Fossella and his hypocrisy towards our troops and administration

For the past several days the floor in the House of Representatives has been open to every member to debate for five minutes the resolution on the floor opposing President Bush's troop escalation. For the past three days members of both parties took to the floor to present their opinions and stances on the matter, all the while Rep. Fossella remained unseen and unheard from because he had yet to make up his mind. In that time at least 11 Republicans have spoken out vociferously against the President's plan. While the country is at war Rep. Fossella has no problems addressing other pressing issues such as honoring Alexander Hamilton on his 250th anniversary of his birth. However ask him to present a strategy for improving the safety of our troops in the Middle East or ask him a possible more black and white issue such as, should we send more troops or should we start bringing our troops home and this politician's thought process draws to a halt. While the citizens of this country made a clear case opposing Bush's handling of the war when they went to the polls in November, Fossella seems unmoved about what they think. While military generals such as General Colin Powell, General Abizaid, and members of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group have come forward to oppose this troop escalation, Fossella again remains unmoved. In fact all week news sites have been reporting that Fossella remains undecided on his stance towards the President's policy of sending even more troops into Iraq, when he disregarded similar suggestions from military leaders in the past.
In 2003 General Shinseki and General Zinni called for several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq, yet that request fell on deaf ears.

However Fossella is not undecided on this issue as it would appear. As with foreign policy and the war in Iraq during his re-election campaign, he is just avoiding it and pretending it is a non issue. He knows his stance full well, and that is as an 'independent' as he characterizes himself, his job is to wait for marching orders from the decider-in-chief President Bush and to abide by them irregardless of what his constituents or what our military leaders may say. Clearly the military strategy of this President out shines those of our own military generals.

This is so clearly a situation where Rep. Fossella espouses empty rhetoric of 'supporting our troops' in order to push a very partisan issue. While I could easily debate Rep. Fossella's logic and his allegiance to this President over the security of our troops and our country, I think his own words devistatingly show his true nature.

In 1999 President Clinton presided over the US military involvement in Serbia, while participating in a NATO authorized mission. Seeing the chance to attack, in nothing short of thinly veiled partisan jabs, the President, the Commander in Chief, Rep. Fossella laid out his attack as follows; [via Rep. Fossella's April 30th 1999 press release]

Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY) today reiterated his continued support of air strikes against Serbia but challenged President Clinton to provide a clear vision of the military campaign.

Fossella said his vote earlier this week against a resolution on air operations was an attempt to focus attention on Clinton's failure to provide leadership as Commander-in-Chief and to clearly articulate a strategy for victory.

So Rep. Fossella has indicated his ability to on one hand support the ongoing military opperation while simultaneously challenging the President's strategy. He used his office and his vote on the House floor to stand up to what he perceived was a potentially flawed strategy, yet never let down his stance that the opperation was necessary. The parallel is that today, when there is little doubt that President Bush's strategy is not just flawed but an absolute danger, Rep. Fossella has the track record to again support the war should he choose but challenge the President's strategy by voting for the resolution on the floor. However he has not done so.

"While their concerns [those of his constituents] are uppermost in my mind, I have a responsibility to all Americans as we make these difficult decisions. But President Clinton has failed the test of leadership since this military action began. In the past, I have supported the President as Commander in Chief in military actions against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. But in this matter, he has avoided articulating a strategy that will ensure victory, prevent a nightmarish quagmire or provide permanent security to Kosovars. The President has a responsibility to articulate America's long-term strategy before placing even one soldier in harm's way. He has asked the Congress and the American people to follow his lead, but he has shrouded in darkness where that road will take us. Leading military and foreign policy experts have questioned why the Administration won't define the mission and what plans are in place for us to withdraw." [edited text my own]

Again Rep. Fossella sets the stage for opposition to President Bush's failed leadership, as he so accused President Clinton. He can stand by Bush's decisions on the war in Afghanistan while criticizing and asking for a revised strategy for the war in Iraq. He has done it before and will not be seen as partisan cheer leading by attacking Clinton and then congratulating Bush on both of their leadership opportunities. Yet there is no press release, there are no speeches on the floor of the House that Bush, as he accused Clinton, "has avoided articulating a strategy that will ensure victory, prevent a nightmarish quagmire or provide permanent security" in Iraq. The glaring statement that closes that thought is his audacity to invoke foreign policy experts and he even dares to request plans for withdraw. Just this past fall when similar critiques were lobbed at Rep. Fossella and President Bush by Democratic challenger Stephen Harrison, Fossella chastised him for his failure to support the troops and his desire to 'cut and run.' The egg appears to be on Fossella's face, which may be what is blinding his foresight today.

Fossella said that after only six weeks of military action, the American people are already seeing the fallout of the Administration's ambiguous strategy and failure to plan for victory.

So what do the American people see now after nearly four years in Iraq? Rep. Fossella, did you hear the question because we have not heard your reply...

"It was shocking that the White House and NATO failed to realize that the bombings would lead to a mass exodus of Kosovars from their homeland,"

via MSNBC;
Redmond said his staff were seeing 2,000 people a day enter Syria from Iraq. More are believed to be entering other countries but UNHCR has not recorded those movements.

Up to 1.6 million Iraqis now live outside their country — mostly in Jordan and Syria, and in increasing numbers in Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, the Gulf states and Europe, Redmond said.

snip

“This displacement amid the ongoing violence in Iraq is presenting an enormous humanitarian challenge and extreme hardship for both the displaced and the Iraqi families trying to help them in host communities,” Redmond said.

“The enormous scale of the needs, the ongoing violence and the difficulties in reaching the displaced make it a problem that is practically beyond the capacity of humanitarian agencies, including UNHCR.”

Is this still shocking? Is this what the President meant by 'shock and awe'?

Fossella also voted for a bill this week that would require President Clinton to seek Congress' approval before committing ground troops to combat.

Rep. Fossella the opportunity again is before you. Tell this President, just as you told the last one that you will not support committing more troops to such a failed policy. Demand the President present his case before Congress clearly stating the benchmarks of his strategy to justify his escalation request, otherwise stand up and vote to oppose committing more troops as you did before.

"It would be unwise for Congress to issue the President a blank check to wage war," Fossella said. "We learned only to well the dangers of gradual escalation. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution started a bombing campaign against North Vietnam that resulted in an 11 year quagmire, over 57,000 Americans killed in combat and some 600,000 American ground troops. That resolution became President Johnson's blank check to troop waves of new soldiers into combat. To many Americans, the war in the Balkans bears striking similarities to Vietnam. The President must have a frank discussion with the American people as to what our military's mission is, when victory will be achieved and how it will be achieved."

Rep. Fossella, you authorized a new blank check for a new President which has created a new quagmire. You saw the dangers of escaltion in Serbia, yet you are deaf to your own words of advice. Rep. Fossella you issued this entire press release on April 30th, 1999, only 38 days in the military opperation in Serbia. You clearly laid out your case for why the President at the time failed to adequately provide a strategy to win and a plan for withdraw in your opinion. You made the case for why you can support the war if you wanted, however you could vote down troop escalation and you could vote in favor of resolutions condemning the President's strategy or lack thereof. You asked the hard question of "whether the Administration was caught off guard or of it lacks a clear vision of how we will wage and win this war" yet you seemingly have no reservations of such today. Rep. Fossella you stood up as a member of Congress to a 38 day old war that you saw as so grievously ill-prepared for, yet now four years into this war in Iraq you barely appear to have an opinion one way or another. Rep. Fossella you stood up for our troops in a war in Serbia where the US military had no casualties, yet today we have buried 3,125 3,128 Americans because of this disastrous policy the President has provided for us in Iraq. Rep. Fossella I can understand the pain you feel when a role model of yours lets you down so terribly hard as President Bush must have done to you, however as you questioned President Clinton, I must wonder are you asleep at the wheel with your leadership? Is your failure to create or support any sound strategy for our troops an indication of your leadership abilities? Or in the end is this just a partisan issue where there is no opportunity for you to grand stand and in reality you could care less about our troops, because that Rep. Fossella is what you are telling us.

UPDATE
Rep. Fossella votes NO to the resolution and stands firmly behind President Bush and his strategy for Iraq. Vito Fossella continues to show us his 'independent' mindset. Read his speech here.

Democrats on troop support, not escalation

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid;

Democrats are continuing to fight to give our troops the resources they need, including a strategy for success worthy of their sacrifices. The President's new plan to follow up his ill-advised escalation by sending ill-prepared National Guard troops to Iraq is another misguided strategy neither our troops nor the American people can afford. Nearly 90 percent of the Army National Guard has less than half the equipment they need to respond to a national crisis, and the war in Iraq is endangering our National Guard at home.

President Bush has done more than anyone to damage troop readiness, which are at levels not seen since the Vietnam War. While the Administration continually shifts its stance on when the escalation will end and when we will see results, our military is stretched too thin and our troops are returning to combat too soon and with too little training.

LTE: Fossella's indecision on Bush's Escalation

A Sunday 'Letter to the Editor' (LTE) in the SI Advance addresses Rep. Vito Fossella's long drawn out indecision on Bush's Escalation plan. Fossella held out until the day of the vote to then declare his continued support of President Bush;

According to a recent survey posted by the Web site Think Progress, 435 members of the House were polled and the most astounding fact is three of the 435 refused to answer if they favored or opposed escalation of the Iraq war. One congressman who apparently has no opinion about the deaths of young Americans is Staten Island's own Vito Fossella.

Read the entire piece here

Vito's escalation

Rep. Vito Fossella has already told us that he supports the President and his infinite wisdom and supports increasing the amount of troops we send to Iraq as part of a troop surge or troop escalation.

At the time the President was saying we would need 21,000 more troops.
Vito applauded.
Then he said 4,400 more on top of that.
Vito applauded.
Then the top US commander in Iraq asked the President for 3,000 more troops.
Vito, I am sure applauded.

This is Vito's escalation. This is Vito's war. Every step of the way he has told us he is independent, and then without question supported President Bush. In 2008, whether we are out of Iraq or not, President Bush leaves his current job and can't screw up or fix things any more than he has. In 2008 Vito is planning on running for re-election to go back to DC to more of the same.

Fossella opposed escalation and President, now supports escalation and President

Rep. Vito Fossella on sending messages to our troops and our enemies:

Friday, Feb 16th, 2007

Although this resolution is non-binding, the message it sends to our troops on the battlefield – and our enemies around the world – is crystal clear.

Our words have consequences, as powerful as our actions. We must choose them carefully for they are being listened to all over the world. And the words this congress speaks today will send the message to both our allies and enemies about our resolve.

1999;

Fossella said his vote earlier this week against a resolution on air operations was an attempt to focus attention on Clinton's failure to provide leadership as Commander-in-Chief and to clearly articulate a strategy for victory.

SNIP

Fossella also voted for a bill this week that would require President Clinton to seek Congress' approval before committing ground troops to combat.

Rep. Vito Fossella on 'political expediency';

Friday, Feb 16th, 2007;

To abdicate this solemn responsibility for political expediency is a dereliction of duty…and a sign of lost faith in the promise of America.

1999;

Fossella said that after only six weeks of military action, the American people are already seeing the fallout of the Administration's ambiguous strategy and failure to plan for victory. [emphasis mine]

Rep. Vito Fossella on strategy, is it the President's responsibility or Congress's;

Friday, Feb 16th, 2007;

With an open mind I have spent hours this week listening to the debate. Like many Americans I was willing to listen to new ideas and explore a new course in Iraq.

But an opportunity was wasted because all I have heard is “no” from the other side. I have not heard a plan…nor have I heard a strategy.

1999;

The President has a responsibility to articulate America's long-term strategy before placing even one soldier in harm's way.

UPDATE
Sorry comments are turned on now, didn't realize that earlier. Comments should now be automatically set to 'allow' on all posts.

Fossella calls escalation a doomed failure

We are witnessing a gradual escalation of America's role in this war. The Vietnam War offers us historical evidence that gradualism is a policy doomed to failure. Congress today demonstrated its support of our troops, but the President still needs to come before the American people and articulate our short- and long-term role in this military campaign." [link]

Rep. Vito Fossella, May 6, 1999

Fossella's failing escalation in Iraq

First there was Rep. Vito Fossella telling us all is good in Iraq.
Then there was Sen. Reid (D-Maj. Leader) calling for troop support, not escalation support.
Now this is what reporters are saying, via the NY Times;

But there is little sign that the Baghdad push is accomplishing its main purpose: to create an island of stability in which Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds can try to figure out how to run the country together. There has been no visible move toward compromise on the main dividing issues, like regional autonomy and more power sharing between Shiites and Sunnis.

For American troops, Baghdad has become a deadlier battleground as they have poured into the capital to confront Sunni and Shiite militias on their home streets. The rate of American deaths in the city over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period, though it has stayed roughly the same over all, decreasing in other parts of the country as troops have focused on the capital.

England not so keen on Iraq Escalation

While Rep. Vito Fossella continues to take marching orders from President Bush and his administration on the war in Iraq, it seems our allies, whom you may remember from such acts as the 'coalition of the willing', well they are not so willing anymore. It seems England has realized sending addition troops is not the solution, and in fact will be removing theirs from Iraq altogether. The WFP Blog has a nice write up on this;

Tony Blair is rejecting George Bush's escalation strategy and bringing British troops home. Blair is bringing 1,600 British troops home now - that's around a quarter of the British troops still in Iraq - with 3,000 more to come home by the end of 2007 and the rest to follow in 2008.

And Senator Kennedy calls out the administration;

"Eighteen other countries have already withdrawn or dramatically reduced their troop presence in Iraq. A majority of the American people voted last November for a changed policy in Iraq. A majority of the House and the Senate, a unanimous Baker- Hamilton Commission and numerous generals have rejected the Administration's policy in Iraq. And now our country's strongest ally has rejected it."

Iraqi Parliament learns from Rep. Fossella and Republican Congress

The Iraqi Parliament has scheduled a two month recess this summer for the months of July and August. It appears all is going swimmingly, and not meeting so many of Bush's non-timetable deadlines is exhausting. While this seemingly will hamper Republican led efforts back here in the US to give the escalation a chance to see progress in a couple of months, you don't have to wonder where the Parliament learned this from. When we try to push our own style of government on them, you learn from the best;

Congress will convene on Tuesday for what some fear will be the lamest of lame-duck sessions, and GOP leaders have decided to take a minimalist approach before turning over the reins of power to the Democrats. Rather than a final surge of legislative activity, Congress will probably wrap up things after a single, short week of work.

SNIP

Before the midterm elections, GOP leaders had dismissed the Democrats' "do-nothing" label for the 109th Congress as political posturing, promising that a robust post-election session would put the accusation to rest. Instead, Republican lawmakers will have met for one week in November, devoted almost exclusively to leadership elections for next year, and one week in December, largely to pick committee assignments, move offices and pass a measure to keep the government operating through February.

That will mean this Congress will have spent the least time in session of any in at least half a century, according to Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, congressional historians and the authors of "The Broken Branch," a critical look at recent Congresses. In the time they have met, lawmakers have failed to approve a budget resolution or pass at least eight of the 11 annual spending bills. [via Washington Post]

Vito's escalation, part II

So you recall Rep. Vito Fossella adamantly speaking against the Congressional effort to limit President Bush's plan to send more and more troops into Iraq to support his 'accomplished' mission? Just in case you don't, here is what we wrote on March 20;

At the time the President was saying we would need 21,000 more troops.
Vito applauded.
Then he said 4,400 more on top of that.
Vito applauded.
Then the top US commander in Iraq asked the President for 3,000 more troops.
Vito, I am sure applauded.

So that is 28,400 of the 21,000 Bush told us about, and Fossella backed. Now 12,000 more;

Coming on the heels of a controversial “surge” of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin, the Defense Department is preparing to send an additional 12,000 National Guard combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials told NBC News on Thursday. [MSNBC]

40,400 mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters out of the only 21,000 Fossella told us was necessary. How many times until Fossella's attempts to mislead us catch up with him?

1923 Days Later

via USA Today;

The Army has accelerated its policy of involuntary extensions of duty to bolster its troop levels, despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates' order last year to limit it, Pentagon records show.

snip

Since then, the number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army rose 43% to 12,235 in March. The reliance on stop loss has increased as the military has sent more troops to Iraq and extended tours to 15 months to support an escalation in U.S. forces ordered by President Bush. The increase last month was driven by the need to send more National Guard soldiers to Iraq.

How does America feel about Fossella's war in Iraq: Troop Escalation

via CBS News/NY Times poll (July 9-17, 2007)

"As you may know, the U.S. has sent more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. From what you have heard or read, would you say this troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse, or is it having no impact on the situation in Iraq so far?"


Better 20%
Worse 22%
No Impact 51%
Unsure 07%

Americans support our troops, Fossella supports Bush

From Iowa comes this poll of likely Republicans caucus attendees;

Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months?

Yes 52%
No 39%
Undecided 9%

In Kentucky, home of two Republican Senators and a Republican Governor (opposite of NY), is this poll;

Would you favor or oppose a plan to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq this summer, and have almost all troops out of Iraq by the middle of next year?

Favor.........64%
Oppose........28%
Don't know.....7%

As you may know, President Bush has proposed an increase of twenty-one thousand additional troops in Iraq. Do you favor or oppose President Bush's troop increase in Iraq?

Strongly favor......21%
Somewhat favor......15%
Total favor.........36%
Somewhat oppose.....14%
Strongly oppose.....45%
Total oppose........59%
Don't know...........4%

Rep. Vito Fossella, you support President Bush's troop increase, in fact you voted against the House resolution opposing the escalation choosing to side with Bush over the American people. What is your deal? If you would, and I don't mean to use the word 'benchmark' or 'time table' but could you give us an indication or reference point at which time you feel the interest of Americans will outweigh the interest of President Bush in your decision making?

Financing a run at this seat

I have been trying to wrap my head around a topic I will readily admit I am a novice at, and that would be the complexities of fund raising and by extension what it would do to a field of candidates. While I had some down time traveling this weekend I tried to venture my best guesses at two things; [1] what would it take for Harrison to win the nomination and DCCC backing this go around and [2] who is the likely candidate the DCCC is wooing with their recent talk? Tonight I am only going to try to think through #1.

1. Early announcements - Regardless of the above, one has to believe that we will see announcements made much earlier than the Dec-Feb opt out period of the last cycle. Should Mr. Harrison jump in, I have to believe the earlier his announcement the better his chances are. If he is in, I would imagine an announcement will come by April of this year.

The advantages to an early announcement for any candidate is extended media coverage (ha!) and extend fund raising periods. Additionally this will create a ripple for the rest of the field, if there is one. Unless challengers jump in shortly after they face the prospect of sitting on the sidelines and watching fund raising numbers climb. Of course the opposite could be true, should early candidates not get any traction, but that is a risky premise to rest your candidacy on.

2. Money - Barbaro pulled in around $450,000 in '04. Harrison pulled in around $110,000 in '06. Meanwhile Fossella regularly has at his disposal something in the range of $1.2 million+. With an early announcement comes the prospects of early money. And nothing will be more daunting to potential primary challengers than a money hurdle to get over. We are probably looking at a candidate needing to be on target to pull in around $500,000 to get the DCCC's support, and there is no way to do that on a 9 month campaign period, such as we had in '06.

In 2006, the DCCC's Red to Blue campaign, which would likely be where the thirteenth would be listed if it truly garners backing this term, was described as such; "One criterion the DCCC weighed in fashioning this list was that the candidates had to establish some fundraising heft on their own. That is borne out by the most recent fundraising numbers: In the first 15 months of this year, the 22 candidates had raised an average of $765,000 and still had an average of $538,000 in the bank as of March 31." [via CQ Politics]

To even be considered by the DCCC, and to presumably clear any potential field I think a candidate will need $100k by Dec 31, 2007. Of course the DCCC backing is not necessary, and on a few occasions did not deliver a victory in '06, however I think its benefits far outweigh any possible deterrents. This isn't really a crazy premise considering Dave Mejias pulled in $210k in under 2 months just 4 months before the election for his race out on Long Island.

Considering this will be a presidential election year, the benefits of early money and early media attention for this Congressional race is almost a must. This is also a district that hasn't seen a competitive Democratic primary in some time, so all this guessing could be for naught as we re-engage in this district. I welcome your thoughts if you want to share and/or correct me.

UPDATE
$500k would move this race from last in fund raising for Democratic challengers in '06 to second to last, ahead of just the Democratic challenger in NY-23. The three Democratic challenger victories in NY pulled in; $1.65 million for Hall (NY19), $2.63 million for Gilibrand (NY20) and $2.22 million for Arcuri (NY24). [via Open Secrets]

UPDATE 2
Another key element to an early campaign start is going to be building the volunteer and staff base. Unlike the upstate wins this past November, there are no cheap media markets in this district to saturate with tv spots. It is that support group that will allow a candidate to go on the offensive and force Fossella to form and publicly declare opinions on such issues as Bush's 'escalation' plan in Iraq. That is where the headlines will come from in my opinion.

Fossella attacks President's lack of strategy for military victory.

Seriously.

"I have a responsibility to all Americans as we make these difficult decisions. But [the] President has failed the test of leadership since this military action began. In the past, I have supported the President as Commander in Chief in military actions against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. But in this matter, he has avoided articulating a strategy that will ensure victory, prevent a nightmarish quagmire or provide permanent security...

The President has a responsibility to articulate America's long-term strategy before placing even one soldier in harm's way. He has asked the Congress and the American people to follow his lead, but he has shrouded in darkness where that road will take us. Leading military and foreign policy experts have questioned why the Administration won't define the mission and what plans are in place for us to withdraw."

Fossella said that after only six weeks of military action, the American people are already seeing the fallout of the Administration's ambiguous strategy and failure to plan for victory.

"...It begs the questions of whether the Administration was caught off guard or of it lacks a clear vision of how we will wage and win this war."

Fossella said Congress has a responsibility to the American people to provide a check on the President's ability to unilaterally escalate the military action.

"It would be unwise for Congress to issue the President a blank check to wage war," Fossella said. "We learned only to well the dangers of gradual escalation. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution started a bombing campaign against North Vietnam that resulted in an 11 year quagmire, over 57,000 Americans killed in combat and some 600,000 American ground troops. That resolution became President Johnson's blank check to troop waves of new soldiers into combat. To many Americans, the war ... bears striking similarities to Vietnam. The President must have a frank discussion with the American people as to what our military's mission is, when victory will be achieved and how it will be achieved."

This of course is from April 30, 1999, when Rep. Fossella attacked then President Clinton on the NATO led war in Serbia. If only Clinton were still President so that Fossella could realize what a colossal failure this administration is and how disastrous of a situation they have gotten us into. The absolute hypocrisy to attack the 'ambiguous strategy' of 1999 and have no criticism of the war in Iraq today is is disgusting at the very least. This after numerous military leaders in our forces and our allied forces have vociferously condemned the President's failure to have a plan and successfully protect our forces. Fossella is a failure who can't even pass floor resolutions about a postal stamp, so I expect international policy and military related legislation is too complicated for him to understand.