Democrats, including Pelosi, originally supported a troop surge- FLIP!
leaningstraightup.com
Posted Thursday, January 11th, 2007 at 10:47 PM by Karl
Democrats hypocrites
After all, they cannot possibly support something Bush is asking for, it defeats their anti Bush agenda.
But it’s true, there is considerable record of a support in increasing troop strength. It’s just they keep doing sea changes.
Following the Kerry style flip flopping and supporting an increase before she opposed one is none other then Nancy Pelosi herself.
May 30, 2004, on Meet The Press:
MR. RUSSERT: What would you do in Iraq today right now?
REP. PELOSI: What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It’s very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground. General…
MR. RUSSERT: American troops if necessary?
REP. PELOSI: …Shinseki said this from the start, when you make an appraisal about whether you’re going to war, you have to know what you need.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: What I’m saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground. I think it would be better if we could get them to be not American, that we could appeal to our European allies, NATO. I agree with Senator Kerry in that respect to come…
MR. RUSSERT: Well, let’s assume all that is wrong. In order to stabilize the situation, NATO has said they have no troops for Iraq, the French, the Germans and Russians saying no.
REP. PELOSI: We have to send…
MR. RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
But that was then. Now, more recently….
The speaker, in an interview today with The Chronicle, said the president should understand that sticking with policies other than quickly starting sizable cuts in U.S. troop strength in Iraq is also a non-starter because of declining public support for the war that has claimed more than 3,000 American lives.
"You cannot sustain a war of this kind with the division in this country,'’ she added.
Pelosi and the Senate’s new Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada sent Bush a letter today advising him not to carry through with the planned troop surge.
"Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed,'’ the two leaders wrote.
There are a ton more, but you get the idea. Read more here. I am sure they justify their reversal with some trumped up, detailed, nuanced position and lots of charts and graphs.
I just call them Hypocrites and have done with it, which includes all the Republicans who now oppose what they once supported. Liars and hypocrites. Pandering fools.
And they are opposed by surprising sources.
Here is one powerful quasi Bush ally: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Reyes.
‘We Can’t Afford to Leave’
As the debate over Iraq intensifies, leading Democrat Silvestre Reyes is calling for the deployment of more U.S. troops.
As the debate over Iraq intensifies, leading Democrat Silvestre Reyes is calling for the deployment of more U.S. troops.
That was just last month.
Another source is the Iraq Study Group itself (page 7):
The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.
So of course they oppose him even when he is following part of the study group recommendations they demand he follow.
It won’t matter. The anti Bush Agenda is more persuasive. Whatever he wants, they oppose.
The whole attitude of Democrats since 2004 has been anti Bush. Not pro or anti war, pro or anti terrorism, pro economy, pro poor people, anti rich people. It has been about being the Anti Republicans and most urgently the Anti Bush party. John Kerry ran heavily on that.
The fact is I have been blogging about this disconnect for years, and how it has been a failure, until now. I had thought they had moved on to an actual agenda. I was wrong.
The "Anyone is better then Bush anti Republicans" just honed their hatred and their talking points until they struck a raw nerve with America, aided by an out of control Congress. That is not how you make a country safe, or improve peoples lives, it is how you win an election.
The result was the present sense of division they have forced on America, which to be fair is just a reverse polarity of the division we had.
The reality is that the troops in Iraq have become a new tool in the Democratic aresenal of anti Bush weapons.
I am tired of these so called leaders, these self righteous idiots, using my friends and an entire country as their chess pieces in the war of politics and the power struggle in DC.
Bottom line, with friends of mine having deployed, deployed now and possibly being deployed soon, I want to see a plan that moves forward and actually shows some signs of sense.
Bush did a good job of that. Consider that most of his speech contained ideas that most critics have at one time or another supported, and you will come to the obvious conclusion that the primary reason to oppose him is politics, not ideas.
In reality the partisan politics and bickering are as dangerous as the sectarian violence, because they have no regard for the lives of the innocents they effect.
And it shows no sign of changing anytime soon.
The Anti Bush party has the bit in their teeth and they are running at full stride…no matter where it takes them (and us). |
