As with the legislation I discussed in the post below, it has been obvious that the Democratic Party has put political expedience ahead of national security (and almost everything else) for a long time.
You know as well as I do why they voted for the original initiative. Any principles of their own on war and peace, or excuses about being "suckered," had little to do with it.
Hillary is twisting rapidly on this particular rope even now. The right is having a great time quoting her statements and position papers on Iraq over the past four years, including those where she detailed the ways she used her own trusted sources to check Bush's statements on Iraq prior to the war vote. This isn't even counting the Democratic positions on Saddam in the late 1990s.
Obama and some other major Democrats have been able to dodge that particular bullet, having been on record as anti-war from the beginning. Although to be fair, that was a pretty safe position for Obama to take while only a state senator.
Current Events » in reply to New democratic part initiative
re: New democratic party initiative
The whole thread (34 posts)
- New democratic part initiative
- I hope they go for it!
- Fatal flaw.
- There used to be one country, one man, no WMDs, no al-Qaeda haven.
- Life was good for Saddam. He built Palaces with his people’s food money and let them starve.
- "He wanted nothing more than to be left alone."
- There used to be one country, one man, no WMDs, no al-Qaeda haven.
- re: New democratic party initiative
- err.. "Democratic Party" initiative (n/t)