Skip navigation

Iraq already making 2008 campaign ugly

How two senators, one Republican, one Democratic, grapple with war

IMAGE: Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks to reporters outside the Senate chamber this week. She faces an arduous re-election fight next year.
Alex Wong / Getty Images file
NBC Video: Politics
Americans funding terrorism?
  Nov. 12: A new report in The Nation details how U.S. tax dollars are being used to “pay off” Taliban killers to keep them from bombing and shooting at U.S. convoys. Robert Greenwald, director of “Rethink Afghanistan” discusses.

Slideshow
  The Week in Political Cartoons
Msnbc.com’s political cartoonists take a look back at the past week.

more photos

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
msnbc.com
updated 3:40 p.m. ET July 12, 2007

Tom Curry
National affairs writer

E-mail
WASHINGTON - The 2008 campaign has gotten ugly. Look no further than the doctored photo of Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, sent out this week by the Democratic-linked group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

Under the headline “Will Toothless Senator Collins Finally Change Her Tune?” the group, in a press release Wednesday, doctored the official photo of Collins, blackening her teeth and leaving her with only one, (the right maxillary central incisor, for any dentists out there).

It was a face that only a cosmetic dentist — or a Democrat out to defeat Collins next year — could love.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

No surprise that Democrats are gunning for the Maine Republican as she seeks her third term: President Bush got only 44 percent of the vote in her state in 2004.

If Senate Democrats are to reach the filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats — which seems feasible at this point — they’ll need to oust Collins.

Collins up against tough foe
Her Democratic opponent Rep. Tom Allen is well-funded, with more than $1.7 million in cash on hand as of June 30.  The Collins campaign said that it had $2.3 million cash on hand, as of June 30.

On the Iraq issue, Collins has been under fire from Democrats for months; the assault went on this week with a new TV ad by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

MSNBC video
President Bush gives Iraq assessment
July 12: At a press briefing Thursday, President Bush said there was cause for optimism in Iraq.

MSNBC

Collins, who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2002, is distancing herself from Bush.

Collins worked this week with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., on an amendment to the defense authorization bill that, she said, would “clearly change the mission in Iraq; it would wind down the combat mission and instead have our troops focus on counter-terrorism operations against al Qaida, border security and the training and equipping of Iraqi troops.”

The Collins-Nelson proposal would require Bush to “immediately begin” the shift of U.S. forces to their new limited missions and set as a goal March 31 of next year for completing that transition.

Troop reduction to follow changed mission
The amendment does not specify the number of troops to be pulled out of Iraq, but she said “the majority of the mission right now is combat, so by changing the mission the result is a significant draw-down in troops.”

Could the U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus live with this proposal?

“I doubt it, based on the conversation I just had with Secretary Rice” replied Collins on Tuesday, laughing. “It seems to me the administration wants to continue to stay the course and pursue the current strategy for at least two more months.”

Collins said her amendment differs substantially from the leading Democratic idea offered by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., which require the withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin within 120 days.

“That’s the part of their amendment that’s problematic for me,” Collins said. “I like the idea of having a goal of next year. I like the change in mission, but I’m still concerned about what the ramifications would be of mandating a withdrawal starting in 120 days.”

She said it is wiser to “leave it up to the military” to decide the timing and magnitude of the troop exit. “But by changing the mission clearly you’re paving the way for a significant but gradual drawdown of troops,” she said.

“To me the common thread in all these proposals is a redefinition of the mission and a rejection of the president’s policy,” said Collins.


Sponsored links

Resource guide