Advocates of troop surge about-face in Congress - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
""If it is for a surge -- that is, two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year -- then sure I'll go along with it," said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. "If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."
After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.
"The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition.""
How typical of the Democrats of how they have politicized the war for their own political gain. As I have noted over and over, no matter what we do they will oppose it.
"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."
In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
"They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.
By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.
"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters."
And again, just oppose anything do not support anything even retreat and go for failure if they believe they can get political points. Just as Hillary's total 180 on Iraq because she now has to look like she opposed it to get political support. What these fools don't understand, to this day, is that without the total support on the homefront victory and success are not likely. They empower our enemies and bring down the morale of our troops to fight for a cause the Dems declare immoral and unwinnable.
Will the MSM point out these clear dichotomies in what they say? Don't count on it.
""If it is for a surge -- that is, two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year -- then sure I'll go along with it," said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. "If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."
After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.
"The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition.""
How typical of the Democrats of how they have politicized the war for their own political gain. As I have noted over and over, no matter what we do they will oppose it.
"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."
In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
"They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.
By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.
"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters."
And again, just oppose anything do not support anything even retreat and go for failure if they believe they can get political points. Just as Hillary's total 180 on Iraq because she now has to look like she opposed it to get political support. What these fools don't understand, to this day, is that without the total support on the homefront victory and success are not likely. They empower our enemies and bring down the morale of our troops to fight for a cause the Dems declare immoral and unwinnable.
Will the MSM point out these clear dichotomies in what they say? Don't count on it.
