Honestly Steve
Written by Daniel on June 6, 2007 – 8:58 am - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
The Capital Times reports on how Kagen defended his vote for the Iraq War spending supplemental:
“The vote was about securing the equipment necessary to protect our troops against an incompetent president and his failed policies,” Kagen said.
And here I thought it was about securing the equipment necessary to protect our troops from terrorists and insurgents who hate America and freedom.
Then he goes on to say,
“Simply put: We’ve done our job, we’ve removed Saddam (Hussein). It’s time to bring our military home,” Kagen said.
First off, I thought Kagen was against going into Iraq in the first place; if he’d had his druthers, Saddam would still be in power. Second, if we had removed Saddam and left a week later, Iraq would have descended into all out civil war three years ago.
“There’s only one person who can end this war today — President Bush. Because we don’t have the votes to bring it to an end,” Kagen said.
I love when we get this line from Democrats. We give you a majority in both houses of Congress, and you can’t even get your own caucus lined up behind a solution to the issue that largely gave you that majority.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Why Van's the Man - January 5th, 2009
- 9th Cir. Screws up Scouts' Case - January 5th, 2009
- Favorite Moment in the Final Days - December 29th, 2008
- Over on MULS Faculty Blog - December 29th, 2008
- The Race for DPI Superintendent - December 29th, 2008
Posted in Johnson/Barca Redux |
June 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Do you not understand the supermajority required to override a presidential veto? So what if Democrats have the majority? It is not enough to override Bush!
It is a heck of a stretch to say that someone who opposed the war in Iraq would rather have Saddam in power. There were many legitimate ways to deal with Saddam. If Bush could have connected Saddam to Al-Quaida or “terrorists,” then he would have had near universal support for the invasion. You do not see nearly the same anger over the Afghanistan invasion. However, Bush and his cronies flat out lied about Iraq, and as a result of their utter failure to understand the situation, have bred terrorism and Al-Quaida intervention in Iraq, where none existed before. A huge number of Iraqis and people worldwide who were pro-America now hate us because of the lies, the bumbling, and the refusal to adhere to basic principles (e.g., no torture).
It is incredibly disingenous to state that anyone who voted to continue limited funding can’t also strongly object to both the premise of the war and the Bush plan (or lack thereof) to end the war. Because of the crappy planning of Bush, it is now true that if we leave it will devolve into outright civil war. That is Bush’s fault, not Kagen’s. Now we’re left to clean up the biggest forreign relations disaster in the history of the US. And yes, I mean worse that Viet Nam, by far.