(Here's the link to the podcast of the Shays interview on NPR's "Where We Live" this morning. You may hear two familiar voices... - promoted by Maura)
The man is a disgrace. It's as simple as that. Sorry for getting angry, but Chris Shays is blatantly dishonest. Here are some of the things he said on Connecticut public radio station WNPR's "Where We Live" program on Friday.
First, Shays dishonestly suggested that the Bush administration is largely implementing what he called the Iraqi Study Group's "three main recommendations," when the Bush administration is doing nothing of the sort. Second, he falsely suggested that the ISG's "first recommendation" is, according to Shays, "that American troops shift from doing police work to doing military work...." Huh? The centerpiece of the ISG's recommendations was the withdrawal of American troops by the first quarter of 2008. In fact, here's exactly what the ISG report says right in its Executive Summary:
The most important questions about Iraq’s future are now the responsibility of Iraqis. The United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny.
The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi brigades. While this process is underway, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded with Iraqi army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.
The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection should be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid-reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.
It is clear that the Iraqi government will need assistance from the United States for some time to come, especially in carrying out security responsibilities. Yet the United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if the Iraqi government did not implement their planned changes. The United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq….
If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic assistance for the Iraqi government.
George Bush has stated categorically that he would not implement the ISG's recommendation to withdraw combat forces by March, 2008. When that key recommendation was embodied in the Democrats' supplemental spending bill, Chris "Both Ways" Shays voted against it. It's bad enough for Shays to vote against the key recommendation of the ISG, which Shays proudly claims credit for having helped create. But to pretend that the ISG didn't really call for American combat troops to be withdrawn is downright dishonest. It's a shame that WNPR moderator John Dankosky either didn't know enough about the ISG's recommendations to call Shays on his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, or felt, as host, that he had to be polite and not hold Shays' feet to the fire for lying on his show.
And then Shays, who last August had called for a timeline for withdrawal and had stated that most of our troops could be withdrawn within 2007 (Washington Post, August 25, 2006- "Shays Urges Iraq Withdrawal", by Anushka Asthana) stated his real position on the Iraq War:
"The American people simply do not have the will. They do not have the long-term will to do what I think we need to do, and that is to be there (in Iraq) for an extended period of time." (Interview on WNPR's "Where We Live," June 29, 2007).
So there it is. He doesn't believe in timelines, he doesn't believe that most of our troops can be withdrawn within 2007. He believes that our young men and women should stay in Iraq to be killed and maimed in their tens of thousands "for an extended period of time." Funny how the avowed pacifist and Vietnam-era conscientious objector now says that "the American people simply don't have the will" to continue on with another senseless war. But CO Chris has the will! You bet he does! He has all the courage in the world now that his fanny isn't in the line of fire and his military-aged kid doesn't have to face a draft. But, hey, it gets better.
For more than a year, when asked point blank at town hall meetings in his district whether he would have voted to invade Iraq if he knew then that Saddam had no WMD's, Shays repeatedly stated that he still would have voted to invade. He simply would have offered other reasons, reasons which he never specified. Yet on WNPR, "Both Ways" Shays flip-flopped once again. Says Both Ways:
"Clearly I was wrong about weapons of mass destruction and going into Iraq. So, if I could redo a vote, I would redo that vote. I can't redo that vote. We're there." (Interview on WNPR's "Where We Live," June 29, 2007)
.
So now Chris Shays, who has been Bush's biggest supporter for this entire senseless, bloody enterprise, now says his vote was a mistake. But of course, he's not going to call for a withdrawal. Just because the entire premise for this war is wrong doesn't mean our young people should stop bleeding. In fact, even though it was a mistake, he believes that our troops should be there "for an extended period of time." If only the American people had the same "will" as he does!
MLN is powered by