Before They Were Against It...
Rush has some sound bites of Democrats who were for the troop surge before they were against it. The highlights:
DODD October 3, 2004: Certainly I think today people realize here that -- that the number of troops we have there, given the magnitude of the problem, given the problems we're facing, probably has to be increased.
DODD January 17, 2007: I don't think it is at all. The idea that further military, escalating military, involvement is going to produce the desired results will work -- I'm very much opposed it.
BIDEN November 11, 2003: Because we haven't won the war yet. Everybody talks about winning the peace. We haven't won the war yet. There's a real counterinsurgency out there. It's genuine. It's made up of forces. It is more than just outside forces, more than Al-Qaeda, and we have to stamp it out, and we need more forces. There are not enough forces there.
BIDEN January 17, 2007: Mr. President, do not send more troops! It would have the exact opposite impact you intend.
HILLARY December 7, 2003: What I have said is that I do think we need more troops.
HILLARY January 17, 2007: Rather than escalation of US troops -- which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq -- we should be begin a phased redeployment of US troops as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility to its own security and future.
The only reason they're against the increase in troops now is because Bush is for it, and they're probably scared to death it might work. Just wait. If it does work, and we continue to clean the terrorists' clocks even more than we are now...they'll refer back to their original position and come up with some gutless excuse for what they're saying right now. These people really have no principle whatsoever.
JASmius adds: The logic of the situation for the Donks is clear. They now have the power to stop the "surge" and the entire war effort by defunding it and forcing an immediate, full-scale retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing about the collapse of those countries and providing a vastly improved, geostrategically invaluable base of operations for al Qaeda right along side the Iranian mullahgarchy, with which, regardless of Sunni-Shiite sectarian differences, they would bosomly ally against us. A disaster which the Dems, of course, would blame on Bush and "his" "war on terror".
That's the lone drawback (for them) about their regaining of power - now they're actually responsible for public policy, and therefore their raving, scatterbrained rhetoric. If they don't back up the past five years of treasonous agitating by forcing Bush to wave the white flag to the Islamists, what was the point of regaining power? Just for its own sake?
Sounds a lot like the Republicans they replaced, doesn't it?
You can take it to the bank that that's what the Sorosians and Moore-ons and Kos-hacks will be saying, if they're not already.
DODD October 3, 2004: Certainly I think today people realize here that -- that the number of troops we have there, given the magnitude of the problem, given the problems we're facing, probably has to be increased.
DODD January 17, 2007: I don't think it is at all. The idea that further military, escalating military, involvement is going to produce the desired results will work -- I'm very much opposed it.
BIDEN November 11, 2003: Because we haven't won the war yet. Everybody talks about winning the peace. We haven't won the war yet. There's a real counterinsurgency out there. It's genuine. It's made up of forces. It is more than just outside forces, more than Al-Qaeda, and we have to stamp it out, and we need more forces. There are not enough forces there.
BIDEN January 17, 2007: Mr. President, do not send more troops! It would have the exact opposite impact you intend.
HILLARY December 7, 2003: What I have said is that I do think we need more troops.
HILLARY January 17, 2007: Rather than escalation of US troops -- which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq -- we should be begin a phased redeployment of US troops as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility to its own security and future.
The only reason they're against the increase in troops now is because Bush is for it, and they're probably scared to death it might work. Just wait. If it does work, and we continue to clean the terrorists' clocks even more than we are now...they'll refer back to their original position and come up with some gutless excuse for what they're saying right now. These people really have no principle whatsoever.
JASmius adds: The logic of the situation for the Donks is clear. They now have the power to stop the "surge" and the entire war effort by defunding it and forcing an immediate, full-scale retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing about the collapse of those countries and providing a vastly improved, geostrategically invaluable base of operations for al Qaeda right along side the Iranian mullahgarchy, with which, regardless of Sunni-Shiite sectarian differences, they would bosomly ally against us. A disaster which the Dems, of course, would blame on Bush and "his" "war on terror".
That's the lone drawback (for them) about their regaining of power - now they're actually responsible for public policy, and therefore their raving, scatterbrained rhetoric. If they don't back up the past five years of treasonous agitating by forcing Bush to wave the white flag to the Islamists, what was the point of regaining power? Just for its own sake?
Sounds a lot like the Republicans they replaced, doesn't it?
You can take it to the bank that that's what the Sorosians and Moore-ons and Kos-hacks will be saying, if they're not already.
posted by Jennifer at 8:29 AM
<<< Home