Last week DailyKos commenter episty wrote, "If Chris Dodd doesn't stop acting like a leader....I just might have to vote to make him one."
I think this sentiment captures Chris Dodd's candidacy for President and the leadership he has displayed in the Senate along the way very well. On issue after issue, Dodd has stepped forward and defined the forward edge of the Democratic field.
On Iraq, he has repeatedly called for ending America's involvement in Iraq's civil war by setting a date certain for withdrawal and enforcing that by tying it to funding. As another Democrat candidate has recently turned to saying, "No timeline. No funding. No excuses." That is the Dodd plan for ending the Iraq war in a nutshell. And not only does it exist on the small screen of America's TVs and the pixels of our computers, it's the only piece of legislation in the Senate that will succeed in ending the war in Iraq.
This isn't a recently arrived-at position for Chris Dodd. He lead the Democratic field during the supplemental funding debate in May -- declaring long before any vote was cast that he would not vote for legislation that failed to include a firm, enforceable date to end the war. Senators Clinton and Obama never said how they would vote and waited until the 18th minute of the 15 minute vote to cast their ballot in the right place.
This time around, Dodd stated that he would not vote for "any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq" weeks before a vote would come. He called on his opponents to state clearly and directly if they would vote for Iraq legislation that did not include a firm timetable tied to funding. While none have directly answered the question, Senators Clinton and Obama seem to be making moves to follow Dodd's lead and do the right thing. They would not be there were it not for Chris Dodd's leadership and the pressure from grassroots Democrats around the country -- who've sent thousands of letters to their Senators -- to get them to support legislation that actually will end the Iraq war.
But Dodd isn't just leading on Iraq.
On energy policy, Dodd is the only candidate to call for a Corporate Carbon Tax. Any plan that lacks this bold move fails to pass the smell test -- because polluters will only stop polluting when it's made too costly for them to pollute.
Dodd is the only candidate who has pledged to restore the Constitution in his first hour in office. He's not waiting until January, 2009 to effect change, though. He's doing it now. The Restoring the Constitution Act will reverse the terrible Military Commissions Act -- not just restore habeas corpus, but ban torture and ensure that America honor our commitments to the Geneva Conventions.
And much, much more. Education. National Service. Health care. Protecting America's middle class. Transforming America's relationship with Cuba.
Quite simply, Chris Dodd has defined what it means to be a leader in America today. In the Senate he has used his office to push for the real, substantive change that these times demand. On the campaign trail he has pushed for the most bold plans for the future course of American policy. No other candidate has offered the breadth of leadership on issues that Americans deeply care about and are demanding leadership on.
Now is the time to take the support for Chris Dodd's leadership on these issues and turn it into votes for Chris Dodd to lead America as our next President. All apologies to you, episty, but Chris Dodd is not going to stop leading, so you'll just have to vote to make him President.
Comments
Fine, but there is NO war; there is an occupation whose legitimacy (voted on by the UN) is running out.
Republicans must be very disappointed that their leader has chosen to pass the buck to the next Administration. Hey, even if, miracle of miracles, there were a real success, the Democratic successor will be able to claim it, like Clinton did the economic resurgence.
But, to be realistic, the Bush troop cuts are just like his tax cuts: the people end up paying more. Talk about fudging the numbers--you add thirty, take away twenty and call it a reduction! Don't insult our intelligence!!!
If there's no war, then why are militias on the streets battling each other? Why are our soldiers getting killed by car bombs and IEDs? Call it what you will, but the fact remains: there is a civil war going on in Iraq, and, just like in Vietnam 30+ years ago, we cannot win. We can send every single American soldier we have over there, taking them away from Germany or Japan or Korea and even from home, and we STILL could not win this disaster. Bush has repeatedly shown that his foreign policy is very simple: if they don't fit in our view of the world, we bomb them. And fire missiles at apartment buildings. And then we claim we've liberated the people.
That's our new threat to the world: If you don't do what we tell you to, we're going to liberate the hell out of you.
This was referenced on KOS. Think it's worth bringing forward in its totality. It should be noted that Prof. Brzezinski is now an adviser to the Obama campaign. Presumably, that's where he thinks he can do the most good.
*****************************
Prepared Remarks of Senator Dodd at Senate Foreign Relations Hearing
February 8, 2007
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. Secretary Rice, welcome back before this Committee. I appreciated your thoughts on the foreign policy goals our country should be pursuing and the resources needed to achieve this.
I want to thank you and the brave men and women of our State Department for your tireless efforts on behalf of our nation. I think I speak for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when I say that we all remain cognizant of the great sacrifices of our diplomatic corps, even more so in this post-9/11 era where their work is all the more important and fraught with danger.
In the time allotted to me, I’d like to share my own thoughts on our foreign policy and ask you a few specific questions.
In your testimony, there were two points in particular that struck me. The first was that “the security of the American people depends on the stability and success of foreign societies.”
I couldn’t agree with you more on this. In this period of globalization, we close ourselves off from the world at our own peril. America is at its strongest and greatest when it is actively engaged in the world. We uphold our national security and our values of justice and compassion when we help others combat disease, illiteracy and poverty; when we champion the oppressed; and when we actively try to defuse regional conflicts.
We have not always done this over the past few years. Our total abdication of leadership on the Arab-Israeli issue is one clear example. And the results are painfully clear for all to see.
And yet at a time when there is much to be critical about in our foreign policy, I think of the invaluable role our country has played in combating the global AIDS pandemic. I think of the invaluable role we play in providing humanitarian aid for example in the wake of the earthquake in Pakistan and the tsunami in Southeast Asia. And I remind myself that there are still some bright spots.
But the dark clouds loom larger and larger each day. Which leads me to a second point you made that directly relates to the subject of this hearing: the FY 2008 foreign affairs budget.
You stated that your goal is to ensure the “efficient, effective, and strategic use of the American taxpayer’s money.” I am sure you try and your team try your best to do just that but the fact is that if our money is going toward financing ill-conceived and poorly executed policies, ones that this administration has pursued time and again over the past six years, then we inevitably squander our nation’s economic, political, and diplomatic capital.
Clearly this has been the case with respect to Iraq from day one of our failed policy. I know, Madam Secretary, that you are well aware of the views of the Members of the Committee on this subject so I will not belabor the point.
But Iraq isn’t the only problem. Look at our policy in Darfur. As you have rightly pointed out, we should be proud of the humanitarian assistance we have provided to the victims of that genocide. But no matter how “effectively” we have been delivering that aid, we’re going to have to and ought to keep on delivering a whole lot more because the US and the rest of the international community have utterly failed to stop the Sudanese government. Our Special Envoy for Darfur has been talking about a Plan B for months now to stop this genocide. I hope in the course of today’s hearing we find out what that Plan B is because I for one have no idea.
I agree that being a “good steward of the taxpayers’ money” is all well good. As a member of Congress, I certainly appreciate your trying to be one. But the best way to be a good steward is not simply by carefully spending foreign aid dollars but by getting our policies right.
And on that score the administration has fallen seriously short – on Iraq, on Syria, on North Korea, and on Iran. And there are serious consequences to pursuing ill-conceived policies or having no policies at all.
Let me just talk briefly but bluntly about our Iran policy. Madam Secretary, I think that our Iran policy is a train wreck in the making. Last month, one of your predecessors at the NSC, Dr. Brzezinski, while testifying before this Committee, expressed similar concerns and stated that his horror scenario in Iraq involved:
Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate share Dr. Brzezinski’s concerns that we are beginning to hear the drumbeats of a military action against Iran. The President’s new directive to “capture or kill” Iranian operatives in Iraq. The deployment of a second aircraft carrier. The heated and escalating rhetoric.
We all know that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism; we all know of its nuclear ambitions; and we all know that it’s actively involved in Iraq. This is very problematic regime. We know that. But there is a serious lack of trust in the administration’s credibility on these matters after our experiences with Iraq, so I would strongly urge that you keep this Committee and this Congress very fully informed about events on the ground and any policy decisions that are in the offing. The combination of our increasingly confrontational rhetoric and actions against Iran coupled with a lack of serious dialogue with Iran’s leaders is extremely worrisome.
Madam Secretary, we cannot afford another fatal policy decision based upon manipulated intelligence; nor can we afford to go it alone anymore. We need to get serious about galvanizing the international community behind our efforts to deal with Iran.
Similarly, on Iraq, we need to engage on Iran on this directly the way we did on Afghanistan, while mounting international pressure to get Iran to change its policies in the Middle East.
In both cases, if talks lead nowhere, at least we neutralize the Iranian argument that they are willing to talk but we aren’t, and further expose the false nature of that regime.
Madam Secretary, I believe in an America that is engaged. I believe in a robust State Department that has the tools and resources it needs to accomplish its critical mission. I will review your budget request carefully keeping these considerations in mind. But I will say to you again in closing that the best way to be a good steward is not just by getting our spending right but by also getting our policies right. I am sure we will revisit many of these issues in the months ahead. I thank you again for your testimony.