Today, we finally get to the primary reason I decided to start this blog. It's purpose is to provide a running commentary on the statements and shenanigans of the Rhode Island delegation to Congress as well as those in the General Assembly and the Governor. All are Democrats, with the exception of Gov. Carcieri and a negligible few in the General Assembly (something less than 20%!). Oh, I almost forgot Senator Lincoln Chafee, who calls himself a Republican but has yet to verify that affiliation by his stance on any substantive policy issue. Nonetheless, with the President issuing his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein last night, an opportunity to get a glimpse into the hearts and minds of our Congressional Delegation has been provided. All have made statements. For an article on these statements, go to this story in the Providence Journal. My statements follow, now.

We'll start with the easy ones first....
Sen. Jack Reed is a West Point grad, Democrat. His comment is in-line with most of his politics. He supports the action, says it will be successful, but has serious reservations about the aftermath and continues to blame the Bush Administration for ham-handed diplomacy. As a matter of fact, Reps. Jim Langevin and Patrick Kennedy, both Democrats, pretty much fall in line with that, with the latter two additionally blaming France for much of the diplomatic problem. Of these 3, Reed and Langevin seem to be maintaining their consistency best as far as what one would expect from them given their past political body of work. Rep. Kennedy is somewhat of a surprise, he is generally regarded as one of the more liberal firebrands in Congress. It has to be conjectured that, given his relatively close re-election campaign, Mr. Kennedy may be hedging against another run by his 2002 opponent, Dave Rodgers, a conservative Republican, former SEAL. Regardless, he is right on this issue, though he succumbs to his irresistable partisan urges and can't resist criticizing the perceived diplomatic failures. That brings us to Sen. Chafee.

Rather than having me explain his stance on the war, I'll let Sen. Chafee do it himself. From the article in ProJo today:

"But Republican Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee said that the idea that the French veto threat had contributed to a diplomatic breakdown is 'absolute hogwash.'

Chafee also charged that the Bush administration's stance toward Iraq is 'not about weapons, not about chemical weapons, not about biological weapons. It's about the aggressive imposition of our sole superpower status' on the rest of the world.

'My own opinion is that the administration has wanted to pursue this course over the last number of months, if not years,' Chafee said. U.S. policy has included the 'browbeating' of Great Britain and other nations to join the effort against Iraq, he noted.

'It's sad that, in this time of spring and warmth, the sense of vitality that comes with that first scent of spring is darkened by a change in American direction,' Chafee said. 'There was a contrast that I think everybody felt."

That is a Republican? The son of John Chafee, former Secretary of the Navy? Mr. Chafee received my vote during the last 2 elections. He will never receive it again. Unfortunately, I will have to wait for 4 more years before I will be able to voice my opinion at the ballot box. As such, I will endeavor to continue to illustrate in this blog exactly how off the mark our "Senator from Virginia" (as called by Dan Yorke, see link to the right) usually is. In his remarks, Chafee seems to be spouting every conspiracy theory espoused by the average blame-America-first war protestor. How can Chafee, knowing what he knows, think that the President has any but the best motives? No proof of WMD's in Iraq? WHAT!? And even if he doesn't trust the President, then it is generally expected that now is a time to close ranks and maintain a united front for the sake of the troops. I believe Sen. Chafee has just tossed away any legitimacy he may have had with the Bush Administration and expect him to be even further marginalized by his own party. But it's really not about party loyalty. To imply and ascribe the worst motivations to the President is reprehensible. It's reprehensible what some Democrats are doing, such as Sen. Tom Daschle severely criticizing the Bush diplomacy last night at a union fund raiser, but you are a Republican, Mr. Chafee. Your father was a Republican. Like it or not, members of political parties should stand together in times like these. Senator Chafee, you are certainly not the man your father was and it seems you never will be. In fact, it seems as if you are bent on political self-destruction. I'm beginning to believe that you were pressured into filling your father's Senate seat, something you may have never really wanted, and are now trying very hard to make yourself unpalatable to members of both parties in future elections. It's obvious you are far left of the average Republican voter. And an average Democrat would be justifiably reticent to support you if it was perceived that you were a political opportunist should you switch parties at some future date. I suspect you have thought of switching parties, too, especially should the Senate come under Democratic control next election cycle. In short, Mr. Chafee, you have time and again exhibited an unhealthy lack of decisiveness and concomitant resolve on almost any issue of foreign policy. You're as soft as sponge, but don't hold as much water. Get ready Senator....the free ride is over.