Chris Shays is off to Iraq yet again. After his last trip in August, 2006, coming just days after anti-war candidate Ned Lamont defeated pro-war senator Joe Lieberman, Shays announced that he was reversing his previous opposition to a timeline, and endorsing a timeline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Indeed, he told the Washington Post that "most of the withdrawal could take place (in 2007)." Yet last month, when presented with the opportunity to vote for precisely the sort of timeline he told voters he supported, he reversed himself: Shays voted against the Democratic proposal for a timeline that would have withdrawn American combat troops by the first quarter of 2008, or September 2008 at the latest. It wasn't Shays' first flip-flop on Iraq since the election. After first calling it "a mistake," he endorsed the Bush administration's escalation of the war that is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq, and in February voted against the Democrats' non-binding "anti-surge" resolution. And while he insists that he supports the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group (ISG), he conveniently declines to mention that he opposes the ISG's crucial recommendation that most American combat troops be withdrawn by the first quarter of 2008. How does Shays justify his flip-flop on timelines? He says that he does support a timeline for withdrawal, but only if President Bush sets it, not Congress. Of course, it is blindingly obvious that Bush will never announce a timeline for withdrawing American troops. So once again, Shays has it both ways: he tells voters he supports a timeline, but only if it comes from the one person who will never issue one. Slick, no?
Before I wrote my email to Rep. Shays, I thought I should take a closer at the bill. It has an interesting set of co-sponsors. From California, it has Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman and Darrell Issa. Talk about crossing the political spectrum! It has Steve Rothman from New Jersey, Jerry Nadler from New York, John Conyers from Michigan, and even Steny Hoyer from Maryland.
So, who is supporting this bill from Connecticut? So far the only cosponsor is Rep. Shays. So, I've actually sent Rep. Shays a message complimenting him on this. Perhaps other people in the State can get the rest of the Connecticut delegation on board.
Chris "Both Ways" Shays' cynical flip-flops on the Iraq War have become breathtakingly blatant. Last August, Mr. Shays returned from his fourteenth trip to Iraq and announced that "the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal." Shays added that he supported a one year timetable for withdrawing most of our troops from Iraq. Yet just two months after insisting that he advocated a timeline for withdrawal, Shays came out in strong support for Bush's "surge" that is sending tens of thousands more young Americans into combat, and voted against the Democrats' anti-surge resolution (HR 157, roll call #97, February 13, 2007).
(Jim Himes on Shays, with some bio information courtesy of TH. - promoted by mattw)
Jim Himes, Greenwich's DTC chairman and member of the town's Board of Estimates and Taxation, published a guest commentary in Greenwich Citizen this morning that slammed Chris Shays (R-CT4) for his continued support for the disastrous war in Iraq. Titled "Time for Honesty on Iraq," Himes strongly criticizes Shays for backing Bush's escalation of the Iraq War. Jim is well down the road toward a decision to challenge Shays in '08.
Himes writes:
"In a speech before Congress supporting the 20,000-troop `surge,' Congressman Shays put forth a string of half-truths that shows the confusion of a man who was a conscientious objector during Vietnam who now finds himself mired in a war he helped to start."
Excellent point. Why hasn't Shays been taken to task for hyping this war and voting to send hundreds of thousands of young Americans to fight in Iraq, when he saved himself from combat when his draft number came up during Vietnam? After all, Shays was 27 years old at the time, and not a naive teenager.
Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!! (especially with the CCAG encouraging us to contact Shays)
Last week I sent an email through Chris Shays' congressional web page. On the page he encourages constituents to use the email client, because direct mail appears to be undeliverable after the anthrax scare (great news for my 80-year old mother). Amazingly, less than three days later, I received spam on my Yahoo account (the return address I used) with the subject: My Name - My Address!!!
Here's the pride and joy of the 4th District repeatedly admonishing Katy Helvenston-Wettengel (who was only trying to answer Shays questions within his endless and shameless rant).
Who is Katy Helvenston-Wettengel you ask? Well, she just happens to be one of the relatives of the four American contractors who providing private security in Iraq that were ambushed by a mob and their bodies dragged through the streets of Fallujah.
Helvenston-Wettengel, and three other relatives of the victims, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday about the outrageous conditions their loved ones were forced to deal with while working as contractors in Iraq (i.e., lack of body armour, lack of amour ed cars, no maps, etc).
After these individuals fought back tears testifying about the recounting how the contractors, were sent out into the meat grinder called Iraq without the protective equipment they were promised, the Republicans wasted no time and doing what they do best...attack the messenger. Shays grilling and belittling of Helvenston-Wettengel was so offensive that Rep. Henry Waxman apparently had enough of the 4th District Congressman and pulled the plug on him.
When Connecticut Republican Congressman Chris Shays showed up in Norwalk on Saturday for his appearance on Lisa Wexler's "Lunch With Lisa" radio show (1350 AM), the veteran politician displayed none of the bonhomie that had helped keep him in power for two decades. Perhaps he was still smarting from the second of two bruising almost-losses to Democratic challenger Diane Farrell; perhaps it was the painful recognition that Nancy Pelosi, who entered Congress in the same year as he- 1987, had risen to the pinnacle of congressional power - the speakership, while he ranks as one of the most unnoticed and powerless members in the entire institution. Perhaps he was still bitter that the Democratic seizure of the House caused him to lose his chairmanship of the Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on international relations and security, even though it ranks as one of the most irrelevant subcommittees in the entire Congress. Whatever the cause, Shays began his half hour interview by complaining to Wexler that it was supposed to be a lunch show, but no one had offered him anything to eat. "Bad staff work", he whined. And he wasn't joking.
If you still have any doubts that having Joe Lieberman at the top of the ticket is a lousy idea, here's the proof you've been looking for.
On April 30, during a visit to a meeting sponsored by the Westport Democratic Town Committee and the Democratic Women of Westport (DWW), Farrell had made another plea for a debate with Shays on the war.
Shays rejected the request just as he did the earlier one. Last Saturday, the congressman suggested again that Farrell should debate U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) instead of him because the senator's views on Iraq are similar to the Shays' positions.
Touche! Shays played this just like those who post on this blog predicted he would. Farrell has been hoist on her own pro-Joe petard.
Let's ride to Diane's rescue by nominating a real Democrat for U.S. Senate.
MLN is powered by