Sticking to Your Guns
In another display of non-partisan honesty, the Democrats have struck again:
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.
“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “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.’ ”
“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”
Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.
Sen. John Kerry, Bush’s Democratic opponent in last year’s presidential election, told NBC’s “Today” show that the borders of Iraq “are porous” and said “we don’t have enough troops” there.
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” disputed Bush’s notion that sufficient troops are in place.
“I’m going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq,” the Delaware Democrat said. “There’s not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency.”
Biden argued, “The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly.”
Ain’t the internet grand. Expose the flip-floppery. Again, litmus test for Democratic positions…certainly not their past statements…it’s as simple as standing against whatever the Republicans stand for. React. Rinse. Repeat.
If there is one thing that President Bush has done well since he took office, it is his ability to steal democratic ideals out from under them (ie–Prescription Drug Benefit). Perhaps the Democrats would be better served keeping their ideas to themselves so that he doesn’t steal them.
This must be the new democratic strategy because I have not heard one alternative idea out of the democratic leadership. They simply say we should not keep doing what we are doing, we should not try this new stategy, nor should we “cut and run.” Good idea Dems, keep those ideas under your hat so Bush doesn’t try to take credit for them.
“IF” and this is a “BIG IF” the voters are informed of such political maneuverings I would think that neither side would get away with it without explaining itself. It is entirely plausible to change one’s mind (another) “BIG IF” one who is making decisions such as these justifies that change in mind AND offers an alternative solution.
“IF”
NOT GoingThere
I’m not really sure what else people want from Bush. He fired Rummy. He admitted that things haven’t gone as well as planned in Iraq. He then said, “Hey, I’ve listened to you, and here’s how we can do a better job.”
As politics go, it’s a master stroke. It gives the critics a choice: support the plan (and Bush as he implements it), or reveal themselves as simple political opportunists, who have no true desire to win. Most of the Democrats have revealed themselves as the latter. Bush just gave ‘em a shovel, and with it, they’re digging their own grave.
The only way out for the Dems is to find a story and stick to it. But doing so involves some kind of commitment to at least consistency, if not some kind of ideal worth sticking to. (Here’s a hint, guys: abortion isn’t something you win Presidential elections on.)
Jeesh! I can’t believe you guys can’t figure out what the problem with Bush is THIS time!
He didn’t do it when THEY SAID he should do it!
*BEEEEEEEEEEP*
(Biden, Reyes and Lurch in three part harmony…)
“Time’s up! Time to go home and quit!”