Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has voted once again for a blank check for President Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq just before voting against a bill with timetables for withdrawal. His repeated claims that he wants a change of course in Iraq are just Norm-speakTM. Norm has loyally supported President Bush whenever he's been asked. All he's doing is adding fresh concrete to his concrete shoes.
-- cross-posted from mnblue.com, home of the Norm Coleman Weasel Meter --
The Senate today blocked a Democratic proposal that would have paid for the Iraq war but required that troops start coming home.
The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.
"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders,'' Reid said.
(Star Tribune)
Norm continues to defy the will of a vast majority of Minnesotans who want our troops out of Iraq. He continues to engage in Norm-speakTM whenever he discusses Iraq. He says whatever he can to make Minnesotans think he wants the troops out, wants a change of course or wants accountability for this war.
*** Orwellian use of language ***
"There's not a huge difference in terms of where we're at," Coleman said, "Everyone wants a changed mission. The question is whether you put a date on it."
(CQ)
Norm made the above statement last Wednesday about the supplemental bills making their ways the Senate. To say there is "not a huge difference" between a bill with timelines and a blank check pushes the envelope on the possible meaning of not into the realm of Orwellian abuse of the English language. The fact that some Republicans claim to want to "change the mission" in Iraq is also meaningless if they continue to support a permanent presence and always vote against timelines for withdrawal. Words from a politician like Norm are so very different than actions. At this point the only two alternatives appear to be:
- Blank checks to continue the war
- Establish withdrawal timelines
The Democratic leadership has refused to defund the war out of fear they will appear weak. Its also possible that they may not be able to hold together 40 Senators to filibuster either the defense bill or a supplemental spending bill. However, considering the Democrat's behavior that appears startling like abused-spouse syndrome, I think they're too scared to defund the war.
Anyway, back to Norm and his Norm-speakTM.
*** Say one thing, vote another ***
His vote and his statement continue Norm's pattern of attempting to sound like he wants a new course or real change in our Iraq policies and his steadfast support of President Bush's policies in Iraq when he votes.
Just about a year ago, Norm saw the landslide political defeat of many of his friends and allies in Congress. The Democrats turned from minority party to majority in the blink of an election. Norm saw his reelection chances lessen and promptly began changing his tune from cheerleader to scared incumbent.
On Nov. 10, 2006, in an interview with National Public Radio's Melissa Block, Coleman criticized Bush for not firing Donald Rumsfeld earlier, saying, "I mean one of the problems that we have in election day, you get a chance to measure how much people want to be listened to."
On Dec. 6, 2006, Coleman said flatly, "Our current strategy in Iraq is not working."
On Dec. 7, 2006, after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Coleman said, "Right now, there's no question the situation in Iraq is very grave and unsettling,"
(Minnesota Monitor)
When President Bush announced his surge which in effect escalated the Iraq War by sending another 30,000 troops into Iraq, Norm was initially opposed. However, he changed his mind and became opposed to the surge in Baghdad but for it in Al Anbar province. Then he opposed the opposition to the surge. In the end he voted as he always did, but tried to sound like he wanted some accountability in Iraq.
"My colleagues have considered redeploying out of Iraq ... but there are consequences to doing this. There may come a time when we consider redeploying outside of Baghdad if the Iraqis can't stop the civil war. Then they're going to go at it and we're going to do some other things. Continue to fight the insurgency, continue to fight the foreign fighters, continue to make sure that Iran is not meddling more than it is ... [mumbles incoherently] ... Bottom line is we need specific benchmarks. [If they aren't met] then talk about consequences if benchmarks are not met."
(Norm on MPR's Midday)
After this series of flip-flops he wanted benchmarks, but without any consequences. He wants to see progress, but is hesitant about defining what that progress might be. Vague goals without benchmarks are okay for Norm as nobody could them hold him or the Bush Administration accountable for their failure in Iraq. But every once in a while, the truth manages to slip between Norm's glistening white teeth:
To emphasize how thoroughly Norm supports Bush's Iraq War, when answering a question about how the situation in Iraq is really a test of America's will, he says:
- "If its a test of wills, we're going to be there a long time."
(Norm on MPR's Midday)
*** Resuming his cheerleader role ***
Coleman's assessment hasn't changed much since January when, for the first time, he broke with the Bush administration over the idea of sending additional troops to Baghdad. Even then, although it was little noticed, he endorsed the value of more troops in Anbar Province.
Now, he says, the United States is winning in Anbar and inducing more Sunnis to abandon the insurgency and join U.S. efforts against Al-Qaida in Iraq.
(Norm Coleman: We're going to be in Iraq for a long time)
Upon returning from a brief visit to Iraq in April of 2007, Norm was back to his cheerleader ways. He'd apparently recovered from his reelection fears of November 2006. The quote above is from just after he got back from a his personal dog & pony. He was feeling positive about all the military success he saw, but just to be safe he went on to criticize the Iraqi Prime Minister's inability to make any political progress just in case anyone was to later accuse him of blindly supporting President Bush.
Also at this time, he and many other Republicans began trotting out their new protective blanket against any questions relating to how poorly things were going in Iraq. First they'd question whether things were actually going all that poorly then assert that General Petraeus would provide candid analysis in September. Then we'd know. For Iraq War cheerleaders, Magical September became their defense against any criticism.
He said that in late August or early September, Petraeus will deliver a candid report to Congress on whether he's making adequate progress.
"And if he's not, we'll have to talk about an alternative course of action," Coleman said.
(Norm Coleman: We're going to be in Iraq for a long time)
By the middle of summer, Norm had become so upbeat about Iraq that he claimed his steadfast support would be vindicated by November 2008. He was so upbeat that he admitted that he refused to listen to the majority of Minnesotans who wanted our troops out of Iraq.
"Time will prove me right. I'm up for election in '08. If I'm wrong, folks, they'll have a chance to articulate that but I'm fairly confident, as I kind of look at the lay of the land, that we will have a change of mission, we will have significant drawdown but we're doing it without telling the enemy this is when we are getting out of here, without cutting off any funds, any support for the troops," Coleman said.
He did not say exactly what a "significant drawdown" would look like.
(Norm Coleman claims he will be vindicated by Nov '08 on Iraq)
At this point the Iraq Summer Campaign began targeting Norm and many other Congresscritters who supported the war. They got his neighbors to put up Support the Troops, End the War lawnsigns. They began targeting him with hardhitting ads on local TV. It didn't sway him in the slightest. Norm is a steadfast supporter of President Bush.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) met with the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce for breakfast last Wednesday, August 29th. Norm used this opportunity to pass of a well-used lie and a tired evasion to a friendly audience that wouldn't call him on them. This lie and evasion were more or less the same ones he plied us all with six months ago on a Minnesota Public Radio interview and he reiterated at a July, 17, 2007 press conference: He still foresees a troop drawdown (the lie), but he's not for one anytime soon (the evasion).
- Coleman said America's military policy in Iraq will likely change next year.
"I strongly believe we're going to have a stepping down of troops and a change of mission next year," he said.
...
Coleman, who has criticized elements of Bush's surge strategy but never voted against it or for a timeline for withdrawing troops, said he is concerned about a lack of political progress in Iraq.
"My sense is that the surge has made significant military progress, but on the political side, the Iraqis have failed to achieve political progress," he said.
Coleman would not endorse recent calls from fellow Republican U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for a withdrawal timeline.
"There's no question that a strong message has to be sent to the Iraqi government," Coleman said. "(Warner) is talking about sending a message, but I'm not prepared to say that I support John's approach."
(St. Cloud Times)
(Its six months since Norm asked for a Friedman Unit on Iraq)
Suddenly it was Magical September and Gen. Petraeus was going to enlighten us about how awesomely fabulously things were going in Iraq. But just before that, Norm needed one last dog and pony show to strengthen his resolve for the upcoming Congressional hearings. He spent Labor Day weekend in Iraq and even met with Gen. Petraeus who shared some super-secret statistics which proved things in Iraq were going great. Unfortunately, Gen. Petraeus's statistics were fudged. He was not counting deaths from car bombings and how an Iraqi was shot in the head from point blank range decided if they were included in the statistics. Norm was unaware (and probably still is).
Unfortunately, even the truth escapes from Norm on occasion and he let this little nugget slip out:
"Let me also say that the last four years have been riddled with bad predictions and broken promises in Iraq - and I understand that."
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) lets a little truth slip out on MPR
Gen. Petraeus Magical September ensued. He testified before Congress. When Norm got his chance to question Petraeus, he lauded his work. But he hedged it slightly with the following questions:
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) wants to sound more moderate and reasonable than his voting record on the Iraq War indicates. However, he also says in another statement that the surge is working. Judging by his voting history, he'll ask tough sounding questions, but will continue to back the occupation. This is classic Norm-speak(TM).
- U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, a consistent backer of the war in Iraq, on Tuesday pressed Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander, for a long-term plan that would include timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals.
"Americans want to see a light at the end of the tunnel," said the Minnesota Republican, who is walking a tightrope to the 2008 election. "We need to see some plan out there."
(Minneapolis Star Tribune)
(Norm Coleman: light at end of election tunnel is a train)
When Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) questioned Gen. Petraeus most news sources noted that he applauded the General for showing that the surge was working and that he asked for a light at the end of the tunnel. However, most papers missed this.
- "Can we get a longer-term vision? Can we get a longer-term plan? Can we say that, yeah, we can be down to half our troops in three years; we can get to five years; we can be turning over our bases in some other paradigm?" Coleman asked. "But I think we need something a little more than, say, give us more time to come back again in the fall."
(Chicago Tribune)
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were unable to answer his question.
(A little bit more truth slips between Norm's brilliantly white teeth)
*** Flip flop doesn't quite describe Norm's political gymnastics ***
Unfortunately for Norm, polling numbers indicating Norm's opponents were closing fast. This must have struck the fear of reelection back into Norm. After President Bush went on national TV to extoll Gen. Petraeus's testimony and plead with Americans to stay the course, Norm felt the need to respond. He stated that he was now for timelines in Iraq.
<font>
- He called the troop reduction Bush outlined a "positive development in the short-term," but said, "Americans need to know there is light at the end of the tunnel well beyond that time frame. . . . America's role in Iraq is not unending."
Earlier this week, Coleman said he was working with Democrat Mark Pryor of Arkansas on legislation that would require troop reductions beyond next summer. Coleman, facing a tough re-election battle next year, said he would like to see troop levels cut in half within three years.
(CQ)
</font>
This was coming from the Senator who decried arbitrary timelines and vowed to not cut and run is pretty rich. In examining his most recent two votes, what he says certainly does get confusing.
Inside ten days, he talked about a working with a group of Republican Senators on plans to get out of Iraq. Ironically, these Senators are all up for reelection in 2008. Faux News related the most interesting part of their proposal: "if enacted immediately, that timeline would not kick in until Bush's last couple of weeks in office."
A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is out of office.
The legislation was deemed essentially a nonstarter by Democrats Friday and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on the war. What attracts Democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground.
He also then became an advocate for oversight in Iraq. During the Republican Congresses between 2003 to 2007, Norm was the Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He overlooked every Bush Administration transgression in Iraq.
Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Susan Collins (R-ME) last night successfully included an amendment in the 2008 Department of Defense authorization bill that would expand and extend the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's (SIGIR) oversight of U.S. efforts in Iraq. The amendment was introduced following Sen. Coleman's return from Iraq where he met with representatives from SIGIR to discuss their needs and priorities. SIGIR is a temporary federal agency, created by Congress, that is responsible for oversight of expenditures and revenues associated with reconstruction and rehabilitation in Iraq. It is also charged with auditing, inspecting and investigating the use and potential misuse of funds intended for Iraq reconstruction programs.
(Norm's 9/28/07 press release)
Here's a list of some things he chose not to investigate while Chair of the PSI:
- Dispersal of the Iraqi Army
- Cronyism in appointments in Provisional Govt
- Torture at Abu Ghraib
- No bid contracts
- Disappearing money
- Corruption among contracting companies in Iraq
- Poorly constructed facilities built by contractors
- Contaminated water drunk and used by troops
- Abuses committed by contracting companies in Iraq
- Death of Pat Tillman
- Lies surrounding abduction and rescue of Jessica Lynch
- Overcharges among contracting companies in Iraq
*** Norm-speak(TM) ***
Everything I've related shows why it is essential to listen with good humor to what comes out of Norm's mouth, but ignore it. It's meaningless when it comes time for him to vote. What he has to say is interesting in that the political gymnastics he's engaging in can be breath-takingly difficult. Sometimes his verbal contortions are funny.
For example, after an anti-war rally some folks trudged up from the Capitol to Norm's house atop Cathedral Hill in St. Paul. They actually found him at home. He came out and talked to them. He was asked about his solid supporter for President Bush's war. Watch the vid here.
I disagree uh with the President ... uh ... I, I, I, I agree with him and I disagree with him ... [laughter from crowd] ... I disagree with him on disaster assistance, I disagree with him on [mumbles incoherently] funding, I disagree with I that things I that again I have to tell ya I don't call him up and ask him what he thinks, I try to represent you. And on this issues, and on this issue I was uh by the way I was one of the ones I didn't think the surge would work and by the way ..."
"And you were right," A woman says from the crowd. Most everybody in the crowd laughs.
(Norm and Iraq: he will say anything)
He has held so many positions on Iraq that you think that he would have been waffling back and forth when he votes. However, he has voted 100% for blank checks for President Bush. Norm will attempt to confuse and fast-talk Minnesotans into thinking he has had a nuanced and serious position on Iraq.
Dont' be fooled by the Norm-speak(TM).