Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Philadelphia Inquirer
January 22, 2007
Pg. 1
While they oppose sending more soldiers, many are unwilling to cut funding for forces already there.
By Steve Goldstein, Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - When Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Carney talks about Iraq, his fellow freshman Democrats listen.
A Navy Reserve officer, Carney worked as a prewar intelligence analyst in a Pentagon unit that supported the government's push for the invasion of Iraq. He later became an ardent critic of Bush administration policy that followed the invasion, which he said ignored ample intelligence predicting an insurgency.
Like many of his Democratic colleagues, Carney supports proposed legislation declaring that President Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq is not in "the national interest" of the United States.
Unlike some colleagues, who are frustrated at their inability to prevent the president from carrying out his plan, Carney is unwilling to take a more drastic step: limiting military spending to hamstring further escalation of the conflict.
"I'm nervous about anything that would affect funding for the troops," said Carney, who represents the 10th District in northeastern Pennsylvania. "The president sends them; we can protect them."
Carney said his nervousness stemmed from reports of a lack of armor for troops, which he heard firsthand in 2005 from a student he taught as a political science professor at Pennsylvania State University's Scranton campus.
"He was in a Pennsylvania National Guard unit in Iraq," Carney said. "They had to go to Iraqi junkyards to find scrap metal to weld onto their trucks."
Carney's position reflects the dilemma that Democrats in the House and Senate face as they approach a showdown on war resolutions after Bush's State of the Union address tomorrow.
Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate say they want to pass largely symbolic votes opposing the president's decision to add 21,500 troops in Iraq, and then later consider imposing restrictions on spending for the war.
On Wednesday, the powerful House Appropriations defense subcommittee led by Rep. John P. Murtha (D., Pa.) began a series of closed hearings on potential limits on military spending.
The House Republican leadership tried to rally support for a measure by Rep. Sam Johnson (R., Texas), a Vietnam veteran, that would prevent Congress from restricting funds for U.S. military forces in the field.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and others in the House Democratic leadership have said they will not do anything to cut funding for troops already on the ground.
Carney calls the surge plan "the continuation of an old policy that is doomed to failure."
The congressman, who described himself as probably "to the right" of most House Democrats, said he was willing to wait "two to three months" to see if there is a decrease in the level of violence, but he would prefer that the surge in troops involved trainers and linguists, not infantry.
Carney supports a proposal suggested by Rep. Steve Israel (D., N.Y.) that would withdraw one battalion of U.S. troops for every Iraqi battalion that completes training.
"This is where I get furious; that the administration hasn't put resources into this," Carney said.
The most recent Pentagon figures he's seen, Carney said, show that only 10 of an estimated 94 Iraqi battalions were even partially trained to American military standards in capability and equipment.
Although Carney's experience is unique, two other Pennsylvania freshmen Democrats have backgrounds that lend practical knowledge to the debate.
Rep. Joe Sestak of Delaware County, a Navy veteran of 31 years who retired as a three-star admiral, worked on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.
Rep. Patrick J. Murphy of Bucks County is a former Army captain who fought in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.
At a news conference Friday held by a coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs, Murphy said he would introduce legislation to promote fiscal responsibility in Iraq, including funding the war through the normal budgetary process - not by so-called emergency supplemental budgets - and investigating fraud and abuse by contractors.
The legislation "addresses the glaring lack of oversight and accountability in Iraq and how taxpayer dollars are spent," Murphy said.
Murphy said other Democrats "without a doubt" defer to Carney on questions concerning Iraq and intelligence issues.
At a classified briefing last week at the Pentagon for new lawmakers, Murphy was impressed at how easily Carney related to the military brass.
Carney began three years of Pentagon assignments as a counterterrorism adviser in 2002, first working in the controversial Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, which later was investigated by a Senate committee for exaggerating the Iraqi threat.
Carney said he first was asked to examine connections between terrorist groups and their state sponsors, including Iraq. He said links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were not strong.
Later, his task was to research how Hussein would fight the United States.
Carney said his report that an insurgency was likely was dismissed by his superiors. His disenchantment with the war and the Pentagon grew and he left in 2005.
"Early on, I didn't support the way the administration went to war, with hubris and arrogance," Carney said. "What really bothered me is that there was plenty of intelligence that an insurgency would occur and we didn't prepare for it."
Carney said he was struck by a line in the president's recent nationally televised speech on Iraq in which Bush said, "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender on the deck of a battleship."
Said Carney, "Yet he did it on the deck of an aircraft carrier," referring to Bush's 2003 speech where a "mission accomplished" banner was a backdrop.
"That's a swagger," he said, "that shouldn't have been there."
January 22, 2007
Pg. 1
While they oppose sending more soldiers, many are unwilling to cut funding for forces already there.
By Steve Goldstein, Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - When Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Carney talks about Iraq, his fellow freshman Democrats listen.
A Navy Reserve officer, Carney worked as a prewar intelligence analyst in a Pentagon unit that supported the government's push for the invasion of Iraq. He later became an ardent critic of Bush administration policy that followed the invasion, which he said ignored ample intelligence predicting an insurgency.
Like many of his Democratic colleagues, Carney supports proposed legislation declaring that President Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq is not in "the national interest" of the United States.
Unlike some colleagues, who are frustrated at their inability to prevent the president from carrying out his plan, Carney is unwilling to take a more drastic step: limiting military spending to hamstring further escalation of the conflict.
"I'm nervous about anything that would affect funding for the troops," said Carney, who represents the 10th District in northeastern Pennsylvania. "The president sends them; we can protect them."
Carney said his nervousness stemmed from reports of a lack of armor for troops, which he heard firsthand in 2005 from a student he taught as a political science professor at Pennsylvania State University's Scranton campus.
"He was in a Pennsylvania National Guard unit in Iraq," Carney said. "They had to go to Iraqi junkyards to find scrap metal to weld onto their trucks."
Carney's position reflects the dilemma that Democrats in the House and Senate face as they approach a showdown on war resolutions after Bush's State of the Union address tomorrow.
Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate say they want to pass largely symbolic votes opposing the president's decision to add 21,500 troops in Iraq, and then later consider imposing restrictions on spending for the war.
On Wednesday, the powerful House Appropriations defense subcommittee led by Rep. John P. Murtha (D., Pa.) began a series of closed hearings on potential limits on military spending.
The House Republican leadership tried to rally support for a measure by Rep. Sam Johnson (R., Texas), a Vietnam veteran, that would prevent Congress from restricting funds for U.S. military forces in the field.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and others in the House Democratic leadership have said they will not do anything to cut funding for troops already on the ground.
Carney calls the surge plan "the continuation of an old policy that is doomed to failure."
The congressman, who described himself as probably "to the right" of most House Democrats, said he was willing to wait "two to three months" to see if there is a decrease in the level of violence, but he would prefer that the surge in troops involved trainers and linguists, not infantry.
Carney supports a proposal suggested by Rep. Steve Israel (D., N.Y.) that would withdraw one battalion of U.S. troops for every Iraqi battalion that completes training.
"This is where I get furious; that the administration hasn't put resources into this," Carney said.
The most recent Pentagon figures he's seen, Carney said, show that only 10 of an estimated 94 Iraqi battalions were even partially trained to American military standards in capability and equipment.
Although Carney's experience is unique, two other Pennsylvania freshmen Democrats have backgrounds that lend practical knowledge to the debate.
Rep. Joe Sestak of Delaware County, a Navy veteran of 31 years who retired as a three-star admiral, worked on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.
Rep. Patrick J. Murphy of Bucks County is a former Army captain who fought in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.
At a news conference Friday held by a coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs, Murphy said he would introduce legislation to promote fiscal responsibility in Iraq, including funding the war through the normal budgetary process - not by so-called emergency supplemental budgets - and investigating fraud and abuse by contractors.
The legislation "addresses the glaring lack of oversight and accountability in Iraq and how taxpayer dollars are spent," Murphy said.
Murphy said other Democrats "without a doubt" defer to Carney on questions concerning Iraq and intelligence issues.
At a classified briefing last week at the Pentagon for new lawmakers, Murphy was impressed at how easily Carney related to the military brass.
Carney began three years of Pentagon assignments as a counterterrorism adviser in 2002, first working in the controversial Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, which later was investigated by a Senate committee for exaggerating the Iraqi threat.
Carney said he first was asked to examine connections between terrorist groups and their state sponsors, including Iraq. He said links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were not strong.
Later, his task was to research how Hussein would fight the United States.
Carney said his report that an insurgency was likely was dismissed by his superiors. His disenchantment with the war and the Pentagon grew and he left in 2005.
"Early on, I didn't support the way the administration went to war, with hubris and arrogance," Carney said. "What really bothered me is that there was plenty of intelligence that an insurgency would occur and we didn't prepare for it."
Carney said he was struck by a line in the president's recent nationally televised speech on Iraq in which Bush said, "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender on the deck of a battleship."
Said Carney, "Yet he did it on the deck of an aircraft carrier," referring to Bush's 2003 speech where a "mission accomplished" banner was a backdrop.
"That's a swagger," he said, "that shouldn't have been there."