A response from Leach on Iraq

[CornField]

Edited to Add: I think I need to read it a few more times, I'm not really making much sense of what he's saying.

-----

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the situation in Iraq
and how we should proceed. I appreciate hearing from you.

It is my sense that Congress should insist the Executive set forth a
common-sense program for an orderly disengagement from Iraq,
beginning next year. The challenge we now face is the trauma of
being responsible for a state we have invaded and the unintended,
as well as the intended, consequences of our action. Obviously,
we'd like democracy to take hold, but our military intervention
may have precipitated a possible disintegration of the Iraqi state as
well as a possible integration of religion and politics in what had
been a largely secular Iraq. Military dominance, we have found,
does not necessarily translate into political control.

In a recent editorial, the New York Times noted that when the
President articulated his "comprehensive strategy" for responding
to the threat of terrorism, he listed three aims: "protecting this
homeland, taking the fight to the enemy and advancing freedom."
The invasion of Iraq, the Times suggested, flunked the first two
tests, but did free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and may
still provide an opportunity to inspire the rest of the Arab world
with an example of democracy and religious toleration. Hence, the
case for immediate withdrawal is frail.

It is true that there is a certain risk involved in leaving too early;
but the risks of leaving too late are far graver. The whole Muslim
world objects to anything that resembles military colonization.
Indeed, it is possible that 9/11 might not have happened if a
decision had not been made after the first Gulf war to maintain a
large American presence in Saudi Arabia through the '90s. While
the government of Saudi Arabia approved, the people objected,
and 15 of the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the attacks on the Twin
Towers and the Pentagon were Saudis; none were Iraqis.

The neo-cons have argued that we need semi-permanent bases in
Iraq so that American troops can be moved quickly to Syria, Iran,
Saudi Arabia or even Israel. I believe that rather than being
a stabilizing force, the long-term basing of U.S. troops in Iraq
would become a magnet for instability in the Middle East and
create an incentive for terrorist acts against American citizens and
property in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, including here at
home.

In the middle of the Vietnam war, Senator George Aiken of
Vermont argued that we should just declare victory and get out.
The irony is that we had no good news to make such a claim then,
but with a new constitution now in place, we can point to at least a
partial democratic success in Iraq. Given that the weapons-of- mass-destruction rationale for our engagement is so lacking, we
would be foolish at this stage not to use the success of the
constitutional referendum and the upcoming presidential election
as justification for a troop drawdown.

Finally, a note about where there is consensus in a divided
America. All Americans respect the courage and commitment of
our troops. Politicians may have made strategic and tactical errors, but our troops have served with great valor and in many cases, like school rebuilding in the North, shown the face of American compassion. As Washington struggles with future policy
decisions, it is important to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain. This does not mean that the status quo must be prolonged or that imperfect political judgments define patriotism.

Again, thanks for getting in touch with me. Please do so whenever
matters of importance arise.

Sincerely,

Jim Leach
Member of Congress

[Debi]

1. He actually used the word neo-cons for his fellow party members?

Loebsack must be nipping at his heals! How many times has he voted WITH these neo-cons to screw Iowans? (Bankruptcy bill as the most recent example). One vote doesn't make Jim Leach a Liberal.

[IA_Seth]

2. Holy Moly

That is realy all I can say about that.

This calls for another donation to the Loebsack campaign as soon as I can and a round of applause for the heat he is obviously bringin!

I had to read it over a couple of times myself. He is sayin a lot of the right things, which quite frankly scares me a little. A consummate politician, this guy is even now turning on those he has continued to enable to save his own skin. How many Democrats will be persuaded by his slick rhetoric?

Please do all you can to support Loebsack and help take this turd out of office!

[rurallib]

3. I've got about half a dozen of these idiotic letters myself.

I don't know why I write him. I think he tries to discombabulate his constituents. When you get done reading this bullshit you either think he agrees with you or you think he's losing it. I think he's losing it.
Leach has this reputation for being thoughtful when in actuality I don't believe he does anything. I think he just dictates a stream of consciousnees ramble to his staff and they print it. Since most of us don't have the patience to wade through it we just say 'thanks for writing, Leach.'
He is very adept at not answering questions and steering them to whatever point he wants to make. Also, he has run away from the regressive party in his last several election, allowing the fiction of his 'independence' to be floated.
As for me, I believe he retired in the early 90s. The regressives didn't need him and so told him to sit in the corner until called on when they would tell him how to vote. Pretty much worthless to this district unless you are planning a trip to North Korea.

[CornField]

4. That is the largest letter I've ever received

which didn't state a damn thing. I keep reading it and reading it, hoping that there will be some action verb I missed or some insight I overlooked. In the words of the Wendy's lady, "Where's the beef?!"

It is my sense that Congress should insist...

Does that mean he is going to make a resolution to that effect or that it is only something he dreams about following his Saturday night tub visit?

There are some things I rather admire about this letter: the use of neo-cons (although I think he is working to separate himself from corruption) and the bit about Saudi Arabia.

But, if the guy is really for a massive troop pull-out, I wish he would just say so instead of beating the damn bushes to death.

[rurallib]

5. Want some more wallpaper? Ask him about the bases

we're building in Iraq. He can talk three sides of that question. First, their not being built, but if they are they are not permanent, just more than temporary (I broke into a loud laugh when he said that at a forum). Might have been a mistake in Saudi Arabia (Ya' think, Jim?). We still need to look at pulling the troops out sometime and having bases would present a problem in that area.
I was just sitting there shaking my head. Does this guy have a clue? He actually seemed a little (a lot?) surprised anyone had heard of us building bases in Iraq.

[Rambis]

6. Send in the Saudi troops!

Oh wait, I forgot they don't have a standing army because the first thing they would be standing on is the throats of the Saudi prince and his family.
I am glad somebody read that Leach letter and got the same feeling I get an hour after eating chinese food.
WPOS!