I called Doolittles DC office today and told his staffer that, if Doolittle has issues with the Iraq policy, he can go to the President to discuss his issues. Doolittle shouldn’t voice those issues out in the media whereby he demoralizes the troops. I added that I thought his behavior was reprehensible. The woman didn’t sound too thrilled with my call. Too bad!
The attributions by McClatchy, to Doolittle, in the closed, editorial meeting, are always suspect, always.
There is sufficient in the published article to draw a prudent conclusion. From the public record:
"We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible".
So far no dramatic differences with 43.
"And in my mind, that means something like the end of the year".
Again no differences with the CIC because Doolittle may have been referring to anything. Schwarzenegger's recall? Villar's resignation?
"We just can't continue to tolerate these kinds of losses."
Again, no great differences with Bush.
"I don't want to keep having our people dying on the front lines. I am increasingly convinced that we never are going to succeed in actually ending people dying (in Iraq). I think it's going to be a constant conflict ... and if that is going to happen ... it needs to be the Iraqis dying and not the Americans."
Sounds a bit melodramatic, not hypercritical. Pretty weak pudding for an unsourced, edited statement designed to screwer a sitting president and a conservative candidate.
"My belief is that the majority of my colleagues on the Republican side have become skeptical of all of this,". "And that's a big change".
Doolittle may have been talking about replacing Pelosi, or about the Austrian's spending spree, or about the war in Iraq. Regardless of the subject matter there is nothing biting in the comment.
So it's down to two documented comments:
1) We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible
2) We just can't continue to tolerate these kinds of losses
Hardly the things that rebellions are made of..... or that require a call to DC.