Iraq War
Norm was a cheerleader for the Iraq War until November 2006 when the Republicans were swept from office in the mid-term elections. He saw his political life flash before his eyes. He thought forward to the 2008 election and immediately began "making sounds" as if he was now rethinking his 100% support.
While he initially opposed the surge, he was soon opposed to the opposition to the surge. Then he was only opposed to the surge in Baghdad. This was all within four months. It was an amazing exhibition of political gymnastics. But when it came to voting, he continued to give President Bush blank checks. By spring of 2007 he was back to cheerleading the Iraq occupation.
- British MP George Galloway lectures Norm
- Jeff Fecke's timeline of Norm's positions on Iraq
- Norm votes against the President reporting to Congress on progress in Iraq
- Norm has avoided all oversight responsibilities regarding Iraq
Here's the complete chronical of Norm's political gymnastics over the Iraq War:
- Norm sees the truth after 2006 election
- 1/11/07 - Norm opposes the surge
- 1/24/07 - Does Even Norm Coleman Understand What Norm Coleman Thinks?
- 1/25/07 - Iraq puts Norm to balancing test
- 1/25/07 - Norm wants benchmarks for Iraq?
- 1/26/07 - Norm flounders for position on Iraq
- 2/26/07 - Norm wants benchmarks without consequences
- 3/05/07 - Norm doesn't mind that Bush has no plan for Iraq
- 3/14/07 - Norm's Iraq War Policy Checklist
- 3/23/07 - Norm on MPR: looking for signs that the surge is working
- 3/23/07 - Norm acknowledges that its a Civil War in Baghdad
- 4/23/07 - Dog & Pony Show proves the surge is working
- 4/23/07 - Norm rips on Iraqi Prime Minister
- 5/12/07 - US Troops drinking contaminated water, Norm didn't investigate
- 7/12/07 - As the pressure mounts on Norm Coleman
- 7/13/07 - Norm won't listen because he'll be vindicated by Nov. 2008
- 8/03/07 - Norm's neighbors remind him the war isn't popular
- 8/29/07 - Lies and evasions on Iraq
- 9/04/07 - Labor Day Weekend Dog & Pony Show
- 9/05/07 - Norm defends the indefensible
- 9/13/07 - The light at the end of the tunnel is a train
- 9/14/07 - Norm asks Petraeus about plan, doesn't get answer
- 9/16/07 - Norm flip flops on Iraq again, he's for timelines now
- 9/17/07 - Norm both agrees and disagrees with Bush?
- 9/28/07 - Norm has a plan ... to help his reelection campaign
- 11/16/07 - Norm claims he wants to change course, votes for blank check
- 12/19/07 - Norm votes for another blank check
- 1/08/08 - The light at the end of the tunnel might be a train
- 1/08/08 - Norm sugarcoats the truth about Iraq
- 1/28/08 - Norm and Gen. Petraues need to get their stories straight
- 3/06/08 - Norm lies about his role in oversight of Iraq
- 5/27/08 - Norm Coleman votes for another blank check for Iraq occupation
British MP George Galloway lectures Norm
Watch both vids of British MP George Galloway lecturing Norm in particular and the US Senate generally. The Senate vid is on the left, Galloway's CNN appearance on the right.
- "To be accused of lack of character by Senator Norm Coleman is a bit like being told to sit up straight by the Hunchback of Notre Dame."
George Galloway
(7/18/07) Norm now claims that he's been vindicated for one of the two investigation he undertook as Chair of the PSI. Dave Mindeman over at mnpACT! has a different view of it.
- Vindication is his word. Norm says the British examination of George Galloway justifies his probe of the alleged oil for food scandal that occurred before the Iraq War. Norm initiated this probe as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
But does it vindicate Norm for the investigations he didn't pursue?
During his tenure, he could have investigated:
-- the Intel reports on WMD's
-- Halliburton's excess millions in overcharges
-- the Jessica Lynch coverup
-- the Pat Tillman coverup
-- the production problems for MRAP vehicles
-- the Valerie Plame leak
-- the secret wiretapping program
-- Abu Ghraib
-- Guantanomo
-- loss of Habeas Corpus
-- anything about Dick CheneyVindication may be too strong a word here, Norm. You may want to think twice about examining your obligations as chair of that committee.
Vindication isn't the word I would choose.
(mnpACT!)
Norm votes against the President reporting to Congress on progress in Iraq
Reporting Matters in Iraq Amendment - voted NO
Requires the President to report on the War in Iraq quarterly and including pulling out troops.
Norm's Iraq War Policy Checklist
MN Publius has a funny post entitled Norm Coleman’s Iraq War Policy Check-List (sorry, I couldn't reproduce the checkboxes):
- Call Saddam Hussein “world’s worst terrorist leader” (MPR, 9/23/02)
- Say Wellstone doesn’t understand the idea of peace through strength: “Congress is faced with a big decision and now is not the time to be passive, isolationist or apologetic” (2002)
- Vote time and again for President’s War initiatives (2002-2006)
- Vote against investigation how contracts are awarded in Iraq & Afghanistan (2005)
- Chair Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations without investigating Bush admin and/or pretty much anything in Iraq
- Compare Iraq to Civil War and President Bush to President Lincoln: “Failure in the war on terror is not an option. A democratic Iraq is good for the whole world. A weak and vacillating America is not an option.” (May, 2006)
- Drop jaw to floor while watching 2006 election results (Nov. 7, 2006)
- Draw up operation “Norm’s a Liberal Again… Really!” with staff (Nov. 8, 2006)
- Oppose Bush Surge Policy: “I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad”
- Whoops, I mean, oppose BAGHDAD surge policy (even though there is no such specific policy) (1/07)
- Vote for closure on Senate bill opposing Iraq surge policy (2/07)
And the latest item that Norm can check-off his list:
- “I think it’s a bad bill,” said Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, one of those Republicans. “I still have my concerns about the overall Iraq policy, but setting deadlines is the wrong thing to do.” (NYTimes)
Norm has avoided all oversight responsibilities regarding Iraq
Norm was the Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) that did not investigate:
- Halliburton no-bid contracts
- Halliburton overcharging for services (some of which weren't provided)
- Lies in the buildup to the Iraq War
- No-bid contracts given to companies like Halliburton as part of the Katrina cleanup fiasco
- The Jessica Lynch coverup
- The Pat Tillman coverup
- The production problems for MRAP vehicles
- The Valerie Plame leak
- The secret wiretapping program
- Abu Ghraib
- Guantanomo
- The loss of Habeas Corpus
- Billions of dollars of State Department cash disappearing in Iraq
- Poorly constructed facilities built by contractors
- US troops using contaminated water
- Abuses committed by contracting companies in Iraq
- Wrong or not enough armor for troops and their vehicles
- Death of Pat Tillman
- Lies surrounding abduction and rescue of Jessica Lynch
but the PSI did investigate Kofi Annan's son in his role in the UN's Iraqi Oil-for-Food Program, called Michael Brown (the then-Director of FEMA) names and that's about it. Oh ... I forgot -- George Galloway lectured Norm and the US Senate when called to testify (see above for details).
Read more about Norm's unwillingness to investigate Republican corruption, incompetence and mismanagement
-- Back to the top --
Jeff Fecke's timeline of Norms positions on Iraq
Jeff Fecke at Minnesota Monitor has the complete timeline of Norm's flip-flop on the Iraq War.
- On Sept. 27, 2002, he was quoted by Hotline as saying then-Sen. Paul Wellstone was "the wrong person at ... the wrong time" because of his opposition to the Iraq war. "This isn't Vietnam. It's not the 1960's," Coleman said. Responding to word that Wellstone was pushing for changes in the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Coleman said, "These resolutions shouldn't be about giving somebody political cover."
On Nov. 4, 2002, during a debate with Former Vice President Walter Mondale, who had replaced the late Sen. Wellstone on the ballot, Coleman reiterated that he would have voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
On March 20, 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq began, Coleman said, "War is always costly, but the threat of terrorism is also real. That reality causes us to act decisively when we are threatened. I agree with the President that it's better to send soldiers into battle rather than police and firefighters to future terrorist attacks."
On Sept. 9, 2003, in response to a request from President Bush for $87 billion in additional funding for Iraq, Coleman said, "I'm firmly convinced that we have to keep our resolve, beat the enemy, beat terrorism in Iraq -- and I'm hopeful that the public will feel the same way."
On Dec. 15, 2003, after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Coleman said, "The capture of Saddam Hussein is a pivotal step in ensuring peace in Iraq and the Middle East. Saddam's dark shadow of fear--the fear of his return -- is over. Now is the time to move forward to build a safer Iraq and a safer world."
On April 7, 2004, Coleman criticized Democrats, saying, "To raise the specter of Vietnam as 10 families learn the deaths of young sons is regrettable. To attribute a political motive to the President's June 30th deadline to return control to Iraq is extreme."
On July 26, 2004, Coleman attacked Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), then the Democratic candidate for president, for inconsistencies. "With Sen. Kerry, we have seven different positions on his vote against the $87 billion for Iraq," Coleman said.
On Dec. 15, 2004, Coleman expressed frustration with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the issue of a lack of armored vehicles in Iraq. "I have reservations about what the secretary and the Army's done in this regard," he said, but he also noted, "I'm not at the point of pointing fingers. I don't know who did this. I don't know what happened."
On April 15, 2005, Coleman was quoted in a Fresno Bee article as saying he had seen "historic progress" in Iraq, but that "efforts to train Iraqis to meet their own security needs have gone slower than we had hoped."
On Dec. 1, 2005, in reaction to a speech by President Bush, Coleman said, "I encourage the President to continue to communicate to the American public our strategy, our successes, our shortcomings, and what we are doing to bolster Iraqi troops to take the front lines in protecting their country and allow American troops to return home."
On Aug. 6, 2006, Coleman noted discontent in Washington, saying, "It's not about accomplishment. It's about Iraq. That's the great discontent that is out there. Those events are beyond our control."
On Sept. 18, 2006, in an interview with Jim Lehrer, Coleman responded to comments by then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had said Iraq was spiralling toward civil war. "I think our folks on the ground see that (there is a danger of civil war). And so, from that perspective, I'm not troubled by that. You know, in Iraq -- talk about Iraq was a disaster. It was a disaster under Saddam Hussein, a worse disaster, in terms of the loss of lives, but today it is very troubling." He added, "On the other hand, you've got to give the Iraqis credit. They have managed to avoid, I think, stepping fully over that precipice. They keep forging, moving forward to maintain the unity."
On Oct. 27, 2006, Coleman held a joint press conference with then-State Sen. Michele Bachmann, urging the president to "stay the course" in Iraq. Coleman said that staying the course meant "We
will prevail," but that there was no "staying the course on tactics."Coleman seemed to have a change of heart last year after election day, however.
On Nov. 10, 2006, in an interview with National Public Radio's Melissa Block, Coleman criticized Bush for not firing Donald Rumsfeld earlier, saying, "I mean one of the problems that we have in election day, you get a chance to measure how much people want to be listened to."
On Dec. 6, 2006, Coleman said flatly, "Our current strategy in Iraq is not working."
On Dec. 7, 2006, after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Coleman said, "Right now, there's no question the situation in Iraq is very grave and unsettling,"
On Dec. 19, 2006, Coleman said, "I would not support a massive increase in troops in Baghdad. "I think it would create more targets, I think we'd put more life at risk." He added, "I anticipate we
will be in Iraq for a long time; we're going to be in the Middle East for a long time. But we can't be on the front line, we don't need to be patrolling the streets of Fallujah."On Jan. 4, 2007, Coleman said "Baghdad needs reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. It doesn't need more Americans in the cross hairs."
On Jan. 6, 2007, Coleman said, "I will stand against any plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq."
On Jan. 9, 2007, Coleman said, "I don't believe an expansion of 20,000 troops in Iraq will solve the problems."
On Jan. 19, 2007, Coleman indicated he might have problems with a Democratic resolution opposing an escalation in Iraq, saying "I don't support the surge in Baghdad, but there are some things in the resolution I don't agree with, and so we're kind of looking at language."
On Jan. 24, 2007, Coleman said in a debate that he would not support a resolution that opposed an increase in troops in Anbar province. Later that day, Coleman offered an amendment to a resolution
offered by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), stating that an escalation in Anbar would be permissible. After that amendment failed, Coleman voted against the broader resolution.On Jan. 26, 2007, Coleman suggested that benchmarks for progress in Iraq were needed. "Maybe that's a way to bring some of these (competing resolutions) together," he said.
On Feb. 4, 2007, Coleman broke with his party in voting to open debate on an Iraq resolution. He said he "remain[ed] optimistic that a way forward will be found that allows the Senate to vote on the various resolutions proposed by my colleagues."
Norm sees the truth after 2006 election
(11/21/06)
After the decisive 2006 election which gave the Democrats a working majority in the House and a majority in the Senate by the skin of Joe Lieberman's teeth, Norm saw his political future in danger:
(MPR's Midday)
Yes, occasionally the truth does slip between Norm's glistening white teeth. The Republicans had governed horribly, had lied us into a horrid quagmire in Iraq and were incredibly corrupt (virtually a scandal per week through 2006). This snippet of truth explains all the political gymnastics Norm has performed since that fateful night.
Norm opposes the surge
(1/11/07)
Norm has said that he opposes the Preznit Bush's escalation. Centrisity wonders if he's just pandering because he's worried about the 2008 election. Norm believed so strong in his need to get reelected that he made a very direct statement:
(MPR)
It actually sounded like he cared about the welfare of the troops for a couple of minutes there in January of 2007.
Does Even Norm Coleman Understand What Norm Coleman Thinks?
(1/24/07)
MN Publius call Norm a Turkey Buzzard for his change of position on Iraq. MN Publius has more commentary on Norm's Iraq War stances asking Does Even Norm Coleman Understand What Norm Coleman Thinks?. Also, check out the comments, mnblue's own Charley Underwood provides some insightful commentary. Furthermore, Norm has now slid to a more nuanced position that will allow Preznit Boosh to do as he wishes yet make it appear that Norm took a strong stance. With yet more commentary, MN Publius notes that Think Progress now (1/23/07) puts Norm into the pro escalation camp.
Iraq puts Norm to balancing test
(1/25/07)
MSNBC reports that Iraq puts Coleman to 2008 balancing test. They have this illuminating quote from Norm about resolutions opposing the surge:
- “I don’t think nonbinding resolutions do very much: they simply afford us an opportunity to express our perspective on the issue, that’s all they do.”
However, that's pretty much all Norm has done or been willing to support:
- “I’m not prepared to cut off funding.”
Norm wants benchmarks for Iraq?
(1/25/07)
MPR's polinaut found a quote from Norm in the Charlotte Observer from 1/25/07:
- Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said lawmakers on all sides of the war issue were weighing whether to set performance benchmarks for Iraq's government. "Maybe that's a way to bring some of these things together," Coleman said, referring to the various resolutions before Congress.
Does he actually say anything with this, take any kind of stand or indicate any type of position? Hmmm ... not so much.
Norm flounders for position on Iraq
(1/26/07)
In the Star Tribune's 1/26/07 article about Coleman's floundering around for a way to oppose Bush without actually taking a position which might prevent him from actually having to vote against Bush:
- Joseph Peschek, a political science professor at Hamline University, said Coleman appears caught between the White House and Democrats. "My political sense is that Coleman does want to register disagreement with Bush's course, but to do so in a way that doesn't require him to sign onto a largely Democratic alternative," Peschek said.
Larry Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Public Policy and Governance, said Coleman is trying to sell a position that is complicated and nuanced: "Complication and nuance in a driving rainstorm are often hard to pick up."
Norm wants benchmarks without consequences
(2/26/07)
Norm appeared on the 2/26/07 edition of MPR's Midday. Get the complete story here. To summarize, Norm wants benchmarks but no consequences. Since the Iraqis haven't met a benchmark, yet, the impact of Norm's position is he's allowing Bush to continue with his escalation. Norm also stated that US troops will be in Iraq for a long time. He also thinks that Minnesotans don't want a major change in direction and, in effect, want the Bush Administration to stay the course. Seriously, the man is out of touch with what Minnesotans want. Here's a juicy quote from Norm:
- "My colleagues have considered redeploying out of Iraq ... but there are consequences to doing this. There may come a time when we consider redeploying outside of Baghdad if the Iraqis can't stop the civil war. Then they're going to go at it and we're going to do some other things. Continue to fight the insurgency, continue to fight the foreign fighters, continue to make sure that Iran is not meddling more than it is ... [mumbles incoherently] ... Bottom line is we need specific benchmarks. [If they aren't met] then talk about consequences if benchmarks are not met."[emphasis mine]
Norm doesn't mind that Bush has no plan for Iraq
(3/5/07)
Here's what we get because Norm is for the Iraq War and, despite his faux opposition to the escalation, he will allow the Bush Administration to have no plan B. So its not just to quote Norm that "we're going to be there for a while", but that it will continue to be stay the course for that while.
Norm on MPR: looking for signs that the surge is working
(3/23/07)
Today on MPR's Morning Edition, Norm Coleman stated that he was hopeful about the progress being made in Baghdad. He said something to the effect that while he opposed to "the surge", he was seeing signs that it might be succeeding, that there were signs of hope. He also mentioned that he wanted to see more troops in Al Anbar province where they would really make a difference. I will post a transcript as soon as I find one.
However, Norm had been bizarro-worldly optimistic about how well things were going in Iraq prior to the 2006 elections, so statements like this are nothing new. Despite the overwhelming evidence, he has consistently found reasons for optimism. Its more like he's back to his old self after getting scared last November. He has a history of being overly optimistic about Iraq.
Check out the details at Norm Coleman statements on MPR's Morning Edition.
Norm acknowledges that its a Civil War in Baghdad
(3/23/07)
Norm now doesn't think that things are going well in Baghdad. This is a significant change. On MPR on March 23, 2007, Norm said that he was hopeful about the progress being made in Baghdad in a brief interview on Morning Edition. Furthermore, he's been bizarro-world optimistic about progress in Baghdad until now.
- But the early results of the so-called surge in Baghdad are "mixed," and Coleman expressed grave doubts about the willingness of the Shia-led Iraqi government to take steps that the United States believes are necessary to promote national reconciliation between Iraq's Shiite majority and the Sunni Arab minority that dominated Iraqi power under Saddam Hussein.
...
Coleman said Petraeus reports that death squad killings are down, but sectarian violence is still occurring and the situation in Baghdad can be called a civil war.
(Strib)
Wow. The truth eventually does escape out of Norm's mouth ... you just need to pay really close attention to catch it on the rare occasion that it does.
Dog & Pony Show proves the surge is working
(4/23/07)
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) just got back from a solo trip to Iraq. He visited MN National Guard troops stationed in Al Anbar province. Norm was very upbeat about how the occupation in Al Anbar was going and stated that US troops would remain "in Iraq for a long time" but also insisted, in typical Norm-speak that if progress isn't being made by August, alternative plans might be considered. Norm has never been specific about what an alternative plan might be. Also, Norm met with and criticized Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. Furthermore, Norm acknowledges that Baghdad is in civil war.
- Coleman, who made the trip without other members of Congress, visited two camps where many Minnesota National Guard members are based, one in Talil and one in Taqaddum, which is in the majority Sunni province of Anbar where the Sunni insurgency has been most violent.
...
He said that in late August or early September, Petraeus will deliver a candid report to Congress on whether he's making adequate progress."And if he's not, we'll have to talk about an alternative course of action," Coleman said.
...
Coleman's assessment hasn't changed much since January when, for the first time, he broke with the Bush administration over the idea of sending additional troops to Baghdad. Even then, although it was little noticed, he endorsed the value of more troops in Anbar Province.Now, he says, the United States is winning in Anbar and inducing more Sunnis to abandon the insurgency and join U.S. efforts against Al-Qaida in Iraq.
(Mpls Star Tribune)
Minnesotans can see straight through Norm's attempt to distance himself from his very unpopular President. Furthermore, Norm would never vote against anything that George Bush wanted in regards to Iraq. Don't listen to Norm's words, watch how he votes.
Norm rips on Iraqi Prime Minister
(4/23/07)
In a George Galloway-ish fashion, Norm ripped on Iraqi Prim Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
- Coleman's criticism of the Iraqi government hasn't diminished. He said Sunday that when he talked to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki about the need to revise the policies implemented to bar members of Saddam's former political party from high positions, Al-Maliki replied by talking about the mistreatment Iraqi Shiites had suffered from the predominantly Sunni Baathists. Coleman said he upbraided Al-Maliki about the danger of "tyranny of the majority" (meaning the majority Shiites).
(Strib)
Boy-O! Way to dress down George Bush's puppet. But wait!?! Norm's a Republican ... so ... in effect ... its his own puppet! Zoinks.
Despite his claims of concern about the manner in which the Iraqi government is conducting itself, he has never considered setting measurable benchmarks. Also notice that he's criticizing Al-Maliki for doing what the Bush Administration initiated, removing all Baathists from the Iraqi government. Where was Norm when Douglas Feith (dubbed as the "***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth" by Gen. Tommy Franks) was running Iraq and rid the government of all Baathists? Luckily for Norm, he can get away with critcizing Al-Maliki. The Iraqi PM isn't likely to come to the Senate floor like a certain George Galloway and show Norm to be the craven fool that he is.
US Troops drinking contaminated water, Norm didn't investigate
(5/12/07)
Norm was the Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) from 2002 through 2006. As Chair, Norm had broad latitude on what he could investigate. Consequently, the only investigation he conducted was into the UN's Iraq Oil-for-food program. He failed to question the no bid contracts that Halliburton got. He also failed to look into complaints about how Halliburton was managing these contracts. Here's the result:
I didn't want the guy to panic... so I maintained my composure and said "I have to test some other spots"... of the 67 water treatment plants Halliburton was getting paid to run, 63 of them weren't providing safe water.
I'm here today because I want the american public to know what's happening. There are lot of soldiers over there, they might come home without a bullet wound, but there's a lot of them that are gonna have pathogens in their blood....because of Halliburton.
-- Ben Carter, former KBR/Halliburton Water Purification Specialist
As the pressure mounts on Norm Coleman
(7/12/07)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) slammed Paul Wellstone 5 years ago for opposing the Iraq War resolution. Now he's facing a tough reelection campaign (2008 MN-SEN) and the campaign will center around Coleman's support for the war. Furthermore, he just faced criticism from his top two DFL contenders Al Franken and Mike Ciresi.
- "It's sort of the mirror image of what we had five years ago," said Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. "The facts on the ground in Iraq have changed the political calculation around this about 180 degrees. The real question is how Norm Coleman positions himself. We have to watch that evolve over the next several months."
...
Asked whether he was struck by the fact that the Iraq issue had come full circle for him, Coleman responded, "I really haven't reflected on that. I don't know that anything's come full circle at this point."
(West Central Tribune)
Plus former Rep. Vin Weber counsels Norm to "not do anything that appears to be brazenly political, or it won't help..."
Read my analysis of how Norm will attempt to position himself
Norm won't listen because he'll be vindicated by Nov. 2008
(7/13/07)
In response to prodding from DFL candidates Al Franken and Mike Ciresi, Norm held a press conference in which he claimed
- He wouldn't listen to the majority of Minnesotans who want out of Iraq
- He will be vindicated in his Iraq position by November 2008
- He wants to see a drawdown of troops, but it has to be a secret plan
- He is against timetables and any kind of withdrawal seemingly contradicting what he earlier claimed about drawdowns.
If Minnesotans are confused about what Norm really stands for or what his position actually is, I wouldn't be surprised.
Read about how Norm will be vindicated
Norm's neighbors remind him the war isn't popular
(8/03/07)
Unlike Californian [Cindy] Sheehan, these protesters are homegrown. When Minnesota's Republican Sen. Norm Coleman looks out his picture window, he sees a sign directly across the street on his neighbor’s lawn that says, SUPPORT THE TROOPS, END THE WAR. Coleman has spoken out against the war effort, but has yet to break with his party to join the Democrats in setting a timetable for withdrawal. He is one of 10 Republican senators on the target list for the campaign.
The proximity of the sign to the embattled senator’s home in July became the backdrop for the neighbor’s press conference, which ran on the local evening news. She was polite about her differences with Coleman, but she wanted folks to know where she stands. “It was all very Minnesota-nice,” says Tara McGuinness of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), a coalition of progressive and labor groups that united under the antiwar banner and is behind the Iraq Summer campaign. Their model is the Mississippi Summer Project, the 1964 effort that pushed for civil-rights legislation.
(Newsweek)
Lies and evasions on Iraq
(8/29/07)
Norm met with the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce and used this opportunity to pass of a well-used lie and a tired evasion to a friendly audience that wouldn't call him on them. This lie and evasion were more or less the same ones he plied us all with six months ago on a Minnesota Public Radio interview and he reiterated at a July, 17, 2007 press conference: He still foresees a troop drawdown (the lie), but he's not for one anytime soon (the evasion).
Read about Norm's lie and evasion here.
Labor Day Weekend Dog & Pony Show
(9/4/07)
Norm visited Iraq and the dog and pony show was great. The surge is working and he claimed that he was wrong in opposing the surge initially. He calls for Bush to bring home 5,000 troops (3%) by XMas.
Read more about Norm's visit to Iraq and watch the vid.
Norm defends the indefensible
(9/5/07)
- "Let me also say that the last four years have been riddled with bad predictions and broken promises in Iraq - and I understand that."
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) lets a little truth slip out on MPR
Norm went to Iraq for his very own "dog and pony" show over Labor Day weekend. He went looking for any possible signs of progress. Then he came back to Washington, DC to carry water for President Bush's failed war.
- Coleman strongly endorsed the current U.S. strategy in Iraq and the current military-diplomatic leadership team of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. He said the U.S. Congress, that will hear their report next week, will find them very credible. He called Petraeus “the best we’ve got,” and raved about Crocker’s fluent Arabic and ability to connect with the locals.
(Eric Black Ink
Read more about Norm continuing to defend the indefensible
The light at the end of the tunnel is a train
(9/13/07)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) wants to sound more moderate and reasonable than his voting record on the Iraq War indicates. However, he also says in another statement that the surge is working. Judging by his voting history, he'll ask tough sounding questions, but will continue to back the occupation. This is classic Norm-speak(TM).
- U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, a consistent backer of the war in Iraq, on Tuesday pressed Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander, for a long-term plan that would include timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals.
"Americans want to see a light at the end of the tunnel," said the Minnesota Republican, who is walking a tightrope to the 2008 election. "We need to see some plan out there."
(Minneapolis Star Tribune)
Norm Coleman: light at end of election tunnel is a train
Norm asks Petraeus about plan, doesn't get answer
(9/14/07)
When Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) questioned Gen. Petraeus most news sources noted that he applauded the General for showing that the surge was working and that he asked for a light at the end of the tunnel. However, most papers missed this.
- "Can we get a longer-term vision? Can we get a longer-term plan? Can we say that, yeah, we can be down to half our troops in three years; we can get to five years; we can be turning over our bases in some other paradigm?" Coleman asked. "But I think we need something a little more than, say, give us more time to come back again in the fall."
(Chicago Tribune)
Read about Petraeus's non-answer here.
Norm flip flops on Iraq again, he's for timelines now
(9/16/07)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has flip flopped on Iraq again. He was one of the first Republicans to respond to President Bush's speech on Thursday night stating he is now for withdrawal timelines. His Shrubness pleaded with the nation and his fellow Republicans to stay the course. Norm has previously decried cutting and running. Will the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging wing of the Republican Party declare Norm a traitor? Norm wants to appear that he has become critical of Bush's strategy in Iraq now that his 2008 reelection polling numbers are tanking. His 20% lead in February is now 4%, he's under 50% at 46% and within the margin of error against both his opponents. Of course, this is Norm and its entirely possible that he will continue to support this war despite what he would like Minnesotans to think is opposition to Bush's strategy.
Norm both agrees and disagrees with Bush?
(9/17/07)
War protesters talked to Norm outside his house. He trotted out his usual Iraq talking points like the surge is working, Gen. Petraeus is great. He claimed to not be hearing from people who are opposed to the war and he said he's ignoring the polls that indicate Minnesotans want the war over. Here's my transcript of a choice bit of incoherence:
- "I disagree uh with the President ... uh ... I, I, I, I agree with him and I disagree with him ... [laughter from crowd] ... I disagree with him on disaster assistance, I disagree with him on [mumbles incoherently] funding, I disagree with I that things I that again I have to tell ya I don't call him up and ask him what he thinks, I try to represent you. And on this issues, and on this issue I was uh by the way I was one of the ones I didn't think the surge would work and by the way ..."
"And you were right," A woman says from the crowd. Most everybody in the crowd laughs.
Watch the video from the protest here.
Norm has a plan ... to help his reelection campaign
(9/28/07)
Today was a big day for Norm -- he did a double back flip! As Norm comes to realize the heft and weight of the concrete boots that he's wearing, he has begun to flounder around for a way to weasel out of them. Wa-La! He joins up with several other Republican Senators who are also up for reelection to craft a plan that gets them out of Iraq so they can get out of their reelection jams.
Furthermore, in another bold move to chisel his way out of his concrete boots, Norm lies about record on oversight on Iraq. He now claims that he has "led the effort to ensure and expand Congressional oversight in Iraq." Please be so kind as to ignore his excellent job of looking the other way while Chair of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Norm Coleman’s Plan to End the Iraq War
Norm Coleman flip flops on arbitrary timelines
Norm Coleman flip flops on oversight on Iraq
Norm Coleman lies about his involvement in oversight of Iraq
Norm claims he wants to change course, votes for blank check
(11/16/07)
Norm has voted once again for a blank check for President Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq just before voting against a bill with timetables for withdrawal. His repeated claims that he wants a change of course in Iraq are just Norm-speakTM. Norm has loyally supported President Bush whenever he's been asked. All he's doing is adding fresh concrete to his concrete shoes.
Read my thorough analysis of Norm's statements and votes over the last year
Norm votes for another blank check
(12/19/07)
Norm surprised absolutely nobody yesterday. The Senate was considering an omnibus spending bill which included funding for continuing the occupation of Iraq. Norm voted to continue giving President Bush blank checks for Iraq. Despite Norm's attempts to sound like he has deep concerns about Iraq and how he doesn't always agree with Bush's Iraq policy, he's 12 for 12 in 2008.
(Read the DFL's statement about Norm's vote
The light at the end of the tunnel might be a train
(1/7/08)
Norm returned from his fifth "dog and pony" show in Iraq today. Norm is always looking for something positive and really loves his train in light at the end of the tunnel metaphor. Norm doesn't realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is the train that will end his Senatorial career. But thanks for reminding us that you're still 100% for continuing President Bush's occupation of Iraq.
[emphasis mine]
(MPR)
There's another Norm-speakTM gem in this turgid quote. "I've said this for a while, we don't need to be in the middle of civil war ..." Ya think? Among other things haven't we Minnesotans been of that opinion for a while now? Hmmm?
He also requests a double Friedman Unit to show that the occupation is working. Read the rest of my analysis of Norm's visit here.
Norm sugarcoats the truth about Iraq
(1/8/08)
Norm (R-MN) attempts to sugarcoat the truth about Iraq. It's like a game of telephone. He goes on a "dog-n-pony" show and sees what the Gen. Petraeus wants him to see so it appears that the US is doing better than it really is in Iraq. He then comes back to the States and we hear what Norm wants us to hear because he wants to win reelection. Hardly the unvarnished truth. Our state's newspapers then provide their stenographic services so that we hear exactly Norm's version of the truth without the slightest bit of analysis.
(Mankato Free Press)
Norm took a stroll through a Baghdad market accompanied by a massive show of force and talks about how "he hopes" troops can move into a secondary role.
Petraeus and Coleman need to get their stories straight
(1/23/08)
Conservatives keep putting off the magical date when we can evaluate how we're doing in Iraq since the war began. They have needed six more months since sometime in 2003. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has recently asked for a double Friedman Unit before we evaluate how things are going in Iraq. Today, Gen. David Petraeus (R-Iraq) has asked for a single Friedman Unit before we evaluate how things are going. With McCain and other conservatives declaring victory, it is all so confusing.
Gen. David Petraeus, however, appeared on NBC this morning and rebutted the declarations of mission accomplished and said that he'll need at least another Friedman Unit before he can make a judgment:
- We think we won't know that we've reached a turning point until we're six months past it. We have repeatedly said that there is no lights at the end of the tunnel that we're seeing. We're certainly not dancing in the end zone or anything like that.
While mixing his metaphors, Petraeus also denied Norm his most precious light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel that he's been begging for. While Norm isn't dancing in the end zone, that message might have been for McCain and other conservatives who have been saying victory is right around the corner for coming up on five bloody years.
Read the rest here.
Norm lies about his role in oversight of Iraq
After 5 years of ignoring a multitude of controversies, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) lies about his role in the oversight of the occupation of Iraq. The State Department intended to withdraw its inspectors who oversee reconstruction and assistance programs and Norm complained. Now those inspectors are staying and Norm claims he's played a key role in the oversight of Iraq.
As Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Norm failed to investigate no-bid contracts, torture, pallets of greenbacks disappearing, contractor abuses and much, much more. He has utterly failed his responsibilities to oversee the Bush Administration but now wants to claim otherwise.
(COLEMAN APPLAUDS STATE DEPARTMENT REVERSAL ON IRAQ OVERSIGHT DECISION
Read my complete analysis of Norm's press release.
Norm Coleman votes for another blank check for Iraq occupation
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) once again voted for another blank check for the continued occupation of Iraq. Norm has never found a war funding bill he didn't love and continues his 100% support of President Bush's catastrophic policies in Iraq. He used Norm-speakTM to couch his vote in terms he hopes MN voters will find more favorable:
(St. Cloud Times)
In actual fact, Norm has never taken any substantial action to force the Bush Administration to begin any sort of transition of US troops. Norm just wants MN voters to think he does so he will get reelected. The few instances he has elaborated on his idea of "transition", it becomes apparent that his position is incoherent:
(MPR's Midday)
"If in six months the Iraqis are not meeting benchmarks, we better start talking about redeploying, looking at a policy where our troops in Baghdad are not in the center of this anymore."
(MPR's Midday from 2/26/07)
Of course, when has come down to it, Norm has always opposed establishing any benchmarks with actual consequences. He always goes along with the Republican talking points requesting yet another Friedman Unit or two. He always wants to talk about consequences after the next Friedman Unit when whichever General will report on the non-existent progress which Norm will stretch beyond all reason to find signs of hope. Fundamentally, he will not listen to the vast majority of Minnesotans who want a new direction on Iraq. He holds this position because he believes he will vindicated.
He did not say exactly what a "significant drawdown" would look like. The reason that Norm won't specify what transition plans he supports is because he wants them secret. This is not the coherent, consistent stance we expect of a US Senator from MN. This is pandering. This is Norm-speakTM. This sounds like Michele Bachmann. Furthermore, General Petreaus and Pentagon Chief Robert Gates are trying to sell postponing any drawdowns until the fall to make sure that the surge doesn't fail before the elections. I wonder how Norm will attempt to weasel out from under this position?
[emphasis mine]
(
-- Back to the top --
»
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Stumble It!
