Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Hearing on National Strategy for Victory in Iraq Hurts Representative Shays

On July 11, 2006, Representative Christopher Shays (Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations) held a hearing to examine the Bush Administration’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (see the Subcommittee’s briefing memorandum). In his prepared opening remarks, Representative Shays stated:

"I am not afraid we will lose the war in Iraq, in Iraq. I am deeply concerned we will lose the war in Iraq here at home. Our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help bring democracy to the most troubled part of the world is truly a noble effort that must succeed, because as Ambassador Khalilzad said, “What happens in Iraq will shape the future of the Middle East, and the future of the Middle East will shape the future of the world."

However, Representative Shays’ strong words (which were fired at the anti-war movement, including his challenger, Diane Farrell), are completely overshadowed by the recently released General Accounting Office’s report GAO Report which contends that the Bush Administration's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is flawed in several ways, such as its lack of details concerning which agencies are responsible for the various efforts in Iraq, the evolving nature of the U.S. role as Iraqi forces assume greater control, and, most importantly, that the Bush Administration has failed to provide Congress with enough information on the estimated costs and funding sources for reconstruction.

The hearings have to be deemed a failure for the Shays campaign, and a victory for his opponent, Diane Farrell, who has time and time again stressed that the Bush Administration’s (with the unwavering support of Representative Shays) Iraq policy is significantly flawed and that Congress has continually failed in its oversight role. (See this letter letter from Ms. Farrell to Representative Shays on July 10, 2006).

Sources
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform (website: http://reform.house.gov) (last visited July 12, 2006)

General Accounting Office (website: www.gao.gov) (last visited July 12, 2006)

Diane Farreell for Congress (website: www.farrellforcongress.com) (last visited July 12, 2006)

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please-Another day, another blog entry attacking Republicans here at Ct Liberal Politics.

Can we get something good, like something about Ned Lamont????

Are there even any other races this year besides Lamont vs Grumpy Joe????

Mr. Reality said...

TG you left out one inportant aspect of your argument. Please tell me what Ms. Farrell's plan is for the Middle East. What I am reading is that the more we fail the better chance that Farrell has in November. That's pretty sad. But if she has a plan then maybe she ought to begin to explain it. I doubt it.

The True Gentleman said...

Hey, anonymous, I am a Republican who supports the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. My job here is to be a contributing author and this is an important. Do I like the idea that it is in favor of Farrell? NO!! I'd rather see Representative Shays keep his seat, but I report it how it comes down and this hearing was not good for Shays.

The True Gentleman said...

Mr. Reality, I'd explain her plan if I knew what it is (if there is more to it than critizing the Bush Administration, Congress, and Representative Shays). The post is about the affect of the hearing on the campaign, not anyone's plan.

turfgrrl said...

As Harry Truman would have said, this has been a do-nothing congress. Where's the congressional oversight to the Bush Administration has failed to provide Congress with enough information on the estimated costs and funding sources for reconstruction. part of this?

janes1978 said...

I've noticed a lot of criticsm about Chris Murphy supporting Lieberman - I saw a posting yesterday on his blog that says he will support whoever wins the primary so please Lamont supporters - lay off.

Gio said...

Hmmm-I heard Alan Schlesinger's ad on TIC--It's pretty good!!!

it mocks both the Nedheads and Joe-Very clever!!!

Oh--and BTW, there are other races this year???? Surely you jest!!!!

Anonymous said...

TG,

Please don't mischaracterize Farrell's position on Iraq. Yes, she has one and yes it goes beyond criticism.

* Farrell on Iraq
* Farrell on Iraq and Terrorism

Also, bear in mind that the importantance of electing Farrell goes beyond her personal view as a candidate. Her campaign is crucial to larger effort to remove the Republican majority that has supported the Bush and the neo-con/PNAC policies.

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

Genghis:

Off-topic, but interesting indeed:

HARTFORD - House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, suspended his deputy chief of staff Tuesday for using in-house mail service at the Capitol to distribute invitations to a campaign fundraiser.
Amann said Tuesday that the high-ranking aide, Kelly Kirkley-Bey, who will be out for two weeks without pay, was warned two years ago for using state phones to make fundraising calls.


Full story here.

This has a veeery familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

The True Gentleman said...

Anonymous, please explain to me how I mischaracterized Ms. Farrell's position on Iraq? If anything, a Farrell supporter should have liked my post (and those posts to her website that you link to do not demonstrate that she has a PLAN on what to do in Iraq - it is devoid of details).

ADANR, very interesting (even if it is off-subject). Does anyone think that Rep. Caruso will haul into hearings the recently-suspended deputy chief of staff for Rep. Amann? I doubt it...

bluecoat said...

the hearings bode well for Shays in my view in that he was not afraid to hold them to get to the truth. That comes from a guy who thinks Shays has been wrong on Iraq all along BTW and that Bush has never leveled with the American public on Iraq.>

CC said...

TG: in order for the hearing to "hurt Shays" (as the title of your post states) one has to presume that the voters will (1) be knowledgable about the GAO Report and (2) agree with your assessment that it "completely overshadow[s]" Rep. Shays' words. I think those are large presumptions.

The True Gentleman said...

"...he was not afraid to hold them to get to the truth."

Are you kidding me? He HAS to hold him the because he is the chair of the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations.

And the hearings didn't get to the truths, the GAO Report brought the issues to forefront and are now forcing him to act.

cc, the voters in that district will know about the GAO Report because I would assume that Ms. Farrell will point it out to them (whether directly or indirectly). Is that too presumptive?

bluecoat said...

the GAO report says what anybody with open eyes already knows; Bush has totally uckfayed things up since day minus one in Iraq!!!

bluecoat said...

TG, I hadn't yet seen your ?: Shays doesn't have to hold hearings at all; Pat Robertson delayed and delayed Senate Intel hearings into whether or not Bush manipulated intellignece n the runup to invading Iraq - he didn't BTW, Cheney and Rummy manipulated Bush but that's another time - and few Republican Committees in either House have held oversight hearings with regard to what Bush does. Oversight is the one place that Shays has shined and he has even been commended by the likes of Henry Waxman and other Democrats and Republicans on his committees; the problem is Shays Committees are subcommittees and they have limited reach --- that's real criticism but Pelosi isn't going to make Farrell head of the Foreign Relations, Intel or Armed Services Committees....and like I said long ago last time around I skipped the line for the 4th when voting and I may do it again...

Gio said...

Oh man--dems are voting Joe out while skipping the vote on Shays!!!

Thank you Howard Dean, Thank You!!!

bluecoat said...

TG: you also say the Bush has received "unwavering support" from Shays on Iraq. I have seen that from Joe but I haven't seen it from Shays: Shays has actually been seen as a pain in the Bush Administration's ass with his trips and his findings but neither Shays nor Bush are going to say that publicly...

The True Gentleman said...

Well said, Gio.

Bluecoat, you just can't be satisfied, can you? Give me a freaking break, you know that Shays supports the war in Iraq and has publicly stated many times that he support the Bush Adminsitration on this issue.

Just for you, Bluecoat: Do I want Christopher Shays to win? YES! Do I think that the hearings were bad for HIM because he supports the war in Iraq? YES! Did the hearings and testimony (including the GAO Report) raise the same or substantially similar concerns that Ms. Farrell (and everyone with open-eyes) expressed? YES!

bluecoat said...

TG: the war is long over in Iraq as far as I am concerned _ Saddam is out of power and a new govt. is in _ but our military nation building is till ongoing thanks to Bush's Orwelian logic and rhetoric. Shays supports Bush but he has also criticized him as does here in the CT Post today and like I said the Bush Administration has seen him as a pain in the ass with his trips and oversight. Good old Joe has said we shouldn't criticize Bush!!! Shame on Chris Shays for being less than a Patrioit. I am not on here because I want any politician to win anything...

bluecoat said...

and TG: if you don't care to hear from me then don't end your sentence with a ?? mark. I was answering your questions, which is something I don't do for everybody that asks them. But I never tell people what they want to hear just because they want to hear it

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, I enjoy hearing from you because you DO always answer any question I pose - it's appreciated. In the future though, maybe I will stick to just being a conservative rather than trying to paint the picture as I think it is playing out. The very first comment to this article called this Ct Liberal Politics being I questioned whether the hearing hurt Shays. I tried to combine journalism AND opinion in my story, guess it didn't work.

bluecoat said...

TG: You reported the story and then gave your opinion, which was telegraphed by the headline at the outset; I had no problem with that whatsoever. I have no idea how this would play out; I saw it as a positive but not enough to chnage my opinion and you saw it as a negative. It's the people who can't agree on the facts that are giving us a problem in way of getting to a solution...I am retired too and it's raining today, which has something to do with how much i post. Wheras I think you work.

ct_husky said...

I know its a bit off topic, but it seems like the "hunch" that some people had about Alan Schlesinger staying on the ticket might prove to be true...

http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/breaking-news-schlesinger-out-as.html

Interesting to say the very least...

Chris MC said...

ADANR!-
A familiar ring, yet not.
All of the invitations for state lawmakers were complimentary, meaning they weren't being asked to provide the $50 contribution required of others attending the event.
Amann said he also directed Frankel to notify State Elections Enforcement Commission Executive Director Jeffrey Garfield of the matter.


What is familiar is a senior staffer doing something questionable.
Moody was suspended in December for two weeks without pay by Rell after admitting she had asked 16 commissioners and deputy commissioners to distribute invitations to a Rell campaign fundraiser.

State law doesn't bar the chief of staff from soliciting contributions, but it does bar department heads.

What isn't familiar is the elected (in this case!) official actually acting proactively and in keeping with the spirit, not merely the technical letter, of the rules.

Amman is leading by example. In contrast to Rell's stonewalling, stalling, and threatening, he insists on getting to the truth of the matter and then acts proactively to be certain that if any actual violation occurred, it is dealt with accordingly.

Interesting indeed, TG. Caruso needn't haul anybody in, because Amman is doing what should be done. Rell should go to school on his example.

MikeCT said...

Farrell had a lengthy interview yesterday on CT Public Radio.