New at Reason

May 8, 2007

Dave Weigel interviews Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), one of just two House Republicans who voted to override President Bush's veto of the Iraq funding bill.

Comments

|5.8.07 @ 3:04PM|#

Anybody want to fill me in on who the other dissenting Republican is? The name is just on the tip of my tongue...

|5.8.07 @ 3:18PM|#

Ron Paul, RTFA

|5.8.07 @ 3:22PM|#

According to the article it was Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) not Ron Paul.

"...Talking to him the day after President Bush vetoed the Iraq supplemental funding bill-Gilchrist and Jones were the only Republicans who voted to override that..."

|5.8.07 @ 3:26PM|#

WG: We're in a global marketplace, and it seems like some of my colleagues will endorse a global marketplace but they don't want to talk to any foreigners.

Now THAT is a good sound bite.

Anon

|5.8.07 @ 3:41PM|#

Ron Paul didn't support the Iraq funding bill:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst043007.htm

"If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting against funding for that war makes equally good sense. What occurred, however, was the worst of both. Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit. That is definitely not a recipe for success in Iraq and foreign policy in general."

|5.8.07 @ 3:54PM|#

If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense.

Only if you think retreat in the face of the enemy, pardon me, redeployment of forces to non-hostile operating theaters, will somehow pacify Iraq and cause our enemies to leave us alone henceforth.

Which I kind of doubt, personally.

thoreau|5.8.07 @ 3:55PM|#

Look, history is a vast early warning system. Knowledge is key to this issue. Simplistic, dogmatic ideology confines and restricts your view of the world.

Amen.

Dave Weigel|5.8.07 @ 4:01PM|#

Yeah, Ron Paul opposed the bill on the same grounds that the hard-left Kucinichites did - even funding-with-strings is funding, and he opposes funding.

|5.8.07 @ 4:17PM|#

I have a hard time faulting him for that position, even if it does put me in the same boat with a socialist nutcase like Kucinich.

|5.8.07 @ 4:19PM|#

That was a great interview, David, and he gave you some excellent answers. Nicely done.

|5.8.07 @ 4:52PM|#

I'd like the article better if you would spell his name correctly.

It's GILCHREST.

http://gilchrest.house.gov/

|5.8.07 @ 5:43PM|#

"Only if you think retreat in the face of the enemy, pardon me, redeployment of forces to non-hostile operating theaters, will somehow pacify Iraq and cause our enemies to leave us alone henceforth."

It's a good thing you weren't advising Tony Blair about Ireland. There would still be bombs going off in London.

Producing a political solution needs more than lip services.

lunchstealer|5.8.07 @ 5:53PM|#

"If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense."

Only if you think retreat in the face of the enemy, pardon me, redeployment of forces to non-hostile operating theaters, will somehow pacify Iraq and cause our enemies to leave us alone henceforth.

Which I kind of doubt, personally.

I don't know that disengagement will pacify Iraq, but I certainly do think it will do equally well at pacification as the current 'keep blowing shit up' plan that everyone seems to be on.

Even the 'positive news' that war apologists keep pointing to as being intentionally ignored by the defeatist MSM has been steadily muted in tone. Seems like 2 years ago it was 'there's improved power distribution!' but now we've got 'it's possible to go for a walk in a market with only 20 marines!'

|5.8.07 @ 6:09PM|#

Disengagement won't pacify Iraq. A successful political/peace process among Iraqi factions, and the agreement of outside powers not to stir up trouble there, would pacify Iraq.

Our renunciation of our bases, oil claims, and intention to stay indefinitely are necessary conditions for that process being successful.

|5.8.07 @ 7:13PM|#

Details, details. Alas, along with serving up his cornbread, WG offered up a revisionist version of Cold War history: "We talked to the Soviets after Khrushchev pounded his shoe on the podium and said 'We will bury you' to Henry Cabot Lodge. How did Ike respond to that? He invited Khrushchev to America."

Actually, it went something more like this:

Nov. '56 - K utters the we will bury you line at a reception

Summer '59 - Ike invites K to visit the United States and, once again, explains to the press what he meant by the we will bury you bit

May '60 - Soviets shoot down a U-2 over Sverdlovsk. Ike is uninvited from his return visit to the U.S.S.R.

Fall '60 - K returns to the U.S. (not with an invite from Ike, tho) to visit the U.N. and pounds his shoe

|5.8.07 @ 8:10PM|#

"""Only if you think retreat in the face of the enemy, pardon me, redeployment of forces to non-hostile operating theaters, will somehow pacify Iraq and cause our enemies to leave us alone henceforth."""


What's the differnece between passing a withdraw bill now or later, if the result will be the same. I suspect many Republicans will be joining the Democrats by the end of this year.

|5.8.07 @ 8:39PM|#

The Bush admin sold the Iraq war as a quick endevor paid for by the Iraqis with oil revenues. The reality is that it's long endevor with us paying Hundreds of Billions. That fits the classic bait and switch scheme, intentional or not. I can see why many people would be upset with the current state of the war.

DiverCity|5.9.07 @ 1:06AM|#

What a great man! A great American statesman!

Sandy|5.9.07 @ 8:29AM|#

Steven S:

Er yes, so aside from the shoe-pounding bit of pedantry (get it?), his history was not terribly "revisionist" and his point that the US and USSR continued talking throughout the period was well-founded.

MK|5.9.07 @ 2:10PM|#

As a constituent of Gilchrest's, this is about the first thing I've agreed with him about. He's a fairly liberal Republican who has been a strong opponent of the modest efforts Republicans have made to slow the growth of spending. He's also anti-gun. I'd love to see him get a primary challenge, but now I fear that if he does it will come from a pro-war candidate. I know there are many in the local GOP who are very, very dissatisfied with him.

|5.9.07 @ 10:28PM|#

I too am a constituent of Gilchrist - 1st District Maryland - and I am proud of him. He represents my views and according to the polls he is in the mainstream of American opinion on Iraq. Face it. Gilchrist has principles and leads, he is not a lapdog follower like the rest of the Republicans in Congress. If the local GOP runs a pro-war guy against him they are complete idiots.

Will|5.9.07 @ 11:06PM|#

Yeah Wayne is quite a leader as was displayed here:

http://middlemostpost.com/index.php?itemid=418

"When over two dozen Republicans initially voted no, DeLay, Barton, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and new Majority Leader Roy Blunt circled the chamber to cajole holdouts.

Republican Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland was the last to switch. With the tally stuck at 211-211, Gilchrest changed his vote, making it 212-210. Barton promptly shook his hand and Republican Mike Simpson, who presided over the vote, gaveled it to an end.
...
Several Democrats protested that the vote was held open. "I am informed that every member of Congress who is in town has voted," Democratic whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said at one point, when the tally was 210 yes, 214 no.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also complained, saying the proceedings brought "dishonor to the House."

Also ask him why he voted against the 9/11 recommendations this year?

Nice of him to come around and change his mind when there are 3381 dead soldiers. This is on his hands as well as all the others who voted to give this insane president authorization to invade.

MK|5.10.07 @ 9:18AM|#

Proud of Gilchrest, Mike? Why? His support for withdrawing troops from Iraq is indeed courageous, but his other positions are nothing to brag about. He's in favor of higher government spending, gun control, and infringng on private property rights in the name of "environmentalism." Just because he happens to be right on one issue does not mean the man suddenly deserves the support of the limited government constituency in the First District.

|5.10.07 @ 7:07PM|#

Joe got it right. Only a political solution will end the war. Here's the problem with that though. We will only leave when there is a political solution; on the other hand, there will never be a political solution while we're there. We're the 800-lb gorilla in the china shop, and all the other gorillas have 3 things to consider: 1. How to keep him on our side; 2. How to survive till he's gone; and 3. What will we do after he's gone. How to play with each other doesn't make the list.

|5.12.07 @ 6:55PM|#

I am a resident of the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the 1st District
of Maryland. I have cast 4 votes for Gilchrist. I was very dismayed
with his earlier position on the Iraq occupation his party's fiscal
management. I lhave been a Republican for 48 years.

Thankfully, Mr Gilchrist has seen the War for its absurdity and the
current Republican Party and administration for its profound incompetence. I support him in his very isolated position in the party.
May the current party and its operatives be permanently destroyed
and turned out of public life.