Call the doctor

by: Juan Melli

Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:34:13 AM EDT

Why is this so difficult?

Still, Andrews would not go as far as to call the invasion of Iraq a mistake.

"Removing Saddam Hussein from office was not a mistake," he said. "What was a mistake was the mistake the Bush Administration made in lying about the intelligence that led up to it. It was a mistake when the Bush Administration had no conceivable plan to handle the post-Saddam era? And the biggest mistake is saying nothing to fix the problem, which is the mistake the Senator is making day in and day out."

It's really hard to want to write about this campaign because both sides are being intellectually lazy. Andrews keeps putting out lame videos and statements attacking Lautenberg for his early support of the war. It's the Rovian strategy of attacking and neutralizing your opponents' perceived strength, which is a good strategy I guess, except Andrews is much weaker on the war than Lautenberg is so his attacks ring hollow. On the other hand, Andrews has a very thoughtful analysis and understanding of the current situation and a reasonable proposal for resolving the mess. But Lautenberg completely dismisses it because Andrews didn't introduce the plan as a resolution. Lautenberg has far from a clean record, though. He supported the war at the beginning and in the early days of the war he was telling the dfh's to stfu. And he doesn't seem to think there was anything wrong with that.

I see it like this: Andrews was an architect and helped build support for the biggest blunder in recent American history. Like Andrews, Lautenberg was scared or hoodwinked into supporting it, but he didn't aggravate the problem much beyond his calls for an end to dissent. And though it took Andrews several years to come around, Lautenberg voted to end the war as early as 2003. Now, Andrews has a thoughtful plan for how to move forward. Overall, I think Lautenberg unquestionably has the stronger record when it comes to Iraq. I think Andrews' understanding of the situation is admirable, but Lautenberg didn't need to look in the rear view mirror for 3 years before figuring out the war had to be ended, and that kind of judgment is important to me.

The fact that the candidates can so clearly identify every flaw in the other but can't provide even a modicum of introspection makes both lack credibility and authenticity. I can't remember the last time I didn't roll my eyes upon getting either campaign's press releases relating to Iraq. Realistically, I don't expect that to change, so I'm kind of resigned to it, meaning I'll probably be focusing mostly on other things besides the primary race.

Lautenberg: no regret over early war support?

by: Juan Melli

Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:32:26 PM EDT

On March 17, 2003 -- three days before the invasion of Iraq -- Senator Tom Daschle said "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."

Some considered these to be controversial words at the time. One week later, Senator Lautenberg appeared on Hannity & Colmes on Fox News to discuss Daschle's comments and said "the days of dissent I think are essentially over" and that instead people should only be disagreeing about "the behavior of Saddam Hussein".

COLMES: Senator, I want to ask you what the tone is in the Senate right now. You know some Democrats, it seems -- you know, Sean was mentioning what Senator Daschle said. Some Americans are upset with some of the comments Democrats have made. Is there unity at the moment?

LAUTENBERG: Well, there's unity in preference behind the war, behind the troops. We want everything to be there that protects them, that gives them the best opportunities they have to conclude this war with minimum casualties. There's full support for the effort.

The days of dissent I think are essentially over. People have a right to disagree. But if they're disagreeing, they ought to disagree with the behavior of Saddam Hussein. The cruelty and madness with which he held people's lives in fragile hands. But there's no protest there and I don't get it.

More important to me than someone's past mistakes is to know if they learned from those mistakes. Which is why I was disappointed that when Rob Andrews was asked if his support for the Iraq war was a mistake, he dodged the question.

Asked if Lautenberg regretted making those statements, spokesperson Julie Roginsky told Blue Jersey in a statement that "What the Senator regrets is trusting George Bush and Rob Andrews not to deceive Congress and the American people about the intelligence on Iraq and WMD. Once it became clear that there were no WMDs, and that the Bush Administration falsified intelligence to sell the war, no one spoke out quicker and more forcefully than Senator Lautenberg."

The statement continued:

"In fact, by July 2003, Senator Lautenberg was raising serious questions about the war in Iraq and, by September, Senator Lautenberg declared publicly, "the American people need to be told the truth about the situation in Iraq."

While Congressman Andrews continued - for three years - to enable Bush on the war, Frank Lautenberg was working to hold Bush and Cheney accountable, and start bringing our troops home.  

Rob Andrews was voting with Bush and the Republicans until the Summer of 2006.  As early as 2003, Frank Lautenberg was among a brave group of 12 Dems who voted against Bush's $87 billion Iraq Supplemental in October 2003.  Lautenberg has voted for every resolution to withdraw our troops.  Andrews voted against several withdrawal resolutions before his fortuitous 2006 epiphany.

There is no comparison between their two records on Iraq."

What do you think?