Drupal

June 28, 2006
McConnell Admits GOP Knew About Casey's Redeployment Proposal, Even As They Blasted Democrats' Similar Plan

See if you can follow along with the "conservative" version of logic.

Last week, Senate Republicans -- following the Bush Administration's wishes -- led an effort to kill a proposal by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) that would have required a redeployment to begin by the end of the year but not set a timetable for a complete withdrawal.

Many conservatives labeled the Levin-Reed proposal a "cut-and-run" policy.

At the time, the conventional wisdom was that this was partisanship, but at the same time signified a policy difference between the parties. Democrats wanted a timetable to allow for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops -- in keeping with Bush's frequent statements that as the Iraqi troops "step up," the U.S.-led coalition will "step down," the wishes of Iraqi leaders (here, here and here, among others), and the wishes of a majority of Americans.

Republicans, it appeared, disagreed. And that was fine -- a clear policy difference that may have been a campaign issue come November.

But then Americans learned that at roughly the same time that Senate Republicans were denouncing the Levin-Reed proposal, the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, had briefed the administration on a plan to reduce U.S. troops in Iraq, with the first cuts perhaps coming by September, and much deeper cuts coming in 2007.

Although the plan was conceptually similar to the one proposed by Levin and Reed, the same conservatives said it was not a "cut-and-run" policy.

Why label one but not the other?

The simple answer is that these conservatives are employing a double standard. The official reasons -- the ones being spouted by those Republican Congressman who last week thought name calling was good public policy -- seem murky. Read the quotes from most conservative Republicans, and you won't find much information on substantive differences between the plans. Instead, you'll hear partisan politics.

For example, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told ABC's This Week that "Congress ought not to be dictating to the generals what the tactics are."

That may be true. But it doesn't explain why one plan is "cut and run" and the other isn't.

Furthermore, McConnell said that Republican lawmakers were aware of Casey's plan before voting against the Levin-Reed proposal. In other words, even though Republicans knew a similar plan was being hatched by Gen. Casey, they nonetheless took the partisan and immature route -- substituting name-calling for reasonable debate.

(This also apparently confirms speculation from a few days ago was correct -- that Vice President Cheney also knew about Casey's gameplan when he told CNN's John King that the Democrats' plans for troop redeployment were "the worst possible thing we could do.")

***

If the Democrats are smart, they'll remind voters again and again that "we're in sync with General Casey," as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told CBS. And they'll remind voters that Republicans cared more about partisan politics than policy -- at a time when more than 2,500 U.S. troops have been killed