What I'm getting at here is this article, "Key Republican Senator Offers Bipartisan Call to Reject Bush Plan for More Troops in Iraq" in Monday's NY Times. That guy there on the far right, yep, he's my senator: Norm Coleman, a republican whose speech is accentuated like a true New Yorker even though he now is considered a Minnesotan. Along with Senator John W. Warner (R-VA), he's proposing an alternative to President George W. Bush's recent plan for Iraq--which involves sending a "surge" of 2,500 troops or so to Iraq and spending a billion dollars on improving that country's economy.
The Times' article contains scarce traces of the Warner proposal: well, actually nothing. But the bipartisanship to me isn't disconcerting, and it's close to hopeful. The article states
Both are nonbinding but declare that United States involvement in Iraq cannot be sustained without strong public support and that the main military mission in Iraq should be ensuring the nation’s territorial integrity.Hey, what d'ya know? Democracy in action! "Strong public support" is a phrase I wish had been used consistently over the past 4 years, but it is of extremely positive import right now, as President Bush's approval rating, according to a CNN report I saw last on TV last night, is at 36%. Even lower is the public's approval of his handling of Iraq, coming in at 29%.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), another Republican I'm starting to like (which almost hurts to say, but it's not without legitimate cause) doesn't like the idea of the "surge" because similar attempts to bolster our levels of troops in Iraq haven't worked.
We’ve had four other surges since we first went into Iraq,” Ms. Collins said. “None of them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground. So I am very skeptical that this surge would produce the desired outcome.I heard somewhere--I know, I know, that doesn't sound professional, but it's not like I'm getting paid to do this--that the amount of total US troops in Iraq as a result of Pres. Bush's "surge" would approximately equal (give or take a few) the total we had over there exactly one year ago. I like the way Ms. Collins puts it.
Please, Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), take this for what it is: it's not just a concession to Democrats' wishes now that the Republicans aren't in power. That is an interpretation, and one that indeed sounds ok. But what it also is means more, that Republicans on the White House's side don't even agree with the war strategy anymore. That they are willing to work with Democrats, instead of both parties pulling hair and biting each other's arms. That maybe bipartisanship isn't a ghost from the past or from some political fantasy.
Well, here's a toast (I have a champagne flute, it looks clean enough, of pulpy orange juice I poured from a carton I left out overnight by accident)to Republicans. To many more attempts, whether for political or ideological or morally-considered motives, to listen to what Democrats in the minority were trying to say for the last 4 years. And to not rubbing it in anyone's face or acting pompous or smug or saying, "we told you so." Here's to sincerity.
And to the guy I've never voted for and although I've always seen eye to eye with him on energy policy (he cares about stuff) I never really agreed with until now...my senator, Norm Coleman.
No comments:
Post a Comment