RE:Should Democrats be Criticized for their No-Plan Iraq Plan?

Of course, as Linda Chavez points out, there was a time when they did have a plan for staying, too:

Democrats were early to recognize the threat of sectarian violence in Iraq and have consistently been skeptical of democracy taking hold in Iraq in an atmosphere of uncontrolled violence. For much of the war, prominent Democrats were in the forefront of arguing we needed more troops in Iraq, and the president was the one resisting, claiming that his generals assured him they had the resources they needed.
When he was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told USA Today, “If it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos . . . that’s what we have to do.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., went even further. “A number of us have been sounding this alarm. We have to face the fact we need a larger active-duty military,” she told the Fox News Channel in May 2004.
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., began calling for more troops in 2003 — and he argued that we would need to stay in Iraq for several years. In April 2004, Sen. Biden told Jim Lehrer on PBS, “We don’t have enough troops there.” And he argued, “It’s going to take at least three years to train up an Iraqi police force, it’s going to take that long or longer to train an Iraqi army. The truth of the matter is there is no security but U.S. security, a few Brits, a few Spaniards and a few Poles. It is the United States of America.”
So why have the Democrats suddenly changed their tune?

So now that the President has asked for more troops, these same Democrats are opposed. Why? I think we know, don’t we?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
brassband
brassband
14 years ago

It is very interesting to see how these Dems. — particularly Senators — react. They consistently oppose whatever Bush proposes. Virtually all of them want to be President, but few of them give any thought to the consequences of what they say, or to the possibility that their statements today could be used against them if they become their party’s nominee (Hello? Sen. Kerry? Remember that Zell Miller speech???).
It does seem to me that Sen. Clinton is a bit of an exception to this general senatorial malady. I could be wrong, but I think that she’s been much more circumspect (in general) with regard to the knee-jerk opposition to anything Pres. Bush says or does.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.