So, yesterday afternoon I called Jindal's local office to ask how he voted and what his position was on the bill. The person I spoke with didn't know what I was referring to, and told me to call his D.C. office. When I called them they put me on hold while they "checked" on what his position was, and how he voted. After a surprisingly long wait, they said they didn't have any information at that time about his vote or his stance, and that they would send me a letter explaining his position.
In terms of constituent services, that was not very impressive.
It might be interesting to go back to June 16, 2006. That was the day when Jindal voted FOR House Resolution 861, which declared that "the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq". That was a pretty big commitment then, and still is today. Based on that "Yea" vote, it would seem that Jindal was part of the "victory is the only exit strategy" camp. But then, interestingly, after the November elections Jindal was asked about the War in Iraq in this interview . Here's what he said:
For quite a while, I've been reminding the administration of the President's own ideas when he ran against Al Gore -- when the President said that he was not for using the American military for nation-building.
I continued to remind them of that because he said that six years ago on the campaign trail and I agreed with him then. It's certainly a good thing that Saddam (Hussein) is gone, but, I also think that we certainly need to be aggressively shifting responsibility to the Iraqi people.
I don't think our troops need to be there forever. I don't think we can force the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds to live together if they don't want to live together peacefully. They have to decide that for themselves.
What happened to Jindal's commitment to a "secure, united Iraq"? What if Iraqis decide to *not* be a "united" country? Do we force them to unify if they want to split in three? And if Jindal sincerely thinks we need to be "aggressively shifting responsibility" to the Iraqis, what's wrong with a timetable to lessen the "nation-building" burden our troops are currently bearing?
As hundreds of South Louisianan U.S. Marines ship off to the deadliest province in Iraq, one is led to wonder: what precisely is Jindal's view about the Iraq war? Is supporting the current "surge" strategy consistent with Jindal's belief that troops should not be used for nation-building? Is it inconsistent for Jindal to vote in favor of a resolution declaring an open-ended U.S. commitment to a "united Iraq", and then say that Iraqis have to decide for themselves how to live together? How can one be against nation-building, but pro "Surge"? And how does voting against timetables and deadlines help aggressively transfer responsibility to the Iraqis?
(Not to mention that the Democrats' timetable resolution also included much needed Gulf Coast Recovery funds. But we won't dwell on that ephemera right now.)
In the post-election interview, Jindal also expressed his "hope" that the Bush administration would listen to the Baker/Hamilton Panel's recommendations on Iraq. The panel's recommendations included "withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008". That's basically what the Dems were proposing in H.R. 1591. But the President didn't heed the panel's recommendations (or the Dem's solutions), and, based on his voting, neither did Representative Jindal.
Once again, our naive, "ever-hopeful" Jindal is on full display. What is the basis for his continued faith in Bush? How many times does Jindal have to get his hopes dashed by the White House before he gets a clue? Does he honestly think Bush cares one bit about Jindal's views on nationbuilding as long as he keeps dutifully voting "for" Bush's surges and "against" the Dems' timetables? Hell no. Of course, Jindal could instantly get the White House's attention if he started voting his conscience rather than how he's instructed. But I guess that's not gonna happen: he has gubernatorial ambitions, and issues like the War in Iraq have been placed on the backburner. At this point "Iraq" is a political nuisance for Jindal, whose eyes are on the Governor's Mansion.
But for many South Louisianans right now, the war is one of their top concerns. They have loved ones who are being shipped off to the deadliest province in Iraq, into a quagmire that has lasted longer than WWII. I hope Jindal's office does a better job answering their questions about Jindal's votes and views than they did mine.
I can't wait for that explanatory letter to arrive. I'm imagining the contortions Jindal will have to perform in order to seem even mildly consistent:
Rep. Jindal believes that more troops should be sent to Iraq but insists none of them should stay there "forever".
Rep. Jindal believes that we should "aggressively" shift responsibility to the Iraqis, and do so without firm deadlines, ultimatums, metrics and consequences.
Rep. Jindal believes that troops should not nationbuild Iraq. He is also committed to a "sovereign, free, secure and united" country somehow emerging from the current sectarian civil war (which followed a Stalinist tyrant's longtime reign).
Rep. Jindal believes repeatedly reminding the President about his views from 1999-- while voting with his current foreign policy every step of the way-- will have any positive effect whatsoever.
---
Update: A google search for "Iraq" at Bobby's web sites yielded 0 results.
---
Update 2: Here's a snippet from the T-P article on Bush's January announcement of his decision to ignore the Baker Panel and instead order a troop "surge" into Iraq:
Both Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., declined to take a position on the central thrust of Bush's prime-time announcement: that he was sending more U.S. forces into the Iraqi battle zone.
Jindal, who declined an interview request, issued a circumspect statement after the speech calling for a "sea change" in U.S. strategy, although he didn't explain what he had in mind.
"President Bush's comments tonight indicate that he understands that a change in strategy is needed," said Jindal, a second-term congressman mulling a run for governor this year. "The military commanders on the ground in Iraq must determine the best way for us to be successful and bring our troops home soon."
Inquiries seeking clarification on Jindal's position -- specifically whether he supported or opposed adding 20,000 more troops -- went unanswered.
Labels: Iraq morass, Jindal
