Comments: It's not Kosher
Excellent, if slightly creepy point. It would explain a lot why Bush seems to be running to the left of Kucinich on Iraq, abandoning Iraq by July 1rst regardless of the consequences.
Posted by Jon at January 25, 2004 08:54 PM
You know, being an Edards fan I assume he voted against the $87,000,000,000 for the right(er) reason. I didn't support the March invasion, but did support the $87 billion. Though I could justify voting against it on the grounds that Bush would just tack it on to the deficit, and maybe if congress said no he'd be forced to take it out of the tax cut. Edwards only explanation I've heard is that he didn't want to give the president a "blank check", which I fit into my rationale, but as long as he doesn't talk about it too much he could easily let voters who feel as you described (pro-war anti reconstruction) assume he's with them. It's good strategy, but it feels dirty (if they are trying to do that).
Back when the public was uspporting the war, did they believe it was going to be cheap, or did they really really just not care?
Posted by Wes at January 25, 2004 09:51 PM
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz all thought we'd have a greatly reduced force in Iraq by now, and that things would be going swimmingly. They aren't, and I doubt we're going to be out of there by July. I don't think it's going to be the deciding factor in November. But it is going to be a running sore on Bush's backside.
Posted by Paul at January 25, 2004 10:25 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)