Dems: Bush is for it, so we’re against it UPDATED

(Captain Ed, btw, is liveblogging Bush’s speech tonight.)


The Democrat philosophy of the past 3-4 years has essentially been, “whatever it is, if Bush is for it, we’re against it. If Bush is against it, we’re for it!”

So, as recently as December 2006, Dems were calling for more troops and acknowledging that we can’t afford to lose.

Dec. 5. 2006 – In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

There is this, also.

Now that Bush is doing exactly that…well…now that’s no good. The Dems don’t like that. They only like whatever Bush ISN’T doing, whatever he IS doing is bad. They’re against it.

Proving the point, Iowa Voice gives us Nancy Pelosi: She was for the surge, before she was against it.

I’m sure someone with a little time can find some more “we need more troops on the ground” noise from the ’06 Democrat model. Biden? Dean? ***See Update Below, Kim at Wizbang has found more***

Leadership can never be born from a reactionary position of obstruction, obfuscation and second-guessing. You might win an office that way, but you won’t keep it.

As Blue Crab points out here, America did not vote the Dems in by giving them “a mandate to lose the war.”

I think Jules Crittenden agrees with that and he has some thoughts about the irony of Ted Kennedy declaring Iraq “Bush’s Vietnam” even as he works to do all he can to create that Vietnam, all over again.

Meanwhile, as the Dems prepare a “symbolic” vote to get just how much they hate the president on some kind of record and appease their base, (c’mon, you knew they had no real plan when you voted for them) AJ says the president holds all the cards. Something to that. The Dems will not want to be “the party that lost Iraq.”

On the other hand, who knows if the president yet realizes that – given how much the press hates him and the Dems work against him – he has nothing to lose by going “all in.”

We all have a great deal to lose by dithering, though. And what do you know – someone in the press admits that the Dems do not have a mandate for pulling out.

UPDATE: Kim at Wizbang has found more links to Dems calling for an increase in troops (aka a “surge”) prior to the president adopting that position.

Check out these news articles that reported how the Democrats were for an increase troops in Iraq at a time when President Bush was not. Lists Kim:

Senate Democrats Call for Increase in Troops – The New York Times
Bush Critics Call for More Troops in Iraq – The AP via
Reid backs temporary rise in troops in Iraq – Reuters

Now, of course…they’ve flip-flopped. What exactly do the Dems stand for besides “being against Bush.”


Maliki says“Shiite’s give up or the US is going to go all Samuel L. Jackson on you…”.

Second Hand Conjecture says the Iraq Study Group Report – so beloved by some on the left – was “for” a surge. He links to the pdf.file.

Don Surber has more thougths on Ted Kennedy and his outburst.

And Democrat Durbin is asking the Koskidz what they, the Dems, should do. If that’s the case, maybe the president should take advice from this FDNY Firefighter.

WELCOME: Instapundit readers. Blogging has been rather light as I complete a project, but to keep everyone amused I’ve revealed 5 things about myself, posted the great footage of Olga Korbut in 1972, and reluctantly addressed a misquoting situation and a a mischaracterization situation, too.

About Elizabeth Scalia