Rep. Shays was on Hardball on MSNBC yesterday to talk about his position on the Iraq appopriations bill that is scheduled to be voted on in the House tomorrow.
In about five minutes, he was able to make the following range of points:
1. He said he is "a strong no" on the legislation because the proposed timeline for redeployment is "too quick," but that "we do need timelines," but that Congress has no authority to propose such timelines, and any such proposal needs to come from to the President.
2. Asked if he would support a war that lasted until the end of 2008, he answered enigmatically: "If it's a war where we're starting to make progress, obviously, it's easy to support it. If it's a war where Petraeus's plan is not working out well, then obviously, it's going to be very difficult to want to support it."
3. Presented with poll numbers showing that 83% of Shiites and 97% of the Sunnis in Iraq want U.S. troops out, he responded that a majority of Iraqis still "don't want us to leave until we get the job done." But then he called for Pelosi to allow a vote on his proposed amendment to the Iraq bill, which would require "a plebiscite in Iraq and if 60 percent of the Iraqis don't support our being there, then we just leave and get out."
So here's the current Shays position on Iraq as I understand it:
He thinks we need timelines, but he wants them to be drawn out until at least late 2008, and he wants the President to introduce it, not Congress. But even though he claims a redeployment of troops by March 2008 (as the current bill requires) would be too quick, he won't admit to wanting troops in Iraq past March 2008, because, he says, of the possibility that the war just might be even less popular by then. Finally, he strongly believes America has a solemn duty to Iraqis to stay until the "job is done," but feels very strongly that if 60% of Iraqis decide in a vote they want us to leave then we should "just leave and get out," regardless of the level of "doneness" of said undefined "job." Meanwhile, he brushes aside polls taken recently that indicate that about 90% of Iraqis do want us out right now.
That's why he'll be voting for more war tomorrow.
It's better when you watch Shays move his mouth and makes his plea for more war.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
