Speaking of stunning hypocrisy. I don't know what's worse; The DNC's blatant hypocrisy or the fact that the MSM never, ever informs the public about it. (Hat tip to Brumar89)
****
Dems: Bush is for it, so we’re against it UPDATED
Filed under: Bush Bad?, Why can't weeee be friends, Dumb Democrat moves, America, War on Terror
The Democrat philosophy of the past 3-4 years has essentially been, “whatever it is, if Bush is for it, we’re against it. If Bush is against it, we’re for it!”
So, as recently as December 2006, Dems were calling for more troops and acknowledging that we can’t afford to lose.
Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
There is this, also.
Now that Bush is doing exactly that…well…now that’s no good. The Dems don’t like that. They only like whatever Bush ISN’T doing, whatever he IS doing is bad. They’re against it.
Proving the point, Iowa Voice gives us Nancy Pelosi: She was for the surge, before she was against it. See below
I’m sure someone with a little time can find some more “we need more troops on the ground” noise from the ‘06 Democrat model. Biden? Dean? ***See Update Below, Kim at Wizbang has found more***
Leadership can never be born from a reactionary position of obstruction, obfuscation and second-guessing. You might win an office that way, but you won’t keep it.
As Blue Crab points out here, America did not vote the Dems in by giving them “a mandate to lose the war.”
I think Jules Crittenden agrees with that and he has some thoughts about the irony of Ted Kennedy declaring Iraq “Bush’s Vietnam” even as he works to do all he can to create that Vietnam, all over again.
Meanwhile, as the Dems prepare a “symbolic” vote to get just how much they hate the president on some kind of record and appease their base, (c’mon, you knew they had no real plan when you voted for them) AJ says the president holds all the cards. Something to that. The Dems will not want to be “the party that lost Iraq.”
On the other hand, who knows if the president yet realizes that - given how much the press hates him and the Dems work against him - he has nothing to lose by going “all in.”
We all have a great deal to lose by dithering, though. And what do you know - someone in the press admits that the Dems do not have a mandate for pulling out.
UPDATE: Kim at Wizbang has found more links to Dems calling for an increase in troops (aka a “surge”) prior to the president adopting that position.
Check out these news articles that reported how the Democrats were for an increase troops in Iraq at a time when President Bush was not. Lists Kim:
Senate Democrats Call for Increase in Troops - The New York Times
nytimes.com.
Bush Critics Call for More Troops in Iraq - The AP via SFGate.com
sfgate.com
Reid backs temporary rise in troops in Iraq - Reuters
today.reuters.com.
Now, of course…they’ve flip-flopped. What exactly do the Dems stand for besides “being against Bush.”
theanchoressonline.com
Pelosi Was For A Surge Before She Was Against It
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
As you know, Democrats are against the possibility of a troop surge in Iraq (for the record, so am I). But what’s interesting to note is how Democrats say one thing and then do another when it’s politically expedient.
This is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Grandmother of America (ahem) in a Washington Post article yesterday:
“We have a platform we didn’t have before, Leader Pelosi and I, and we’re going to … focus attention on this war in many different ways,” said Reid. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested over the weekend using Congress’ power of the purse to restrain any troop buildup.
Now, here’s Nancy Pelosi in her pre-Speaker days on May 30, 2004, on Meet The Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
To be fair, she was trying to say that we should get international troops to go, but Russert asked her (several times) that if they refused, should we send American troops, and her answer was a clear-cut “yes”.
iowavoice.com |
