Suddenly Doolittle Wants Troop Withdrawal in Iraq

Oh my, oh my, how times have changed. Suddenly, John Doolittle has changed his view on Iraq. How can that be? Does he want to change subjects? Nowadays, most Republicans don't care to talk much about Iraq. But for Doolittle, Iraq ain't the worst thing in his world, the FBI investigation is his real problem. So, yeah he might actually be a Republican who might want to talk about Iraq. Changing his tune, so that it is more alligned with that of the electorate might be part of that as well.

So, let's compare Doolittle today and Doolittle a little while ago (something which the Sacramento Bee in its article failed to do).

Here's what he's saying now:

But Thursday, Doolittle characterized the war as a "quagmire" and said America should soon step back to a training and advisory role for Iraqi forces.

"We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible," Doolittle told a gathering at the Rocklin City Hall chambers. "And in my mind, that means something like the end of the year. We just can't continue to tolerate these kinds of losses."

Doolittle added in an interview: "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."

Here's what he said in October 2006, less than an a year ago:

Doolittle said he would vote for war in Iraq again "if the same facts were before me" because it has meant protection for the United States.

Doolittle rolled religious beliefs into Iraq, noting that the Bible tells him Armageddon will take place the Middle East.

"I don't know how long it's going to go," Doolittle said. "It's a kill or be killed world unfortunately. I don't know how to solve the problem but it's better to be on the offensive than sitting here and letting people be killed."

Hmm, seems like Armageddon has passed us by. Fascinating, how Doolittle's world turns, ain't it?

Thankfully, there's an alternative to Doolittle.

Visit Charlie Brown's website to learn more, and you can contribute to Charlie here.

ABBA Explaining Iraq

Gotta love Abba:

Don't forget that Doolittle, Ensign, and Heller own this Waterloo as well. They have continously voted for the Iraq war.

Nevada's Congressional Delegation a Disgrace - Primary Challenge for Berkley?

Yesterday, Congress caved in to Bush's demands and passed a war funding bill without any timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. As a little Swiss newspaper puts it: "Capitulation of the Democrats."

In the end the House passed the bill 280-142 with 86 Democrats voting for the bill and 140 against. The Senate passed Bush's war funding by an even wider margin with 80-14. Here the majority of Democrats supported the bill, with 11 Democrats voting against (including Sen. Sanders) and 36 caving to Bush (not counting Lieberman).

Now, here comes the best: every member of Nevada's congressional delegation voted for the bill and essentially against a timetable of getting out of Iraq. You'd expect this from Sen. Ensign, Rep. Porter, and Rep. Heller as they're all Republicans. But to have two Democrats, Sen. Reid and Rep. Berkley, representing Nevada who voted against ending the war is not only a disappointment but a disgrace.

Especially, when you consider that the majority of Americans want a timetable according to the latest CBS/New York Post poll (pdf!):

Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?

Should 63%
Should not 34%

And this is not just Democrats and Independents (61-34) talking here. Already, 42% of Republicans want a timetable. I'm dumbfounded to think that Reid and Berkley don't get this.

There's been talk in the blogosphere of targeting some of these Democrats, like Berkley, in primaries next time around.

That Berkley's increasingly in trouble becomes apparent in this take from MSNBC:

Will anti-war activists force Democratic incumbents to spend money to defend themselves in primaries next year — or could the party actually get stronger candidates as a result of contested primaries?

[...]

Five-term veteran Shelley Berkley, who represents Las Vegas and environs, said Thursday afternoon, “My district is pretty evenly divided. I haven’t done polling, but according to other polls it’s apparent that more than 50 percent now oppose the Iraq war in my district or in Nevada.”

So her vote for the additional finding will go against the wishes of the majority of her constituents, but she explained, “I’m on record as saying I’m not going to leave the troops stranded. As angry and dismayed as I am with the Bush administration having created a debacle, I’m not going to take it out on the troops.”

She predicted, “By September, there will be enough Republicans who will have expressed their concern to the president; it will be a bipartisan effort to moderate his position.”

She also forecast that “as we get closer to election time, more and more Republicans will see that Mr. Bush is not on the ballot, they are.”

And what about the potential threat of a Democratic primary challenger against her? “I don’t foresee that happening. I’ve been very candid about my position.”

She recalled, “I was in anti-Vietnam war protests in college.” She said the U.S. exit from Iraq, when it happens, “will be much more complex than the helicopter on the roof of the embassy” – a reference to the Saigon evacuation in 1975. “This is very complex. It is so much more complex than just ‘get out tomorrow.’”

“As we get closer to election time, more and more Republicans will see that Mr. Bush is not on the ballot, they are.” Oh, this is just hillarious! Maybe Rep. Berkley should realize she'll be on the ballot as well. I have my doubts if a primary challenge will work against the Democratic Party machinery but a serious challenger would undoubtedly have support from the netroots.

Shelley Berkley should seriously reconsider her voting pattern regarding the war (among other things).

Reid Has No Regrets About Iraq Vote, Has Flawed Reasoning

Harry Reid isn't running for President. That might be one reason why he doesn't see the point in regretting his vote for the Iraq war resolution as Hillary Clinton is the only presidential contender who doesn't regret her vote and instead blames it all on Bush.

Essentially, they're both taking the easy way out. Whenever Hillary talks about her vote she sounds as insincere as can be. You think it would be impossible that anyone could do a worse job? Guess again:

As he prepares to lead Senate Democrats in the debate on President Bush's Iraq policy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada says he has no second thoughts about his vote in 2002 authorizing the president to go to war.

"The evidence at the time was persuasive -- especially if you go back and look and see what Secretary of State Colin Powell did at the United Nations," Reid said Tuesday.

"We've learned since then that the evidence was manipulated," he said. "So the answer is no. I'm not going to apologize."

Either Sen. Reid's memory is really, really bad or he's just being smug and insincere as his reasoning is totally off. The Review Journal points this out, unfortunately only several paragraphs later:

Reid insists his 2002 vote was based on "inaccurate information" propounded by the Bush administration.

On Feb. 5, 2003 -- four months after the Senate vote -- Powell delivered a speech at the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring chemical weapons.

Powell has since called that speech a "blot" on his record.

Basically, former Secretary of State Powell is more distressed about enabling the President to go to war than Sen. Reid. This is - to put it mildly - unfortunate.

Unfortunate is also Sen. Reid's disdain for the people of Nevada:

"My caucus accepted it, and the people in the state of Nevada have not raised that as an issue," Reid said.

I find it hard to believe that not a soul in Nevada has "raised that as an issue" with the Senator. There just must have been at least one lone peace activist in Nevada who must have gotten in Reid's face about his vote.

Therefore, the Senator is pretty lucky that he's not even thinking about running for President. Cause he would not survive. The netroots are already pretty harsh on Hillary who has basically stated that if people don't like her stance vote for someone else. Kos has replied to Hillary in no uncertain terms. It remains to be seen if he will do the same with Sen. Reid or if there is some sort of double standard.

As for Sen. Reid. It's a pity that he will probably not be forced to defend his vote like Hillary has been forced to do recently. He's pretty sure of himself and his position in the Nevada Democratic Party. Unfortunately, both for the Democratic Party and for the people of Nevada, I think he has no need to worry. There is no primary challenger in sight. That of course might change, as he's not up for re-election until 2010.

PS: Coincidentally, Harry Reid's son, Rory Reid, was hired by Hillary Clinton as her Nevada campaign manager.

Read another opinion on Reid's Iraq vote at the Las Vegas Gleaner.