They were for more troops before they were against it
Remember when Democrats were complaining that President George W. Bush did not send enough troops to Iraq?
Flip-flop: Once the President announced plans to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq to help stabilize the country, many prominent Democrats started tripping over themselves to get to the TV cameras to proclaim that they disagreed with the President.
THEN:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Dec. 17, 2006
"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for one short period of time, we'll go along with that."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, May 30, 2004
"We need more troops on the ground. ... We have a responsibility now in Iraq there. And we have to get more troops on the ground."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Dec. 19, 2004
"One of the biggest mistakes we've made is we have not put enough people on the ground in Iraq to stabilize, to prevent the chaotic situation that now exists and foments and assists the insurgency."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Dec. 18, 2004
"We've seen a litany of serious miscalculations from Pentagon leaders, stretching back to the earliest stages of this war when Secretary Rumsfeld ignored warnings from top military experts that success in Iraq would require far more troops. ...Those responsible for planning this war were not prepared for the reality on the ground, and many of our soldiers have paid the price."
NOW:
Statement on Jan. 11 from Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Durbin
"Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it."
Flip ... flop.
Source: Investor's Business Daily, 1/25/07
2 comments:
They were for more troops on the ground until they were against it?
You got it! Kind of hypocritical of them, isn't it? "We were for the war before we were against it"? Plain and simple -- dems will do whatever works for them politically. It's not about what's best for America ... it's about them.
Post a Comment