For a Man in the Middle on Iraq, Church Provides No Sanctuary
Friday, August 24, 2007; Page A02
The sign outside Accotink Unitarian Universalist Church in
Burke announces that it is a "liberal, welcoming religious community." For Rep.
Tom Davis yesterday, it was more liberal than welcoming.
The
Virginia Republican, a possible Senate candidate who supports the
Iraq war, had bravely agreed to attend a meeting of the antiwar Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. It was a journey into the belly of the beast, and Davis got out in one piece. Almost.
He accepted -- but did not drink from -- the bottle of water with the sticker saying "Iraq War/Wrong Way." He spoke from the lectern with the poster demanding "Representative Davis . . . End This War." He politely endured shouts from the audience: "Chicken hawks! Impeach Bush! Our children are dying! You didn't answer the question!"
Then, as the moderator tried to bring the forum to an amicable close, a man in the second row stood up. "This has been a terrible meeting!" shouted David Kuebrich. "Let's not thank Representative Davis, who has been for the most part lock-stepping with the Bush administration."
Others applauded, booed Davis and joined in the protest. The congressman, buttonholed by angry activists, beat a hasty retreat, pushing aside chairs to get out of the church.
Davis needn't worry much about the antiwar crowd if he opts to keep his relatively safe seat in the House. But if Sen.
John Warner (R) retires and Davis runs for the Senate, he'll need to win over Virginia voters who last year abandoned Republican
George Allen for Democrat
Jim Webb. And this is tricky business.
The conservative Web site Free Republic, getting wind of yesterday's meeting by what it called the antiwar "moonbats," urged its patrons to attend and "inject a little verbal calcium into [Davis's] backbone." But the Freepers, as they call themselves, didn't show up, leaving Davis (dubbed a RINO, Republican in name only, by conservatives) free to pander to the moonbats.
Davis tried to soothe the crowd with phrases such as "there aren't any easy answers." He reminded the group that he was one of 17 Republicans in the House to vote against Bush's "surge" in Iraq -- though Davis played down his many votes in support of continuing the conflict. He condemned the "dysfunctional" Iraqi government and the "backwards" political developments in an Iraq under "anarchy."
Drawing applause from the skeptical crowd, he added: "We need to have more dialogues like this around the country that are civil."
The organizers tried to keep things that way. The man who introduced Davis spoke of his deep respect for the congressman. Organizers screened and read the questions. Rand Beers, the former Bush
National Security Council aide who became an adviser to
John Kerry's 2004 campaign against Bush, contributed solicitous phrases such as "Congressman Davis put his finger on the problem" and "I fully agree with Congressman Davis."
But Davis appeared less than comfortable from the moment he entered the church wearing yacht-club attire -- blue blazer, striped oxford, cotton chinos, brown bucks. Perhaps noticing all the Democratic bumper stickers on the cars in the lot, or the antiwar stickers and posters in the audience, he spent much of the session shifting in his seat.
The first speaker, Catholic Sister Marie Lucey, lamented the "untold damage" of the Iraq war. Davis scratched his brow. She spoke of the "diminishment of moral and political leadership." He looked at the ceiling. She said the conflict is "contrary to international law." He put his hand in his pocket. "Bring this war to an end," she advised. His leg jiggled.
CONTINUED 1
2 Next >
SEE THE VIDEO HERE!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/08/24/VI2007082400473.htmlJul 12, 2007: Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act: WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The American people are not happy with the conflict in Iraq; I am not pleased either. Every day, my constituents tell me their concerns with Iraq, and I can understand their desire to put this behind us. The reality is, however, that we cannot snap our fingers and make things all...”
Jun 5, 2007: Calling on The Government of China to Stop Genocide and Violence In Darfur, Sudan“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 422. This resolution aims at encouraging the People's Republic of China to use its influence as one of Sudan's chief purchasers of oil to place pressure on the Sudanese government to improve the conditions for the people in the Darfur region and allow humanitarian organizations to enter ...”
May 16, 2007: Personal Explanation: NOTICE TO ALTER ORDER OF CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF“Mr. Chairman, my amendment to extend for three years the Information Technology Exchange Program--also known as the Digital Tech Corps--has been included in this en bloc amendment, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for accepting this amendment. In 2002, I included language in the Electronic Government Act of 2002 creating the...”
May 9, 2007: Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008“Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties in our procurement system today in government is that we try to reach too many competing policy goals in the way that we buy goods and services. When we use taxpayer dollars, when we take hard-earned money from our taxpayers and the government...”
May 9, 2007: Providing For Consideration of H.R. 1684, Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008“Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule. In the manager's amendment adopted by the rule, the majority stripped out a number of commonsense amendments, mostly offered by Republicans, which would enhance homeland security. I think it is a regrettable turn of events which could cost the majority the support of many minority Members. I guess the...”
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 1591. This is not an Emergency War Supplemental; it is the Partisan Repayment Act. Indeed, this legislation is less about supplying the troops than feeding the base.
There is desperate need for a new Iraq policy, and we should be using this opportunity to have a serious discussion. It is unseemly, even embarrassing, to use pork to buy support for bad policy on a bill as important as this one. It makes us look as trifling and greedy as our enemies claim. The well-being of our men and women in uniform is in the balance, as is the future of the Middle East. If ever there was a time to win on the strength of one's ideas, this is it.
I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the progress of the war, and I believe there is value in setting benchmarks. Ours should not be an open-ended, unquestioning commitment to the Iraqis. They do need to assume more responsibility for their own affairs. It is not the job of our troops to referee partisan quarrels, nor is it our job to baby-sit the Iraqi government.
It is foolish, however, to make such milestones public. It is even more foolish to announce a date for withdrawal. Doing so gives the enemy too much information and too many options.
It is also foolish to codify deadlines. Who's to say the Iraqi government won't make a good faith effort to accomplish the tasks required of them? It would be wise to allow them flexibility, not give them a drop-dead date. We ourselves are working under a continuing resolution because we could not pass more than two appropriations bills last year. Our 5-day workweeks are often 4 days long--who are we to set a deadline in statute?
There is a pressing need to formulate a new policy for Iraq. I am disappointed the Democrats have yet to allow a serious debate on this, the most important issue facing the Congress today. Rather, we have wasted time with a non-binding resolution regarding tactics--not even strategy. Now we send the Iraqis a laundry list of errands and a pre-determined result.
Success in Iraq will require a broad based policy shift. The Iraq Study Group report includes 79 recommendations covering all facets of public policy--military, diplomatic, economic, and social. This report should form the basis of a productive discussion. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has opted for a hodge-podge of sound bites masquerading as serious legislation. They have stifled debate rather than encouraged it by refusing to allow any amendments.
Mr. Speaker, this is but the first act in the play. Our own servicemen and women do need the funding this bill would provide. I am confident once we get beyond this charade we will be able to craft responsible legislation to give it to them.
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]: Mr. Speaker, in this debate, our first care should be for the safety and morale of the men and women serving in the American Armed Forces. Whatever the way forward, nothing said here should be heard by friend or foe as disrespect for the work and sacrifice of those who willingly fight our battles in a very dangerous world.
It took the United States and coalition forces less than 3 weeks to topple a brutal Iraqi regime that had held an iron grip on power for almost 30 years. Since then, they have battled a growing insurgency and rampant sectarian violence with professionalism and bravery. Of all the instruments of national power we could and should be discussing today, diplomacy, economic policy, intelligence and warfare, our military is the only one that has performed predictably, consistently, and well.
Still, knowing what we know today, after almost four years of attempted nation-building on the shifting sands of Iraq, the plan to put 21,000 more Americans in harm's way there has to be viewed with a cold-eyed skepticism born of that hard experience. Putting American troops between feuding Sunni and Shia in the middle of Baghdad, in my judgment, is a mistake. This is the appropriate place for Iraqis, not Americans.
The Iraq Study Group concluded that, "Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation." They quoted a U.S. general who said that if the Iraqi Government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." I agree.
Like many Members, Republicans and Democrats, I voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, just as I supported President Clinton's decision to take military action against the former Yugoslavia. Four years ago, we were trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolutions on disarmament and weapons inspections. Only a credible threat of force could possibly convince him that it was finally in his interest to respect the lawful demands of the international community.
Voting to support the President strengthened his hand in the diplomatic effort to get the Iraqi regime to comply peacefully. Saddam Hussein chose not to comply, and when diplomacy fails, and military action becomes necessary, politics should stop at the water's edge and every American should stand behind the Commander in Chief.
But no grant of authority is a blank check. Today, naive notions about a quick or tidy victory in Iraq have given way to far grittier options on how best to achieve our strategic goals in that nation, in the region, and in the global struggle against Islamic extremism.
We want the President to succeed, but we are disappointed our hopes and good intentions for Iraq remain unrealized. Many are frustrated by the mistakes and missed opportunities that plagued this noble but star-crossed effort. Poor planning for occupation and reconstruction of a devastated nation, and missteps by the Coalition Provisional Authority, allowed the insurgency and long-simmering factional hatreds to erupt and to take root.
At this point, it seems clear to many that only Iraqi interests, not ours, can be advanced on the streets of Baghdad. U.S. and coalition forces were tasked as protectors of Iraq's hard-won sovereignty, not referees in unchecked sectarian vendettas. From here, the surge looks much more like the status quo on steroids than a serious alternative policy to reach a realistic goal. Some way must be found to cut the Gordian knot that ties us to an Iraq strategy that says we can neither win nor leave.
Moreover, so long as American troops are the ones on the ground, taking the fire and being objects for sectarian terrorist hatred, other stakeholders who have more at stake in the region than we will refuse to step forward.
But whatever else it might accomplish, this resolution still does not do enough to illuminate a new, sustainable strategy in Iraq. It offers us few alternatives, and I am disappointed in that. The profound and complex issues central to our international position today cannot be reduced to simplistic political statements. We took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not just strike poses on how that duty applies to the key questions before us as a Nation. In the end, these are purely political statements, when the debate we really need to have is about the most apolitical subject of all: national security in a time of global peril.
Today, the House sends a purely symbolic message to the President. It is a message that will also be heard by our troops, by the Iraqi Government, by the Iraqi people who have relied on us, and by our enemies who are hoping we will quit the fight soon. It does not say enough. We should be debating the elements of an effective policy to stem the tide of jihadism infecting growing swaths of the globe. This resolution says only what some Members are against, nothing about what we are for.
The Iraq Study Group report put forth 79 specific recommendations, many focused on the need for far greater engagement of regional powers, friends and foes in taking realistic steps to stabilize Iraq. I joined my colleague, Frank Wolf, in supporting creation of the Iraq Study Group, and I wish he and others were allowed to offer those recommendations for discussion by the House. Those are the debates and the votes I had hoped to participate in today.
The lack of substantive alternatives before us, particularly on the question of adequate funding for deployed troops, betrays the majority's empty, conflicted positions on Iraq: against the President, but for nothing. The Senate majority attempted to straddle the same contradictions recently, confirming without dissent the new commanding general for Iraq, while at the same time claiming to be against the very same mission they know he has been ordered to undertake.
On the genuine questions of security and strategy in Iraq, we cannot remain, as Winston Churchill admonished, "decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent."
Mr. Speaker, we must decide, and I have decided, to support this resolution because it is the only option that has been made in order by the majority today to engage the House in formulation of Iraq policy, but once troops are committed by the Commander in Chief and we are engaging the enemy, symbolic gestures like this must confront the more complex realities of how to support those forces in the safe and speedy completion of their mission.
Virginia " Iraq Summer" Campaign Deliver Failing Report Cards on Iraq to Reps. Tom Davis and Frank Wolf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 07/25/2007
Annandale, VA - As more than 70 percent of the American public calling for the withdrawal of nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq, the "Iraq Summer" campaign was joined Monday by Virginia educators and constituents to deliver failing 'Iraq Report Cards' (see full text below) to Rep. Tom Davis's Annandale office and Rep. Frank Wolf's Herndon office detailing each Congressman's long and abysmal record of enabling the President Bush's costly, reckless and failed policy of endless war in Iraq.
The failing grades came on the heels of Rep. Wolf's and Davis' most recent votes on July 12 against meaningful legislation to begin safely and responsibly winding down the war in Iraq. The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act [HR 2956] passed with bipartisan support without Heller's or Wolf's support and would require a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops beginning within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1, 2008.
TWO PEAS IN A POD…REAL BUDDIES!
"The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act was Tom Davis and Frank Wolf's golden opportunity to change course and represent the vast majority of Virginians by voting to bring the war in Iraq to a safe and responsible end," said Lisa Switzer, Field Director for the Virginia chapter of the 'Iraq Summer' Campaign. "Unfortunately, they both earned a failing grade for voting once again to enable this President to continue his costly, irresponsible and failed policy of endless war in Iraq. They each voted to keep our troops mired in the crosshairs of a bloody civil war that has no end in sight."
"Our democracy is under attack and as Americans, we simply cannot afford to stand by the sidelines and watch George Bush, backed by Tom Davis and Frank Wolf, erode our democratic principles," said Manes Pierre, former educator in Prince William County who hand delivered Rep. Davis' failing Iraq report card. "We want them to appeal to common sense and bring their grade up by voting to end this war."
On July 12, the 'Iraq Summer' Campaign and local veterans hand delivered invitations to both Rep. Wolf and Davis to attend an August 28th 'Take a Stand' town hall meeting to answer questions and concerns directly from their Virginia constituents about the Congressmen's continued support for President Bush's policy of endless war in Iraq. Rep. Tom Davis's office accepted the invitation and is currently working with the IS Campaign to schedule a time and location. Rep. Wolf, however, told Connection Newspapers that he is declining to accept the invite, "citing a desire to address the issue from a non-partisan platform."
"We are extremely grateful and encouraged that Tom Davis has agreed to attend our 'Take a Stand' town hall next month," added Switzer. "It will be a great opportunity for the Congressman to hear concerns directly from his constituents who overwhelming support bringing our brave troops home out of harm's way in Iraq. Sadly, we had to read in the newspaper that Congressman Wolf is blowing off his invitation to meet with constituents, citing partisan reasons. That's cowardice, plain and simple. If Congressman Wolf only had the same guts to face the people he represents in Congress, he would see Virginians of all walks of life represented there - of all races and creeds, of both political parties -- united in calling for an end to the war."
"Iraq Summer" has dispatched nearly 100 organizers to 15 states and 40 congressional districts to turn up the heat this summer on Republican members of Congress who have opposed setting a timeline to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq. The intense 10-week program is modeled on the "Freedom Summer" civil rights project.
Vote Summaries
How Wolf Voted
To use force in Iraq (Vote #455, 10/2/02) WRONG
To require competitive bidding for Iraq contracts (Vote #557, 10/17/03) WRONG
To create a select committee to investigate reconstruction efforts in Iraq (Vote #72, 3/15/05) WRONG
To hold oversight hearings regarding possible abuses of actions and policies related to the Iraq war (Vote #562, 11/3/05) WRONG
To set timetables for withdrawal (Vote #648, 12/16/05) WRONG
To support Bush's Iraq war policy (Vote #288, 6/16/06) WRONG
To support Bush's plan for a troop surge (Vote #99, 2/16/07) WRONG
To support benchmarks and bringing our troops home (Vote #265, 4/25/07) WRONG
To withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq (Vote #330, 5/10/07) WRONG
To report progress in Iraq and benchmarks (Vote #333, 5/10/07) WRONG
To bring our troops home by April 2008 (Vote #624, 7/12/07) WRONG
Wolf voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. Congressman Wolf supported legislation that would allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime.
The resolution authorized Mr. Bush to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend the nation against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It required him to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action.
The resolution encouraged the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone thought it left him with broad latitude. The resolution passed, 296-133. [HJ RES 114, Vote #455 (D 81-126, R 215-6), 10/2/02; New York Times, 10/11/02]
Wolf voted against requiring competitive bidding for Iraq contracts. Congressman Wolf voted against legislation that would require normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts relating to Iraq 's oil infrastructure. [HR 3289, Vote #557 (D 200-0, R 47-179), 10/17/03]
Wolf voted against accounting for billions of taxpayer dollars spent on Iraq. Congressman Wolf voted against an amendment to provide $5 million to establish a select committee to investigate reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including contracting procedures, protection against money laundering, and the allocation of contracts to foreign companies and small businesses.
In October 2004, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board released an audit of the Bush Administration's management of Iraqi oil proceeds and other funds in the Development Fund for Iraq. Problems found involved hundreds of millions of dollars, numerous sole source contracts and missing and nonexistent contract files. The amendment was rejected, 191-236.
HR 1268, Vote #72 (D 190-10, R 0-226), 3/15/05; Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff,Wolf voted against supporting hearings on the Bush Iraq policy. Congressman Wolf voted to kill a bid by Democrats to ask the Republican leadership and the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction to conduct an investigation and hold oversight hearings related to possible abuses in administration actions and policies related to the Iraq war. The motion to kill hearings on Iraq passed 220-191. [Vote #562, Iraq War Investigation -- Appeal Ruling of the Chair; 11/3/05 (D 1-190, R 219-0); Washington Post, 11/6/05]
Wolf voted against setting timetables for withdrawing from Iraq. Congressman Wolf voted against a resolution declaring that setting an "artificial timetable" for withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq would be "inconsistent with achieving victory." The resolution also called Iraq 's December 2005 election a "crucial victory" for Iraq that would not have been possible without the presence of U.S. troops. [HRS 612, Vote #648 (D 59-108, R 220-0), 12/16/05]
Wolf voted for non-binding Iraq resolution. Congressman Wolf voted for a resolution endorsing President Bush's Iraq policy while declaring that the United States will prevail in the war against terrorism. The resolution also takes a stand against setting withdrawal dates. The resolution was written entirely by the GOP and Democrats were barred from proposing an alternative.
Many Democrats felt the resolution unfair because it conjoined non-controversial measures, such as declaring support for the ongoing Global War on Terror, with controversial measures, such as joining the War in Iraq to the War on Terror. [HRS 861, Vote #288 (D 42-149, R 214-3), 6/16/06; CQ Today, 6/16/06]
Wolf voted against disapproving of Bush's plan for escalation of troops in Iraq. Congressman Wolf voted against a resolution that would express support for U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq, while disapproving of the President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to that country. [H Con Res 63, Vote #99 (D 229-2, R 17-180), 2/16/07]
Wolf voted against redeployment of troops and benchmarks. Congressman Wolf voted against the adoption of the conference report on the bill that provided $124.2 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency funding, it also set a goal for redeployment of troops in Iraq by the end of March 2008. If the president can not verify that the Iraq government is meeting benchmarks then the troops would redeploy by the end of 2007. The legislation also provides $95.9 billion for military operations, $6.9 for hurricane recovery and $3.5 billion for crop programs. [HR 1591, Vote #265, 4/25/07]
Wolf voted against a bill that required the withdrawal U.S. troops. Congressman Wolf voted against a bill that required the withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq with funds provided by the Defense Department within 90 days of the bill's enactment. The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days. The bill would prohibit any funds made available to the Defense Department from being used to increase the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving there as of Jan. 1, 2007, unless the increase has been specifically authorized in advance by Congress. [HR 2237, Vote #330, 5/10/07]
Wolf voted against the President reporting progress in Iraq and meeting benchmarks. Congressman Wolf voted against a bill that would provide $42.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and require another congressional vote in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion for the Pentagon. It would withhold funds until the president reports by July 13 on progress the Iraqi government has made toward meeting specified benchmarks and goals set by the bill and Congress has adopted a joint resolution releasing the "fenced off" funds.
The measure would provide $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief, $3.3 billion for military healthcare costs and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. [HR 2206, Vote #333, 5/10/07]
Wolf voted against a bill to bring our troops home by April 2008. Congressman Wolf voted against bringing our troops home from Iraq to begin within 120 days of the bill's enactment. It would be completed by April 2008, with the exception of "limited presence." It also required the president to report to Congress a U.S. strategy for Iraq. This would include protection for the remaining forces, specific missions and cost. [HR 2956, Vote #624, 7/12/07]
Vote Summaries How Davis Voted
To use force in Iraq (Vote #455, 10/2/02) WRONG
To require competitive bidding for Iraq contracts (Vote #557, 10/17/03) WRONG
To create a select committee to investigate reconstruction efforts in Iraq (Vote #72, 3/15/05) WRONG
To hold oversight hearings regarding possible abuses of actions and policies related to the Iraq war (Vote #562, 11/3/05) WRONG
To set timetables for withdrawal (Vote #648, 12/16/05) WRONG
To support Bush's Iraq war policy (Vote #288, 6/16/06) WRONG
To support Bush's plan for a troop surge (Vote #99, 2/16/07) WRONG
To support benchmarks and bringing our troops home (Vote #265, 4/25/07) WRONG
To withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq (Vote #330, 5/10/07) WRONG
To report progress in Iraq and benchmarks (Vote #333, 5/10/07) WRONG
To bring our troops home by April 2008 (Vote #624, 7/12/07) WRONG
Davis voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. Congressman Davis supported legislation that would allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime. The resolution authorized Mr. Bush to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend the nation against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It required him to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action.
The resolution encouraged the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone thought it left him with broad latitude. The resolution passed, 296-133. [HJ RES 114, Vote #455 (D 81-126, R 215-6), 10/2/02; New York Times, 10/11/02]
Davis voted against requiring competitive bidding for Iraq contracts. Congressman Davis voted against legislation that would require normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts relating to Iraq 's oil infrastructure. [HR 3289, Vote #557 (D 200-0, R 47-179), 10/17/03]
Davis voted against accounting for billions of taxpayer dollars spent on Iraq. Congressman Davis voted against an amendment to provide $5 million to establish a select committee to investigate reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including contracting procedures, protection against money laundering, and the allocation of contracts to foreign companies and small businesses.
In October 2004, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board released an audit of the Bush Administration's management of Iraqi oil proceeds and other funds in the Development Fund for Iraq. Problems found involved hundreds of millions of dollars, numerous sole source contracts and missing and nonexistent contract files. The amendment was rejected, 191-236.
HR 1268, Vote #72 (D 190-10, R 0-226), 3/15/05; Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff,Davis voted against supporting hearings on the Bush Iraq policy.
Congressman Davis voted to kill a bid by Democrats to ask the Republican leadership and the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction to conduct an investigation and hold oversight hearings related to possible abuses in administration actions and policies related to the Iraq war.
The motion to kill hearings on Iraq passed 220-191. [Vote #562, Iraq War Investigation -- Appeal Ruling of the Chair; 11/3/05 (D 1-190, R 219-0); Washington Post, 11/6/05]
Davis voted against setting timetables for withdrawing from Iraq.
Congressman Davis voted against a resolution declaring that setting an "artificial timetable" for withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq would be "inconsistent with achieving victory."
The resolution also called Iraq 's December 2005 election a "crucial victory" for Iraq that would not have been possible without the presence of U.S. troops. [HRS 612, Vote #648 (D 59-108, R 220-0), 12/16/05]
Davis voted For Non-Binding Iraq Resolution. Congressman Davis voted for a resolution endorsing President Bush's Iraq policy while declaring that the United States will prevail in the war against terrorism.
The resolution also takes a stand against setting withdrawal dates.
The resolution was written entirely by the GOP and Democrats were barred from proposing an alternative.
Many Democrats felt the resolution unfair because it conjoined non-controversial measures, such as declaring support for the ongoing Global War on Terror, with controversial measures, such as joining the War in Iraq to the War on Terror. [HRS 861, Vote #288 (D 42-149, R 214-3), 6/16/06; CQ Today, 6/16/06]
Davis voted to disapprove of Bush's plan for escalation of troops in Iraq. Congressman Davis voted for a resolution that would express support for U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq, while disapproving of the President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to that country. Against Bush's position. [H Con Res 63, Vote #99 (D 229-2, R 17-180), 2/16/07]
Davis voted against redeployment of troops and benchmarks. Congressman Davis voted against the adoption of the conference report on the bill that provided $124.2 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency funding, it also set a goal for redeployment of troops in Iraq by the end of March 2008.
If the president can not verify that the Iraq government is meeting benchmarks then the troops would redeploy by the end of 2007. The legislation also provides $95.9 billion for military operations, $6.9 for hurricane recovery and $3.5 billion for crop programs. [HR 1591, Vote #265, 4/25/07]
Davis voted against a bill that required the withdrawal U.S. troops.
Congressman Davis voted against a bill that required the withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq with funds provided by the Defense Department within 90 days of the bill's enactment.
The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days. The bill would prohibit any funds made available to the Defense Department from being used to increase the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving there as of Jan. 1, 2007, unless the increase has been specifically authorized in advance by Congress. [HR 2237, Vote #330, 5/10/07]
Davis voted against the President reporting progress in Iraq and meeting benchmarks.
Congressman Davis voted against a bill that would provide $42.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and require another congressional vote in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion for the Pentagon.
It would withhold funds until the president reports by July 13 on progress the Iraqi government has made toward meeting specified benchmarks and goals set by the bill and Congress has adopted a joint resolution releasing the "fenced off" funds.
The measure would provide $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief, $3.3 billion for military healthcare costs and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. [HR 2206, Vote #333, 5/10/07]
Davis voted against a bill to bring our troops home by April 2008. Congressman Davis voted against bringing our troops home from Iraq to begin within 120 days of the bill's enactment.
It would be completed by April 2008, with the exception of "limited presence." It also required the president to report to Congress a U.S. strategy for Iraq. This would include protection for the remaining forces, specific missions and cost. [HR 2956, Vote #624, 7/12/07]
Tracking of the Populations' Mood: Rep. Tom Davis Gets Attacked For Cheney's Iraq War
Increase DecreaseAugust 24, 2007 (LPAC)--Rep. Tom Davis' (R-Va.) appearance at a Town Hall Meeting on the Iraq War yesterday with Rand Beers, an Iraq War opponent and former aide to the Bush National Security Council, demonstrated again that the Cheney-Bush policy is destroying the Republican Party at all levels, and any association with it is proving highly toxic.
Rep. Davis undoubtedly accepted the invitation to address an afternoon meeting yesterday on the Iraq War organized by opponents of it in a Burke, Virginia Unitarian church in his district, because Sen. James Webb trounced his conservative GOP opponent, George Allen, in that area in 2006. Screening the questions; faint praise of the moderate Republican Davis; nothing worked to soothe the audience. Davis was, for example, laughed at when he said he expected that the White House "will probably tweak" Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress in September.
The questions, even screened, pounded Davis on his support for the failed war. Finally, when the meeting's organizers moved to end it after one hour, the politeness broke down, with people shouting, "We haven't gotten to anything we should be talking about!" Davis, according to the Washington Post, hurried out, insisting, "I didn't set the rules."
The Davis Town Meeting is the third report this week of Congressmen being booed and verbally attacked in public meetings with constituents, in addition to Sen. Arlen Specter (R) and Rep. Joe Sestak(D) of Pennsylvania.
http://gotv.blogspot.com/2007/08/tom-davis-and-iraq-war.htmlSaturday
Tom Davis and the Iraq war
Please Tell Tom Davis How You Feel on the War.
Davis has been increasingly at odds with his constituents on this. He has abdicated any sense of constitutionality, leadership, and morality in letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is imperative that Tom Davis know that though we feel abandoned by him, we are not disheartened. More importantly, many of us are especially empowered right now.
Thanks to his personal life and VA's political calendar and map, those of us who live both in
Tom Davis' district and his wife's district can tell Tom that if he doesn't immediately start voting the right way on the war, this November, Jeannemarie will be the first to experience the consequences.
Labels:
34th Senate,
Devolites Davis,
Iraq,
Tom Davis,
VA,
Virginiaposted by Alice @
8/18/2007 10:44:00 AMComments:
Davis is at odds with his constituents? LOL!
If anything, Davis too careful about being in agreement with his constituents. Consider this article
article. Davis knows exactly what people want to hear.
# posted by
Citizen Tom : 4:31 PM
OMFG! Could there be a worse article to demonstrate Davis's being in touch with his constituents? I've never seen so much fence sitting in one place. Conservative Republicans will never nominate Davis for Senate.
The average voter is completely fed up with his phony and meaningless moderate act.
The most telling example is his position on the war as described in the article cited. Davis is against timetables, but he's also against being there 10 years. Clearly, Davis is in lock step with Bush who just wants to run out the clock and leave the mess for the next President.
I'd like to say that the Dems will laugh last and best, but we'll be too busy cleaning up the GOP mistakes, including seeing justice is served to the criminals, to have much time for laughing.
# posted by
jsrutstein : 8:23 PM
including seeing justice is served to the criminals, to have much time for laughing.
preach it brother
# posted by
Alice : 9:12 PM
Flip....flop. Is Davis at odd with his constituents or not? What do you think fence sitting is all about?
You are right about one thing.
If Davis gets the Republican nomination for Senate, it will not be because conservative are happy with him.
Because he chose unconstitutional means of trying to make it happen, Davis' push of DC voting rights did not sit well.
Worse, for social conservatives, is Davis' record on abortion rights. I suppose we could do worse. But Davis in the Senate -- ouch! I do not want that man anywhere near judicial appointments.jsrutstein -- Please clean up your language. As Samual Johnson once said: "Language is the dress of thought".
# posted by
Citizen Tom : 10:29 PM
Citizen Tom, sorry about the naughty acronym. Did Johnson say anything about spelling being the accessories of the dress of thought? :)In any event, it appears we're closer in opinion on Davis than I surmised from your first comment.
I even think we agree about the dangerously apathetic, timid, and uninformed state of the electorate.
Ultimately, Davis's political future will rest on the quality of his opposition. If he runs again for his House seat, he'll likely face a much better known opponent than Andy Hurst was last year.
Of course, if he tries for the Senate, he'll have to overcome well known opponents both to get the nomination and in the general election.
I think it's more likely than not that Tom Davis will be in the private sector in 2009.
# posted by
jsrutstein : 7:44 AM
Post a CommentAugust 23, 2007
http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/election2008/2007/08/rep-tom-davis-g.htmlRep. Tom Davis gets an earful on Iraq
It started civilly - it was in a church after all. But it took only a few minutes for a town hall meeting on Iraq between Rep. Tom Davis R-Va., and a largely anti-war audience of about 100 to turn testy Thursday.
Davis knew he was walking into hostile territory. The walls of the church in Burke, Virginia, outside Washington bore posters proclaiming, ``Representative Davis, Stand With Virginia, End this War,'' and ``Support the Troops, End the War,'' and ``Witnessing to the Peace of Christ in the shadow of the Pentagon.''
Davis sat politely as a Roman Catholic nun led a prayer against the war and for the U.S. troops. ``Amen,'' said the audience to the blessing on the troops.
And he smiled when one man noted kindly that even when he disagrees with them, Davis ``always finds time to hear concerns from his constituents.''
And hear them he did.
Question after question asked Davis why in the world the United States should stay in Iraq one more day. Would an upcoming status report from Gen. David Petraeus be filtered through the White House. Why anyone should believe it
Davis took his time. He's critical of the Iraqi government. Unhappy with the lack of political progress. Touched by the loss of 16 constituents in the war.
But he wouldn't give them what they apparently wanted: a commitment to support pulling the troops out now. He said he wanted to wait for the Petraeus report. ``I reserve judgment.''
With each subsequent answer, the audience grew more restless, less willing to quietly hear him out.
``We had our civil war. Let them have theirs,'' yelled one man in the middle of a Davis answer.
``Yeah, yeah, yeah,'' several chanted when he asked rhetorically at another point whether the United States was in the way in Iraq.
``You still didn't answer the question,'' yelled a man at a different point.
In the end, John Bruhns, a former Army sergeant who enlisted after Sept. 11, then turned against the war after serving in Iraq, summed up why the tense meeting was still so much better than anything he saw in Iraq.
``This is democracy,'' he said. ``This is what I joined the military for.''
Posted at 09:21 PM
PermalinkTrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/507341/21054575Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
Rep. Tom Davis gets an earful on Iraq:
Comments News
Statement of Representative Tom Davis in support of H.Res. 861
June 16, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us today.
I would first like to again offer my gratitude to those brave men and women who are fighting or have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe you a debt which can never be repaid.
Since the United States invaded Iraq, I have seen this as a high stakes gambit. If we were successful not only in defeating the Iraqi army, but in the more difficult task of establishing a democratic government, we would be far down the road to affecting a paradigm shift in the Middle East. One which would replace potentates, dictators and repression with representative government, transparency, and opportunity for both men and women.
If we were to fail, the costs would be incalculable. It would be reaffirmation for many in the world that the United States lacked the fortitude to see a mission through to completion. It would embolden terrorists the world over; it would threaten those states in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Israel, that are friends of the United States.
When I sat down to prepare my remarks for today, I took a look at previous statements on Iraq. When we started this mission, we felt certain of many things: WMD stockpiles, direct links to al-Qaeda in Baghdad. We all know now that such links are tenuous and that no WMD stockpiles were ever found.
I do not believe there was a deliberate effort to deceive the Congress and the American people. I think our intelligence told a story that turned out to be wrong, but it was a story both we and our allies thought to be true. I hope we have learned a cautionary lesson.
Regardless, the situation in Iraq is what it is. There is no question Iraq is a Petri dish for terrorists now our main nemesis in Iraq is called "al-Qaeda in Iraq." Thus, our activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly linked to the global war on terror - there is no other way to view the situation.
I am eager to build on the recent successes in Iraq. I truly hope we have turned a corner with the death of Zarqawi and the forming of the government.
If voter turnout is any indication, the Iraqi people are eager for democracy. But make no mistake, what we are trying to do in Iraq has been and will continue to be - extraordinarily difficult. Even with Zarqawi gone, there are many dangerous people who will stop at nothing to stop us.
I do not support a date-certain withdrawal from Iraq. Doing so would create an untenable situation for our forces and our Iraqi allies, and present a real gift of predictability to the enemy.
But there has to be a sense of urgency. We are in a war we must win, but we cannot plod along indefinitely. Our Founding Fathers had 13 years between the beginning of the American Revolution, the ratification of the Constitution, and the inauguration of George Washington. We do not have that luxury in Iraq.
Our troops are giving their lives in Iraq; our country is spending billions. We cannot pull the rug out from under the Iraqis, but we aren't their babysitter either.
We don't have time to waste on activities that are ineffective. We don't have money to waste on bad equipment or services.
Some have charged that this Congress has been asleep at the wheel and has done no oversight. That's not true - I have. The Government Reform Committee has held four hearings on contracting practices in Iraq and I intend to hold more. Our subcommittees, particularly that chaired by Mr. Shays, have held many more.
What we have found was there were mistakes in management and oversight. But remember, this was the first time we have contracted this extensively in a combat the situation. Everything about doing business everything in a war zone is extremely difficult and costly.
It is disingenuous to deny this.
If we are going to see this mission through successfully, there must continue to be vigorous, comprehensive, constant oversight to ensure we stay on the right path.
The objective is to create a democratic government that is able to manage its own affairs and keep the civilian population safe. This entails a gradual turnover of responsibility to Iraqi troops and an incremental redeployment of American forces. The schedule of withdrawals must be based solely on the Iraqis ability to handle the job, not an arbitrary timetable. Although, I might add, the sooner Americans leave, the better for all of us.
Are Davis and Allen right for Northern Virginia?
Tom Davis supported George Allen at the "Ethnic rally" held as damage control afterward
on September 9th.
