Reply #12: Why I stand by Nancy

[Mabus]

Look at the question that Gibson asked. He asked her if she would vote to support the troops. She said yes and then pointed out that Bush, as commander-in-chief, deploys troops. Congress doesn't have that power. Instead, congress can vote to fund troops. So, if, as Gibson hypothesized, there were more troops in Iraq, Nancy would have been excoriated if she had said she would cut the funding to them.

fwiw, I have actively campaigned for Nancy since 2003. In 2004, her opponent Jim Ryun (R) ran commercials taunting Nancy's decision to go to D.C. and protest the Iraq War. He said she would be weak on terrorisms.

Nancy was an early opponent to the Iraq War and I believe her staff when they say, she does not support a surge but if the troops are sent there, she will vote to make sure they have what they need to survive and get home. She wants the troops home.

Anyway, below is what I posted on the Kansas forum earlier today after calling Boyda's office and talking to her staff. BTW, they also told me that they got more non-Kansas phone calls than calls from Kansas residents. I'm in Moore's district, not Boyda's. I told the staff that when I called. But they know who I am because they know campaigned for Nancy at various stages (but was never officially a part of her campaign team) and I have co-hosted more than one fundraiser for her.

I called Boyda's office (again), this time I talked to someone else and, frankly, I have to say, I support Boyda. I take back anything and everything bad I said.

Here's the pertinent portion of the conversation I had:

The 110th Congress doesn't get to vote on whether or not Bush decides to send more troops to Iraq. That's an Executive policy decision.

What the 110th Congress does get to vote on is funding the war. More importantly, what the 110th Congress can also do is oversight.

Boyda's office also told me that Ike Skelton (D-MO), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has announced (or will announce) that Gates will be called in front of the Committee and asked to justify the surge in troop levels.

*********

My comments and why I support Boyda. First, I'll start with reposting the transcript:

Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?

Boyda: I think we’re going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.

Gibson: If he wants the surge, he’ll get it.

Boyda: Yes…. He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.

Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, “We’re voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home.”

Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/congress-escalation /

Here's my take, Nancy's not real savvy in front of the cameras right now. After speaking with her office, I think what she meant to convey was encapsulated by her when she said, He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision. In other words, Bush, as commander-in-chief, decides to deploy troops, the Congress doesn't get a say. What Congress can do is fund or not fund the troops. What Nancy was saying is, if Bush does send the troops she will vote to fund them. Look at the question that Gibson asked her: would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq He did not ask her if she was in favor of the surge. Instead, basically he was asking her to assume there were an additional 20-40K troops on the ground in Iraq and if she would vote to appropriate money to support them. If she had said, "no" than people would be jumping on her for not supporting the troops. It was a question like "are you still beating your wife."

Additionally, what Nancy said, is in line with what the other two said in Gibson's interview. According to the thinkprogress website,

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’” Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution” but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.”

From their answers, I don't think they were asked the same question Nancy was, i.e., Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?. Murphy's answer sounds like it is in response to a direct question about whether the surge is necessary. Shuler's answer sounds like it is in response to a question about whether the surge is a solution to the problems in Iraq and he doesn't dismiss it. Then, it appears it is Boyda's turn. From what I can tell there is a progression in Gibson's line of questioning. Gibson has gone from "is the surge necessary" with Murphy to assuming the surge has taken place and asks Nancy if she would fund them. What's she going to say? No, let them starve? get blown to bits?

When Gibson asks her whether Bush will get a troop surge if he wants it, she correctly points out that he's the commander-in-chief. He has the ability to call up troops, not Congress. Congress can provide oversight. Remember that Nancy is now a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Perhaps we should reserve finally judgment on whether we've been sold down the river. I want to see how Nancy handles Gates when he testifies in front of the Armed Services Committee.

Oh yeah, as for that last bit about the voting in 2000 and 2004, I think she's saying that Bush was s/elected as commander-in-chief of our military, and basically, the American people are getting what they voted for. It wasn't really politic of her but I don't think it has the meaning that thinkprogress gives it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=153&topic_id=6926&mesg_id=6926