Both the Winona Daily News and the Rochester Post Bulletin have published a column by Tim Walz explaining his break with the Democratic caucus to vote for the revised Iraq funding bill:
Yesterday, the Congress of the United States voted on funding for the Iraq War. Instead of having the opportunity to consider a reasonable compromise that would reflect the will of the American public and scale back the U.S. commitment in Iraq, my colleagues and I were forced to choose between giving the president a blank check and providing our troops with the funding they need.
Several weeks ago, my colleagues and I passed a supplemental funding bill that tied our troop presence in Iraq to the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks of success. I supported that bill because it held the Iraqi government accountable to standards set by President Bush earlier this year and it provided incentives for the Iraqi government to govern itself. I was disappointed when, despite his earlier commitment to these standards of success, the President did an about-face and vetoed that legislation.
The spending bill we passed Thursday provided the needed funding for our Armed Forces in Iraq, while also funding veterans' and active-duty military health care beyond what the President requested. This new bill still requires the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks of success. However, instead of tying the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to the Iraqi government's success in achieving these benchmarks, the new bill cuts their foreign aid if the Iraqis do not meet the benchmarks.
Although critics on both sides will see Thursday's votes as a sign that Democrats caved in to the president, I do not believe that to be the case. I voted for the supplemental funding yesterday because it is the only option I had to ensure our troops in the field have the resources they need.
A clear majority of Americans are opposed to the President's "surge" plan and want to bring our forces in Iraq home. However, our system of government allows the president to use his veto pen to prevent Congress from doing so. When the president decided to veto our previous Iraq spending bill, Democrats in Congress had only two options: gather a super-majority to override his veto, or take a new course. We in Congress do not have that super-majority, so we cannot force the president to accept a bill that ties our troop presence in Iraq to reasonable measures of success so we can ensure that our military has a winnable mission.
And so, we must find a new course. I would like to believe that if the Congress withheld funding for Iraq, President Bush would eventually negotiate with us on compromise legislation to meet our military's needs, force the Iraqis to take responsibility and begin to bring our soldiers home. But over the past few weeks I have witnessed a very different and disturbing reality.
The truth is, throughout this debate the president has been unwilling to compromise. He made it clear that if my colleagues in Congress and I voted against this newest funding bill, he would not relent. The president refuses to consider any legislation that would take away his blank check in Iraq and as commander in chief, he has the authority to continue this war despite the wishes of the American public and a majority of Congress.
My fear is that if we had not provided the funding the president requested, he would have kept our solders in Iraq regardless of whether they had the resources they need to complete their mission. I spent 24 years serving in our Armed Forces and I cannot allow that to happen. The only way I can moderate the president's recklessness is to ensure he does not leave our soldiers in Iraq without the funding and equipment they need.
Some advised me to vote against continued funding for the war, in order to show my unhappiness with the way the president has handled it. I could not do that. I came to Congress to make hard decisions on behalf of the people of southern Minnesota and in this case, I believe my first responsibility is to ensure the safety of those Minnesotans who are serving in Iraq by making sure they have the resources they need. The president may be willing to play a game of political chicken with our troops, but I am not.
I am not happy about this legislation; I would have preferred to vote on a compromise package that holds the Iraqi government accountable for its own security and begins to bring our soldiers home. Unfortunately, the president made it clear that he is unwilling to consider a proposal like that.
Thursday's vote is not the end of the debate on the war in Iraq. Instead, the discussion continues in Congress -- and across the country -- about how best to bring our troops home and allow the Iraqis to govern themselves.
The Winona Daily News reports about Walz's vote in Walz breaks rank, supports war funds. MSNBC includes Walz in Iraq bill puts House Democrats on the spot.
The reaction on the netroots has been negative: Guyermo at Daily Kos scolds his representative in: Tim Walz justification for his vote. Truth and Justice at Truthsurfer writes Tim Walzing With The Devil On Iraq Funding. The blog most trusted by the DFL staff in St. Paul weighs in, too. Update: The Minnesota Monitor reports on the state's congressional delegation's votes in Congress OKs Iraq Supplemental Funding; Minnesota Delegation Largely Supportive. In the Senate, Amy Klobuchar voted for the bill, while a family emergency kept Norm Coleman from voting yes. Two of Minnesota's House members, Ellison and McCollum voted no, while Bachmann, Kline, Ramstad, Peterson and Walz voted yes. Oberstar did not vote. [/end update].
Update: We're torn by the funding bill, but understand Representative Walz's reasoning. For some weighing in on this issue, funding or defunding the war is a set of strategy points, abstractions in a larger political game whether they're on the right or left. For MnPublius, it's an electoral game in a swing district.
For Walz, as he notes in his op-ed, he's thinking about the soldiers in the field from the perspective of someone who spent 24 years in the National Guard.
His reasoning sounds a lot like what friends in the Guard and the Reserves have said about the bill. They harbor pretty unpleasant thoughts about the President and the Republican Party because of the impact of the deployment on themselves and their families, but worry--often from firsthand experience--about having the resources to fight the war.
For the representative (and for us), this isn't some kind of abstraction, or "game of chicken" as Walz notes, but the well-being of real people we know. Tough to understand for those committed to a movement, but not so hard for those of us hearing from those serving in Iraq and veterans of the conflict.
Do I agree with the vote? No, but I think that Walz is being honest about the sources of his motivation.
I could not be more ashamed of Tim Walz and of other Democrats who voted yesterday to continue this bloody war. It is now clear that Democrats own this war as much as Republicans, since they had the power to stop the carnage, yet they were too afraid to do so.
Walz basically says that he doubts the morality of a president who, Walz says, might easily leave the unfunded troops to die. How does giving this rogue president another $100 billion curb Bush's appitite for conquest. How does Walz propose that we should end this tragic war, if Walz and others are too cowardly to deprive Bush of the money he needs to conduct it?
And what will Walz and other Democrats like him now say to those who elected them, hoping that they would stand for the troops against this senseless loss of life?
Posted by: Charley | May 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM