The lib media are in full drool mode over Richard Lugar and George Voinovich and their calls for American troop withdrawals from Iraq.
The Washington Post's arousal over the thought of Republicans abandoning Bush and his Iraq policy is palpable.
This is supposed to be a dramatic turn in the tide?
Way back in October of 2005, The Washington Post reported virtually the same thing, that there was "shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill" among Republicans.
Flash back:
Lugar and Voinovich have been vocal critics of Bush and his Iraq policy for nearly two years.
There recent statements should come as no surprise, nor should they be seen as indicative of a wholesale bail out on the part of the Republican Party.
Citing Lugar and Voinovich to illustrate that Bush is losing support from members of his own party is disingenuous at best. These senators haven't been staunch supporters of Bush. In fact, I don't consider them to be staunch Republicans. Their conservative credentials are flimsy.
These senators don't supply examples of "shifting opinion" or "increasing GOP skepticism. They've been limp for quite a while now. Any firm support they had for the President is just a distant memory. It's been absent for years.
When it comes to Iraq, Lugar broke with his party long ago. He's been very vocal in his criticism of the President's Iraq policy; and Voinovich certainly can't be counted on to support Bush. He's not a very stable man. The thought of John Bolton being the U.S. Ambassador to the UN reduced Voinovich to tears.
Voinovich hasn't received this much attention from the media since his breakdown over Bolton.
Democracy Now! tells of the Voinovich - Bolton drama:
Of course, a year later, Voinovich did a 180 on Bolton. He commended Bolton for a job well done at the UN. He dried his tears and praised the ambassador, his fears allayed.
Let's be honest. Voinovich is unstable and the man doesn't have the best judgment.
And when it comes to Lugar, I don't see what the big deal is. He's been yapping against Bush and Iraq like a Dem for a long, long time.
The Post treated Lugar and Voinovich as bellwethers of GOP opinion in 2005. Today's article is
True, the senators are now calling for troop withdrawals. That can be seen as an escalation of their skepticism; but let's not pretend that Lugar and Voinovich have been supporters of Bush and they've suddenly turned on him.
It's not true.
The Washington Post's arousal over the thought of Republicans abandoning Bush and his Iraq policy is palpable.
Key Republican senators, signaling increasing GOP skepticism about President Bush's strategy in Iraq, have called for a reduction in U.S. forces and launched preemptive efforts to counter a much-awaited administration progress report due in September.
In an unannounced speech on the Senate floor Monday night, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. military escalation begun in the spring has "very limited" prospects for success. He called on Bush to begin reducing U.S. forces. "We don't owe the president our unquestioning agreement," Lugar said.
The harsh judgment from one of the Senate's most respected foreign-policy voices was a blow to White House efforts to boost flagging support for its war policy, and opened the door to defections by other Republicans who have supported the administration despite increasing private doubts.
Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Bush yesterday urging the president to develop "a comprehensive plan for our country's gradual military disengagement" from Iraq. "I am also concerned that we are running out of time," he wrote.
This is supposed to be a dramatic turn in the tide?
Way back in October of 2005, The Washington Post reported virtually the same thing, that there was "shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill" among Republicans.
Flash back:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced testy criticism yesterday from both Republican and Democratic senators for what they called a vague and troubled strategy in Iraq and for the administration's refusal to offer a concrete timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Rice avoided answering questions about whether American troops would still be in Iraq in five or 10 years, noting only that insurgents would continue to kill innocents for "a long time." In a new effort to stabilize Iraq, she said, the United States will deploy civilian-military teams throughout Iraq next month to foster nation-building, from courts and social services to sewage treatment.
The give-and-take underscored shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee appealed for greater candor and more concrete information. "We have to level with the American people," said George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio).
...Although Democrats have long challenged U.S. Iraq policy, Republican senators were also expressing concern. Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said the administration can no longer assume that creating democratic institutions in Iraq in the short term will diminish the insurgency, which could have long-term implications.
"Permanent instability or civil war in Iraq could set back American interests in the Middle East for a generation -- increasing anti-Americanism, multiplying the threats from tyrants and terrorists and reducing our credibility," he said.
Lugar and Voinovich have been vocal critics of Bush and his Iraq policy for nearly two years.
There recent statements should come as no surprise, nor should they be seen as indicative of a wholesale bail out on the part of the Republican Party.
Citing Lugar and Voinovich to illustrate that Bush is losing support from members of his own party is disingenuous at best. These senators haven't been staunch supporters of Bush. In fact, I don't consider them to be staunch Republicans. Their conservative credentials are flimsy.
These senators don't supply examples of "shifting opinion" or "increasing GOP skepticism. They've been limp for quite a while now. Any firm support they had for the President is just a distant memory. It's been absent for years.
When it comes to Iraq, Lugar broke with his party long ago. He's been very vocal in his criticism of the President's Iraq policy; and Voinovich certainly can't be counted on to support Bush. He's not a very stable man. The thought of John Bolton being the U.S. Ambassador to the UN reduced Voinovich to tears.
Voinovich hasn't received this much attention from the media since his breakdown over Bolton.
Democracy Now! tells of the Voinovich - Bolton drama:
During the most dramatic moment of the debate Republican George Voinovich choked back tears as he plead with his colleagues not to vote for Bolton. Voinovich said "I don't want to take the risk. I came back here and ran for a second term because I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren. And I just hope my colleagues will take the time and... do some serious thinking about whether or not we should send John Bolton to the United Nations."
Of course, a year later, Voinovich did a 180 on Bolton. He commended Bolton for a job well done at the UN. He dried his tears and praised the ambassador, his fears allayed.
Let's be honest. Voinovich is unstable and the man doesn't have the best judgment.
And when it comes to Lugar, I don't see what the big deal is. He's been yapping against Bush and Iraq like a Dem for a long, long time.
The Post treated Lugar and Voinovich as bellwethers of GOP opinion in 2005. Today's article is
True, the senators are now calling for troop withdrawals. That can be seen as an escalation of their skepticism; but let's not pretend that Lugar and Voinovich have been supporters of Bush and they've suddenly turned on him.
It's not true.
No comments:
Post a Comment