Chris Dodd for President

Senator Dodd has issued the following statement on the positions of his colleagues Clinton and Obama on Iraq.

"I am pleased to see that Senator Obama has followed my lead and committed to oppose any Iraq measure without a deadline. I urge him to make such a deadline meaningful and enforceable by co-sponsoring the Dodd Amendment which sets a firm deadline that is tied to funding. However, I remain deeply distressed that Senator Clinton has yet to state whether she will oppose an Iraq measure without a firm and enforceable deadline. Ending our involvement in this civil war will take conviction and leadership that is willing to stand up to the President - not political gamesmanship and vote counting.

"Her silence is deafening." [Link added]

Senator Obama should join Senator Dodd in pushing for the only meaningful legislation that will end the Iraq war by putting a firm date for withdrawal from Iraq's civil war that is enforced by tying that deadline to funding. The Dodd Amendment would:

• Begin to immediately redeploy troops from Iraq
• Mandate a phased redeployment of US troops to be concluded by April 30, 2008
• Provide funding for redeployment operations and end all funding for combat operations by April 30, 2008
• Redirect any savings from a reduced military presence in Iraq to our war-battered National Guard and armed services

The American public deserves to know where Senator Clinton stands. Does she want to end the Iraq war before the next President (cough, Chris Dodd) takes office? Or is she content to wait on the sidelines while Senator Dodd fights to end the war now?

Today Senator Dodd announced his intention to introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. Dodd has been leading the Democratic candidates in calling on the Administration to change course in Iraq. Dodd has insisted the half-measures proposed by other candidates and his colleagues in the Senate are inadequate, and that to end the war we must set a clear deadline for redeployment and that deadline must be tied to funding. He has called on Americans to contact their Senators and get them to state for the record if they will vote for Iraq legislation that fails to include a firm deadline tied to funding.

"Even after his top General said that there has been no significant political progress in Iraq and couldn't say if our involvement in Iraq's civil war has made the country safer, George Bush continues to insist that we should stay the course," said Dodd. "There can be no doubt that this President won't change course in Iraq and certainly not when given the option of an open ended engagement by the Congress. The only way to bring our involvement in this civil war to a conclusion is to use our Constitutional power of the purse by setting a firm deadline tied to funding. I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd Amendment and send a clear message that we will do what we must do to restore the security of the country and bring this war to a responsible end."

Dodd's amendment would:

• Begin to immediately redeploy troops from Iraq
• Mandate a phased redeployment of US troops to be concluded by April 30, 2008
• Provide funding for redeployment operations and end all funding for combat operations by April 30, 2008
• Redirect any savings from a reduced military presence in Iraq to our war-battered National Guard and armed services

Melissa Ryan at CT Local Politics writes on Dodd's push for Senators Obama and Clinton to state clearly where they stand on the coming Iraq war funding debate:

Last time Dodd was able to successfully pressure Senators Clinton and Obama. Hopefully he can shame them into it again. What’s sad is that someone has to. Americans don’t want nonbinding goal posts. We went our troops out of harm’s way. That’s why we voted in Democratic majorities in 2006.

When it comes to Iraq Senator Dodd is right on. He’s right about troop withdrawal, and right to put pressure on his fellow Senators. Now all we need is for Clinton, Obama, and other Senators to follow Dodd’s lead. Again, Americans spoke out loud and clear in 2006. It’s time for Congress to act.

Atrios encourages his readers to stop a bad bill through the tool we've set up at ChrisDodd.com.

McJoan of DailyKos does the same:

Stop a bad bill in the Senate. Chris Dodd makes it easy. Seriously, the Dems need to hear from us in the kinds of numbers that the Republicans got during the immigration debate. Their phones never stopped ringing. Call your Congressperson and your Senators and tell them no more funding without a strict timetable for withdrawal.

Matt Stoller at Open Left agrees with Dodd's strong statement: "This is exactly right." He goes on:

Obama will not lead on Iraq, but worse than that, he will not even address it. A speech that refuses to deal with funding votes in the Senate and residual troops for the President post-2009 is not a statement on Iraq at all. It's as if I were to ask him if I could borrow his extra umbrella because it's raining outside, and he were to passionately talk about the need for it to stop raining. He's just avoiding the subject. And why should I pick Obama if I want someone who avoids the subject? I can get a better version of that in the form of Hillary Clinton. At least she's honest about not being an incrementalist, instead of bashing DC in speeches while doing nothing to change the culture he's very much a part of.

Also check out TalkLeft, TPM Election Central, Daily Kos (again), Eschaton (again) and Open Left (again) for more coverage of Dodd's push for his Senate colleagues to show clarity on their Iraq stances and make passing legislation that has a firm, enforceable deadline tied to funding to end the Iraq war.

Call on your senators to state clearly and directly: will you support Iraq legislation that does not have a firm, enforceable deadline tied to funding?

Visit: http//chrisdodd.com/StopTheBill.

Senator Dodd has an op-ed on the Huffington Post. The article is titled, "Is Today's Testimony from Petraeus Relevant to the Debate on Iraq?" In it Dodd questions "the relevance of a report on the merits of a particular tactic when the underlying strategy - that there is any military solution to the civil war in Iraq - has failed."

Read the whole post on Huffington Post or go below the fold for more.