Advocates of troop surge about-face in Congress ...(H. Reid, J. Bidden, J. Kerry)

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | January 31, 2007 | Charles Hurt

[IrishMike]

For many in the Senate, they were for a surge of troops in Iraq before they were against it. "We don't have enough troops in Iraq," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in 2005. In 2004, he told NBC's Tim Russert some things he believes "very deeply." "Number one, we cannot fail," Mr. Kerry said. "I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what we have to do." He no longer believes that now. He is among at least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past have called for more troops in Iraq but now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that. Many Republicans who voted for the war now plan to support a no-confidence resolution, including Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who in the past had warned that the war would be a long, tough slog and that Americans should "speak with one voice." The Senate will begin debating that resolution -- or variations on it -- this week, perhaps as early as today. 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." ..... "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. As late as last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was still open to the idea of a surge.

[oh8eleven]

[Williams]

IF we had a president and RNC that had any interest in doing it, the dems could be reduced to political mush in about a week - and that resolution would be shelved.

Put out the old spinning McGovern type commercial from 1972 - yeah some of us remember when the GOP would FIGHT.

President Bush should also announce that IF the Congress passes the resolution, he will have no choice but to INCREASE the size of the troop surge to overcome the harm the liberals have done to our troops for political purposes.

And tell the republicans that any of them who vote for the surge will be publicly lambasted by the White House by name for endangering our soldiers until it sticks in their home states.

[Moonmad27]

This is the article that most people need to see (people who don't pay attention so don't remember all the "send in more troops" Dems awhile back). If W says go, they say stop - or vice versa, anything to contradict him on any topic.

[jveritas]

Surprise, surprise! The defeatists and traitors reversing their positions just to oppose President Bush, I have never thought that they can do such a thing (extreme sarcasm).

[betsyross1776]

What ever Bush says I am against it. We need more troops until we need more troops. Something in the water in DC and it is being pumped into the demo side of the congress.What ever it is it is dangerous to our troops in combat.

[Gritty]

IF we had a president and RNC that had any interest in doing it, the dems could be reduced to political mush in about a week...

[ripley]

anything to set up the president.

unbridled adolescent socialists in positions of power; a dangersous mix.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

"IF we had a president and RNC that had any interest in doing it, the dems could be reduced to political mush in about a week - and that resolution would be shelved."

I agree entirely. Further, failure to fight is irresponsible.

[neverdem]

Hagel's quotes from Oct. 9, 2002 are particularly damning.

"This is just the beginning," he said. "The risks should not be understated, miscast or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts."

And Mr. Hagel warned them against sowing seeds of division with hot rhetoric.

"America -- including the Congress -- and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism," he said. "Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions."

[Dr. Frank fan]

This just makes one thing all the more puzzling:

WHY did Bush announce the "surge" and turn it into an issue that these people could flip-flop and oppose?

Why didn't Bush just DO IT?

The number of troops we've had stationed in Iraq was never some sort of constant number set in stone. Bush could've JUST DONE IT and no one would be talking about this.

[freema]