DC shadows: The Daily Davis Dirt Droppings NO.3

READ HIS WORDS; EVALUATE HIS ACTIONS!

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.html

Jul 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