If the focus of the 2008 presidential race ever turns to experience, a certain U.S. Senator from Connecticut is poised to capitalize.
With three terms in the House of Representatives and 26+ years in the Senate, Chris Dodd has a resume to put many of the current candidates to shame. As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the 63-year-old Connecticut native believes he is "ready to lead from day one."
Senator Dodd recently took some time from his campaign schedule for a "10 Questions with ..." interview with us. In the first part of our email interview we discuss leadership, the Patriot Act and, of course, the War in Iraq.
1) You have been in the U.S. Senate longer than Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards combined, yet are currently behind the three in recent polls. What do you believe you offer to Americans that the early Democratic front-runners don't have?
I have a great amount of respect for the other candidates. However, I can only speak for myself, and now more than any other time in our history, experience matters. The American people want to be confident in their leadership and I have the experience, in both domestic and international affairs, the judgment and the ability to unite this country in a way that moves us forward together.
People want to connect with their President, and they want to know that their President understands them and what their life is like. They’re asking each candidate, “Do you know what I’m going through? Do you know my aspirations and my dreams? Do you know my hopes and what I wish for my kids and my grandchildren?” Once they know you understand them, then, and only then, they want to know that you have a plan and the experience to implement it.
I have been involved in every major domestic and international policy debate for the past 30 years. I am ready to lead from day one. I am confident the voters of Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and every other state will see that and trust me with their vote.
2) With Iraq being a central part of the 2008 campaign, one of the points of attack is questioning those who voted for the war in the first place? While many of those doing the pointing weren't in office to have a record, what do you say to people who ask "Why did you do it?"
As I have stated firmly in the past, that vote was a mistake and if I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted that way. I think what happened 5 years ago is a valid and important topic, and I do want not to minimize that, but I think the American people are much more interested in where we go from here. They want to know: how do we fix this now?
The Senate voted last month on the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment, which would have responsibly ended our involvement in Iraq’s civil war by redeploying our combat troops within ten months. I see that amendment as an encouraging start to ending the war. I plan to introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill this month that follows many of the same lines as the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment. This new amendment would begin redeployment within 30 days of passage. It would also require accountability of the Bush Administration, forcing the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the progress of redeployment and tie further funding to the redeployment’s progress.
3) Everybody in Washington is looking for an "exit strategy" in Iraq, but the debate has mainly been framed in slogans such as "stay the course," "cut and run" and vague "time lines." Is there a good strategy out there and, if so, what do you think it is?
I do not think our American servicemen and women in Iraq should be policing someone else’s civil war while we lack the needed resources to complete missions in our own country and elsewhere abroad. The American people have long stopped understanding what exactly our mission in Iraq is, if they ever knew what it was to begin with. Both the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment and the aforementioned Dodd Amendment, which I will introduce, would responsibly and safely redeploy our troops out of harm’s way.
The civil war in Iraq cannot be resolved through military force, and if the president will not change course, then it is Congress’ obligation to do so. I will continue to vote to reduce funding to pressure the president to change the underlying policy of reliance on a military solution to someone else’s civil war. This will be done with adequate time for the president to redeploy our troops safely within and outside of Iraq, but the bottom line is: it must be done.
Our troops should be redeployed out of the urban centers where a civil war is raging, and toward the border areas where they can continue to train Iraqi forces, conduct ongoing intelligence operations and secure American civilian and diplomatic efforts.
We must redirect funding to augment our forces in Afghanistan, restore our military readiness, support our wounded veterans and their families and begin restoring America’s leadership in the world.
4) Staying with foreign policy, while the U.S. and world have been focused on Iraq, perhaps even more dangerous and unstable governments in Iran and North Korea have been developing nuclear weapons. You have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 25 years, how would this experience help a Dodd administration deal with these two countries?
Over the past 25 years, my experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has prepared me to deal with the challenges we face from Iran, North Korea and any other nation. In the last two years alone, I have met with the leaders of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. I’ve been to Iraq three times, and I spent the week before Christmas this past year in the Middle East.
The foreign policy experience I would bring to the White House is crucial to solving the crises in which we find ourselves today.
5) The Patriot Act passed with great fanfare in the days after 9/11, yet as time has passed many people, from all sides of the political spectrum, have had reservations with some aspects of it. What is your position on the Patriot Act?
I firmly believe that liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive. We must be vigilant against infringements upon our civil liberties, even when those infringements are made in the name of national security. I voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act because I believed that, on balance, it would enhance our nation’s ability to fight terrorism without substantially encroaching upon our citizen’s civil liberties.
Since enactment in 2001, I have become concerned about particular provisions in the Act. Since passage of the PATRIOT Act, four states and over 375 local governments have passed resolutions expressing their concern about some sections of the Act. Clearly, we must make an effort to address the concerns of our citizens regarding their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.
I supported revisions to the PATRIOT Act that strengthens the country’s ability to fight against terrorism while preserving Americans’ civil liberties, like the right to privacy.
------------------
Our interview with Senator Dodd continues here, where we tackle the issues of immigration, health care, social security and the budget deficit.
For more information on the Dodd campaign, please visit ChrisDodd.com.
With three terms in the House of Representatives and 26+ years in the Senate, Chris Dodd has a resume to put many of the current candidates to shame. As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the 63-year-old Connecticut native believes he is "ready to lead from day one."
Senator Dodd recently took some time from his campaign schedule for a "10 Questions with ..." interview with us. In the first part of our email interview we discuss leadership, the Patriot Act and, of course, the War in Iraq.
1) You have been in the U.S. Senate longer than Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards combined, yet are currently behind the three in recent polls. What do you believe you offer to Americans that the early Democratic front-runners don't have?
I have a great amount of respect for the other candidates. However, I can only speak for myself, and now more than any other time in our history, experience matters. The American people want to be confident in their leadership and I have the experience, in both domestic and international affairs, the judgment and the ability to unite this country in a way that moves us forward together.
People want to connect with their President, and they want to know that their President understands them and what their life is like. They’re asking each candidate, “Do you know what I’m going through? Do you know my aspirations and my dreams? Do you know my hopes and what I wish for my kids and my grandchildren?” Once they know you understand them, then, and only then, they want to know that you have a plan and the experience to implement it.
I have been involved in every major domestic and international policy debate for the past 30 years. I am ready to lead from day one. I am confident the voters of Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and every other state will see that and trust me with their vote.
2) With Iraq being a central part of the 2008 campaign, one of the points of attack is questioning those who voted for the war in the first place? While many of those doing the pointing weren't in office to have a record, what do you say to people who ask "Why did you do it?"
As I have stated firmly in the past, that vote was a mistake and if I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted that way. I think what happened 5 years ago is a valid and important topic, and I do want not to minimize that, but I think the American people are much more interested in where we go from here. They want to know: how do we fix this now?
The Senate voted last month on the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment, which would have responsibly ended our involvement in Iraq’s civil war by redeploying our combat troops within ten months. I see that amendment as an encouraging start to ending the war. I plan to introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill this month that follows many of the same lines as the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment. This new amendment would begin redeployment within 30 days of passage. It would also require accountability of the Bush Administration, forcing the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the progress of redeployment and tie further funding to the redeployment’s progress.
3) Everybody in Washington is looking for an "exit strategy" in Iraq, but the debate has mainly been framed in slogans such as "stay the course," "cut and run" and vague "time lines." Is there a good strategy out there and, if so, what do you think it is?
I do not think our American servicemen and women in Iraq should be policing someone else’s civil war while we lack the needed resources to complete missions in our own country and elsewhere abroad. The American people have long stopped understanding what exactly our mission in Iraq is, if they ever knew what it was to begin with. Both the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment and the aforementioned Dodd Amendment, which I will introduce, would responsibly and safely redeploy our troops out of harm’s way.
The civil war in Iraq cannot be resolved through military force, and if the president will not change course, then it is Congress’ obligation to do so. I will continue to vote to reduce funding to pressure the president to change the underlying policy of reliance on a military solution to someone else’s civil war. This will be done with adequate time for the president to redeploy our troops safely within and outside of Iraq, but the bottom line is: it must be done.
Our troops should be redeployed out of the urban centers where a civil war is raging, and toward the border areas where they can continue to train Iraqi forces, conduct ongoing intelligence operations and secure American civilian and diplomatic efforts.
We must redirect funding to augment our forces in Afghanistan, restore our military readiness, support our wounded veterans and their families and begin restoring America’s leadership in the world.
4) Staying with foreign policy, while the U.S. and world have been focused on Iraq, perhaps even more dangerous and unstable governments in Iran and North Korea have been developing nuclear weapons. You have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 25 years, how would this experience help a Dodd administration deal with these two countries?
Over the past 25 years, my experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has prepared me to deal with the challenges we face from Iran, North Korea and any other nation. In the last two years alone, I have met with the leaders of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. I’ve been to Iraq three times, and I spent the week before Christmas this past year in the Middle East.
The foreign policy experience I would bring to the White House is crucial to solving the crises in which we find ourselves today.
5) The Patriot Act passed with great fanfare in the days after 9/11, yet as time has passed many people, from all sides of the political spectrum, have had reservations with some aspects of it. What is your position on the Patriot Act?
I firmly believe that liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive. We must be vigilant against infringements upon our civil liberties, even when those infringements are made in the name of national security. I voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act because I believed that, on balance, it would enhance our nation’s ability to fight terrorism without substantially encroaching upon our citizen’s civil liberties.
Since enactment in 2001, I have become concerned about particular provisions in the Act. Since passage of the PATRIOT Act, four states and over 375 local governments have passed resolutions expressing their concern about some sections of the Act. Clearly, we must make an effort to address the concerns of our citizens regarding their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.
I supported revisions to the PATRIOT Act that strengthens the country’s ability to fight against terrorism while preserving Americans’ civil liberties, like the right to privacy.
------------------
Our interview with Senator Dodd continues here, where we tackle the issues of immigration, health care, social security and the budget deficit.
For more information on the Dodd campaign, please visit ChrisDodd.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment