The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

I don't know how he digs this stuff up, but Exile at Rochesterturning found out that Randy Kuhl has been named a Lieutenant Colonel in the Civil Air Patrol.

Reader Elmer sends the editorial [pdf] from today's Corning Leader. It's an unequivocal rejection of the "return on success" slogan, and a call for and end to the Iraq War.

The Leader is generally considered a conservative newspaper. It endorsed Randy Kuhl in 2006. There's no mention of Kuhl in today's editorial, though last week's Leader carried an column written by the editor saying that Kuhl's position on the war is endangering his chances for re-election.

Reader Elmer sends the front page [pdf] and jump [pdf] of today's Corning Leader, which reports Randy Kuhl's decision to continue supporting the President's plan in Iraq.

As far as I can tell, no other media outlet ran Kuhl's press release from yesterday.

Randy Kuhl's office has posted a press release commenting on last night's address by President Bush. Stressing the importance of Iraqis working towards reconciliation, Kuhl said that "America's presence in Iraq cannot be indefinite". However, at the end of the release, he states:

The progress that the U.S. military has made in providing security for the Iraqi people will continue to improve as they work to bring democracy to a once oppressed country. I will continue to support our troops in every way so that they may return to the United States as quickly and safely as possible.

I can't read this as anything else but an indication of no change in his position on the Iraq war.

In Randy Kuhl's last Iraq press release, he said that he was waiting for "the results" on benchmarks on September 15. The waiting is over. Today, the White House released the latest benchmark report. According to the AP, the report contains only one minor change from the last report: there are more former members of the Ba'ath party who are being allowed back into government.

It's worth looking at this one benchmark in-depth. Here's the benchmark:

Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.

That seems pretty simple. Here's what the White House says:

The fact that legislation has not yet passed the COR [Council of Representatives, i.e. Iraqi Parliament] should not diminish the significance of the agreement reached by the leaders or the re-integration of former Ba’athists taking place on the ground.

The point of benchmarks is that they are objective measures of progress. The objective measure here is whether legislation has been passed and implemented. If the legislation had passed, then perhaps there could be a conversation about implementation. This law has been drafted but not passed. Any reasonable person reading this report has to conclude that the benchmark has not been met.

The GAO report issued earlier this week had three categories for benchmarks: "met", "partially met", "unmet". The GAO categorized the de-Ba'athification benchmark as "unmet".

Olean Gal pointed out that the Hornell Evening Tribune has a follow-up story on Eric Massa's visit to a Republican gathering in Cohocton. At that meeting, Massa said that he'd seek to invoke the Sherman anti-trust act to limit foreign companies that seek to erect wind farms in the area.

In related news, Rochester City Newspaper has an in-depth piece on wind power in this week's edition.

Reader Elmer sends today's Corning Leader front page [pdf] and jump [pdf], where Randy Kuhl makes some statements that sound like he's going to support continued US presence in Iraq.

The Leader piece begins by noting that General Petraeus could not say whether the war in Iraq was making us safer. Kuhl says he believes it does, for the following reasons:

But has it diffused [sic] al-Qaida from attacking this country? The answer is yes. Has it defused Iraq from attacking us? The answer is yes.
Have they had to use resources they would otherwise be able to direct at killing people in this country for other purposes? The answer is yes. Have we kept bin Laden in a hole? The answer is yes.

Later in the article, Kuhl says that any decision on troop movement rests with President Bush, and not Congress, because Congress lacks the necessary 2/3 majority to override a veto.

In yesterday's Democrat and Chronicle, Kuhl also made the following statement:

I trust Gen. Petraeus’ proposal [...] I firmly believe that he knows best. I don’t think his plan for redeployment of our troops should be second-guessed by Congress.

There are two currents running under both of these statements. The first is a very myopic view of our security. The bin Laden reference seems especially clueless -- most would argue that the resources diverted from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq have allowed bin Laden to prosper. The second, and more disturbing, is an abrogation of the role of the legislative branch of government. The lack of a 2/3 majority is not carved in stone. And oversight is not second-guessing, it's the constitutional role of the legislative branch.

Today's Massa press conference included a long, fascinating exchange on Iraq.

Massa led off the call with a discussion of the report from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. He said he called it the Crocker/Petraeus report because he's "been appalled by how civilian leaders have said up to the report that they're going to wait for the military to make up their minds." Massa called the report a "very scripted and very edited version of events on the ground."

Nevertheless, Massa acknowledged that the report had shifted the debate. The debate was supposed to be whether we "change strategy or stay the course. The debate now is do we maintain the force levels at surge level or reduce to 130,000. Now people are just talking about numbers." Massa characterized those as "arbitrary numbers driven by the availability of replacement troops."

Turning to Kuhl's role in the war, Massa said he has "refused steadfastly to provide any leadership at all." Massa criticized Kuhl for saying that he'd announce his position yesterday, and then failing to do so. "The reason is that President Bush will announce tomorrow what the policy will be."

Massa also said that Kuhl isn't being asked tough questions, like:

"Why do you have on your web site today as the most prominent piece of information a press release denouncing Moveon.org for attacking General Petraeus? [...] Trust me, General Petraeus does not care what MoveOn.org says, and what the American people care about is what the rubber stamp Representatives in Congress will do.

After the introduction, Massa took a number of questions from Rick Miller of the Olean Times-Herald. Rick, myself and one other person (whose name I missed) were on the call. Here are some paraphrased excerpts from a long, interesting interchange between the two. The bulleted items are Rick's questions:

• It seems like you're beating up on the Congressman, who merely said that he wants to defer his decision until after he hears what the president says tomorrow. Why is that a major problem?

We've had years to understand this problem -- we've been in Iraq for years. It didn't happen yesterday. The problem is that Randy Kuhl's answer to everything is 'Wait a minute, let me check with the White House.' I'm not beating up Randy Kuhl, he's beating up himself. If he puts out a press release saying tomorrow he's going to make a decision [he ought to follow through].

• But aren't you jumping the gun?

The press release was very clear: he said he would defer first to General Petraeus. Now he's deferring to the President. My point is that we've been in Iraq and in this situation for years. What is it? How long will the people of the 29th district have to wait?

• Hasn't the President already co-opted the Democrats for another year?

Potentially, but this is not about playing political games. We're talking about the lives and deaths of thousands of people and soldiers. I don't really care about whether one political party has been co-opted.

Rick pressed this line of questioning, and Massa said that he can only speak for himself, and that the only responsible solution is to learn from Bosnia and partition Iraq into three semi-autonomous states.

• Isn't that pretty much what's happened there already?

In the most uncontrolled, violent manner possible. Now it's time to announce a new strategy. We don't need to be playing politics in Iraq. What the President hasn't successfully done is gotten us out of the worst strategic blunder in US history, that he's gotten us into. And rubber stamps like Randy Kuhl are equally guilty.

• What's your timetable for redeployment?

As quickly as possible. It will take between 6-18 months to deploy, just based on logistics.

• So doesn't that mean that it's up to the next President to make that decision?

The decisions can be made now to start, but it won't be made now. The President and his rubber stamps are going to play games, to talk about reducing force levels. That's irrelevant. What's the strategy? What's the national policy? The policy now is to remain in Iraq with large permanent combat bases, and a large military, indefinitely. People want us out responsibly. Responsibility is more than posting press releases going after political fringe groups.

• What do you mean by "responsibly"?

To do as much as we can to ensure as much as possible that the elements of stability are in place. In the end, this is up to the Iraqi people. If they want to fight a civil war, nothing can stop them. No military force on the planet will keep them from fighting each other.

• The Ambassador said that the goal was not wanting to leave Iraq in worse shape. But isn't that a fait accompli?

Yes -- they should have thought about that before destroying [the Iraqi government and all the institutions of power]. The first step at this point is to realize what has happened [a virtual partitioning] and put in place a strategy. [Look at Anbar], where we have created a Sunni safe haven and now they're defending themselves. The first step is recognizing the obvious.

• If the country is virtually partitioned at this point, is that a big reason that fewer incidents are going on?

Yes -- The surge didn't do it, the Iraqis did it. They're living in places that are safe havens they created themselves.

• You're going to hear this no matter what -- What about the American Soldiers who have already given their lives?

Massa told the story of his service on the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon in 1983. A short distance from his ship, a Marine barracks was bombed, and 241 American servicemen were killed. One of them was Massa's roommate at the Naval Academy. "Nobody said, 'Wait a minute, what about the sacrifices of Eric Massa's roommate?' We left in a matter of weeks. The value of military is in and of itself at the time that the service member does his duties."

• But what do you tell the parents?

We honor the heroic service of those who lost their lives because they carried out the orders of their superior officers and the President of the United States. That's what military people do, unquestioningly.

• What would you say to the mother of a fallen serviceman, who says we can't get out of Iraq after all of the lives that have been lost?

We invaded Iraq to make sure there were no weapons of mass destruction. There weren't. We invaded to depose a Hitleristic dictator. We did. We invaded to give Iraq the best future we could. We did. Our service men and women have completed the military mission with great success. We can ask no more of them. The sacrifices of those killed and wounded have allowed those successes to be achieved.

I searched the morning papers for Randy Kuhl's statement on the Iraq war and found nothing.* Finally, thanks to Rochesterturning, I noticed that Kuhl has issued a statement on his web site. The reason it hasn't been reported is pretty clear: it says nothing new about his position on the war.

Kuhl says that he's waiting for the September 15 formal report to Congress on the 18 mandated benchmarks. Of course, the GAO has already reported that the scorecard is 11 of 18 missed, with 4 of the remaining 7 only "partially accomplished". But this is an important decision, and Kuhl has the right to look at all of the data available before making it.

Kuhl's statement made another interesting claim: "I am in complete support of starting to bring our men and women home this month." I assume that's a reference to Petraeus' testimony that the additional 30,000 troops devoted to the "surge" can be back by next Summer, with the first contingent of 2,200 Marines returning this month (the Washington Post has the details).

The developing mainstream Republican strategy seems to be to sell the return of the 30,000 troops devoted to the surge as the start of a withdrawal. That's used-car-salesman arithmetic. Bringing back the surge troops by next Summer simply returns the troop count in Iraq to January, 2006 levels. Moreover, this withdrawal is one of necessity, not of choice, as this exchange between Petraeus and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) demonstrates.

To a constituency hungry for change in Iraq, this non-withdrawal withdrawal is pretty thin soup. Kuhl's hesitancy to come out with a solid statement might indicate that he's debating changing his position on the war. Perhaps the report on September 15, which will no doubt recognize the Iraqi government's almost total failure to move forward, will give him some cover to do that.

*Update: Of course, as soon as I make a categorical statement like that, I find a Star-Gazette story on Kuhl's press release.

Update 2: And the Corning Leader.

This is an interesting one: According to the Hornell Evening Tribune, Eric Massa will make an announcement about wind turbines tonight at the Cohocton Republican candidate debate.