Basra. The political reconciliation the surge was intended to foster has not happened, nor has any significant diplomatic breakthrough been achieved. So, given that we agree that there is no military solution to the problems we face, is our costly open-ended military commitment to Iraq really making the Unted States safer?
1) The hope of the surge was that it would create the space for political reconciliation and compromise in Iraq. But the Iraqi government and other power centers in the nation remains mired in disagreement with little real progress. Last week, it was the Iranians that reportedly brokered a truce between the Iraqi government and Sadr's Mahdi Army. The level of violence has settled back to 2005 levels. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?
Jill Derby, NV-02:
"The question I would ask Gen. Petraeus is this: 'The Army is saying that more than 25 percent of soldiers on third or fourth tours suffer mental health problems and Army Chief Of Staff General Casey called the Army "out of balance." What are we doing to help our troops, vets and their families deal with these issues?'"
Donna Edwards, MD-04:
My first question for the General is: When are you prepared to discuss and implement a multi-tiered approach to Iraq that includes economic, diplomatic, and political options to bring stability and sustainable progress to Iraq? Has the war in Iraq made the United States safer? Is the current U.S. force level in Iraq covering up the lack of political progress in the country and isn't that troop level unsustainable? Doesn't the violence of the last several weeks demonstrate that the central government is weak and that the Iraqi forces are not trained or prepared to defend against the insurgents?
I believe "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is a critical step in the right direction and is the kind of discussion we need to start having in Washington and across the country."
"The question that needs to be asked is how is our current policy making us safer and why we wouldn't be better off spending that money to address problems at home?"
Don Wiviott, NM-03:
Has the War in Iraq actually made America safer?
What plans are in place to both get our troops out of Iraq and give the Iraqi army a chance to step up to the plate and protect their own country?
Since there is no military solution in Iraq, what steps are we taking to ensure Iraqi officials are working together and moving towards lasting political reconciliation?
The President and other top officials talk about winning the war. What criteria constitutes "winning" the war in Iraq? How will we know when we have "won"?
Leslie Byrne, Democratic candidate for VA-11:
General Petraeus: Since our National Security is at risk from a "broken military" according to many of your peers, how do you plan to salvage the military, given the lack of political and economic progress in Iraq, which after all you said was the purpose of the "Surge"?
Chellie Pingree, ME-01:
The number one question General Petraeus should have to answer is this: Has the war in Iraq made America safer?
Eric Massa (NY-29):
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
After five years in Iraq, are we really any safer?
Tim Cunha (FL-06):
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Steve Harrison, Democratic candidate for NY-13:
1. General do you believe advocating for a withdrawal from Iraq necessarily indicates either a lack of support for our troops, or a lack of patriotism?
2. General, troop withdrawal is a military operation. Given the current conditions in Iraq, in your expert opinion, what would be a reasonable time frame for complete withdrawal assuming the planning started tomorrow?
3..General, Prime Minister Maliki's surprising attack on the Sadr militia last week showed great weakness in the government's ability to provide security as well as weakness in the government's political ability to unite the country. It also showed great lack of judgment in the capabilities of his military. The Iraqi situation shows no signs of near term stability and it does not appear American military presence has facilitated that goal. In the absence of being able to meet that political goal, what other military goals, in your opinion justify American military presence in Iraq?
"If the United States removed the combat forces in Iraq, would there be any direct threat to the United States? If any threat, what would it be and how could it be mitigated?"
In July of 2006, The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion. According to Opinion Business Research, those estimates have risen to over 1 million dead. General Petraeus, how do you ascribe the term "victory" in these circumstances? Additionally, how do these deaths make America safer?
Democratic challenger Don Wiviott is using his platform as a candidate to put out an ad on Iraq in response to Petraeus's testimony. On Saturday, Wiviott asked his supporters for questions to ask Petraeus.
This is a very smart way to use the national media environment to a candidate's advantage. Institutionally, the DCCC would probably argue that keeping paid advertising limited until the last two months or so makes sense.
None of us are in this to get Democrats better parking spaces. And the place with the most leverage right now is primary campaigns where we can ensure that a progressive runs against a Republican, instead of a centrist. That's one of the reasons I'm focusing a bit on reactionary DLC hack Marty Chavez, who is trying to wrap up the Democratic nomination for Senate in New Mexico. He is outright loathed by progressives, and this gives you a sense of why that is.
But perhaps an even bigger "oops" came with rumors that maybe everyone wasn't quite signed on with Chavez. That perhaps Chavez jumped the gun with the announcement of the team. Cope, Blanchard and Gonzales among others were rumored to not be on Chavez's side officially. And not amused that they were mentioned.
Heath Haussamen looked into it and found that Gonzales is not officially a member of his committee. Gonzales told Haussamen "I'm not a member of his committee. I notified his campaign staff of that yesterday afternoon but also notified them that I would continue to help the mayor raise money."
Gonzales went on to say he has agreed to help Chavez, but has also been helping Don Wiviott -- an opponent of Chavez in the primary -- raise money.
Cope and Blanchard did not comment to Haussamen.
But it grew worse when he tried to project confidence about the upcoming race.
He also said he is confident he would defeat Udall in a primary.
"Philosophically, he's so far to the left," Chávez said. "I'd rather not have him in the race, but that's a challenge I'd not shy away from."
Meanwhile, the Draft Udall campaign is hitting the Washington Post. Chavez is a nightmare. Because of his corrupt background, his legacy of reactionary policies, and his loathing of progressives, should he be the nominee there would be a Republican Senator from New Mexico one way or another. Hopefully we can get progressive Udall or Denish to run, and get to that 60 vote margin in the Senate that is within reach.
STATE BLOGS
