Posted on 08/29/2007 12:23:56 PM PDT by tobyhill
Democratic Congressman Brian Baird got an earful Monday from constituents in his politically-mixed district during a town hall meeting in Vancouver, Washington. Baird voted against the Iraq war resolution and has supported timelines for troop withdrawal.
But he reversed himself after a recent trip to the war zone — and says he thinks most Americans agree with his new position. One activist called his switch a betrayal — and said "there is only one way to end an illegal and immoral war, and that's to end it."
Baird is taking the heat in stride — saying — "Somebody said to me, 'Oh man, you're going to get killed tonight. I said, 'No, they get killed in Iraq. I'm going to get criticized.'"
Advocacy Ads
The cable networks MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air advertisements calling for continued support of the Iraq war. The ads feature Iraqi war veterans and their families. Powerline reports the networks say they have a policy against running sponsored ads dealing with controversial public issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How is it Illegal and Immoral?
I did a search under some title words like “constituents” and “Baird” but came up empty handed. Shucks!
>>How is it Illegal and Immoral?<<
Those are leftover Vietnam words, quite obviously the speaker has original thought issues:)
Actually same story, different source. Good to see it is getting some play. Hopefully Brian B. is able to get his point across.
There’s another Breaking story now, McCain wants Craig to resign so this will be back on the back burner shortly.
Unlike some on FR I have no problem with any news organization refusing to air any politically charged advertisement.
However once they do they have no right to claim unbiased news reporting.
Of course we all have know for some time that MSNBC and CNBC are biased in their reporting. This should alert everyone in the nation who is paying attention to their bias.
But of course MSNBC and CNBC will never openly admit bias. It is in their nature to be duplicitous.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Two of the leftists’ favorite words to describe the Iraq war - illegal and immoral.
Basically, they mean “when a Republican is president”.
It is astonishing read that a politician - even a Dem - can change his mind when presented with the hard facts. A democrat with principles. That is news.
Just found this;
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/08/moveonorg_plans_tv_ads_against.html
MoveOn.org plans TV ads against Baird’s Iraq views
Posted by The Associated Press August 29, 2007 13:42PM
Categories: Breaking News
OLYMPIA — MoveOn.org, the liberal cyberspace political action group, is launching television ads to whack at U.S. Rep. Brian Baird for shifting his views on Iraq.
Baird, a moderate-to-liberal from Vancouver, voted against the original Iraq war resolution in 2002 and a measure calling for withdrawal of some U.S. troops this fall, but recently said he now opposes a timeline.
Baird was hammered by anti-war activists at a town hall meeting in Vancouver on Monday night, including an estimated 100 MoveOn.org members who flooded the event.
The organization will begin airing a 30-second TV spot Thursday on cable television channels in the Vancouver market, spokeswoman Nita Chaudhary said. The $20,000 ad buy may be extended to longer than the planned one week and may be placed on additional channels, she said.
“The bottom line is that Congressman Baird’s new position is keeping the troops bogged down in an unwinnable situation in a civil war, and is out of line with the majority of his constituents,” Chaudhary said.
The ad includes footage from Iraq, including a riot, and says “Keeping American soldiers in Iraq for an indefinite period of time being attacked by an unidentifiable enemy is immoral.
“Tell Rep. Baird, support our troops, bring them home,” the ad says.
Baird did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the Vancouver event, he said “If we withdraw, I think the consequences will be catastrophic, and I think some of that will be our responsibility.”
Baird supports the Bush administration’s decision to continue the increase of 20,000 troops at least until next spring.
On his official Web site, he says “As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better.
“I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.”
I am not picking on you...I am just dumping articles pertinent to Baird on this thread;
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/118835072964130.xml&coll=7
Rep. Brian Baird’s bold turnaround
The Democrat shows courage in carving out his own stand on Iraq, and in facing the consequences
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
I n theory, Northwesterners love political mavericks, politicians willing to bushwhack their own way through a complicated debate. People, for instance, such as Oregon Sen. Wayne Morse, who voted early and often against U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
In practice, though, respect for independent thinkers often takes time to ripen. “Love” is not the word anyone would use to describe the reception this week for Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., who may be a maverick in the making.
Baird has been delivering a deeply unwelcome message to his Democratic constituents and colleagues in recent days. The good news is that there is some good news to deliver about the war, Baird says. But, to some, that is also the bad news.
Any inkling of progress, even if it turns out to be a mirage, could complicate and prolong the timeline for getting out of Iraq. Although Baird’s view is laden with caveats and laced with pessimism, he argues that there is real progress now on the ground and that it could justify — no, demand — a longer stay in the region for the United States. “That is the price we must all pay for the decision to invade,” Baird wrote last week in The Seattle Times. “We cannot shirk that responsibility.”
You can argue with Baird’s conclusion, but his testimony is powerful for three reasons: First, he speaks as a critic of the war who first blazed a trail of independent-mindedness in 2002, when he voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. You’ll recall he was in the minority on that vote.
Second, he has immersed himself in the region. He has taken five trips to the area, including two to Iraq this year. And, finally, at least in the short-term, there is no conceivable political gain for a Democrat espousing a longer stay in Iraq. In the past year, many Republicans, most recently even Sen. John Warner, R-Va., have been distancing themselves.
The confusing tangle of opinions on Iraq grows out of the fact that no good options are out there for the United States, only alternatives that are less bad. And yet, as one soldier told Baird, “We have lost so many good people and invested so much, it just doesn’t make sense to quit now when we’re finally making progress.”
The terrible toll of this war, with nearly 4,000 Americans dead, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, does argue for some patience and extreme care in extricating ourselves. But it’s also eerily reminiscent of the circular reasoning that helped prolong the Vietnam War.
Forty-three years ago this month, Oregon’s Sen. Morse was one of only two U.S. senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized expansion of that war. (The House unanimously approved it.)
Between that pivotal vote and 1973, 58,000 Americans died.
Baird’s recent essay was titled, “Our troops have earned more time.” But it’s not hard to turn that around and argue the opposite: “Our troops have earned their way home.”
Morse is remembered as a maverick today, not only because he voted his own conscience but also because he was right. Whether Baird belongs in that company or not, he’s an eminently reasonable man, and his views must be heard and carefully weighed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.