In a surprise development, Congressman Jim Walsh has changed his position and decided he is against the War in Iraq. Reports from Washington indicate that Walsh (RINO-26th Dist. NY) will also announce that he will oppose any further funding for the War.
This position switch marks the 27th or 28th surprising about-face for Walsh since his electoral "near death" experience last November. Sources close to Walsh say that his re-election chances are the furthest thing from his mind and that this decision resulted from many sleepless nights poring over opinion polls while pondering what courageous stance would be most popular in his district.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Shove that stupid RINO crap up your ass.
You are probably right. RINO is not an appropriate designation. "UO" would be better, meaning Unprincipled Opportunist.
In any event, thanks for your thought provoking comment and your good wishes on my recovery.
Repoman:
Congressman Walsh may just be 'getting it." This "war" in Iraq must end and without delay. Certainly having all troops out of that tribal region within a year is a realistic goal. Our foreign policy has been dominated by "do gooders." We have not seen the realistic, hard headed - America first crowd. You think "liberals" are 'touchy feely" wanting to help everyone ( using other people"s money) Warm/ soft/ pie in the sky/ abstract/ unrealistic/ "I feel your pain "- isn't that the conservative mantra decribing a liberal. If so, then the Bush foreign polciy is so liberal it makes my libertarian blood boil. Simply put: I don't believe democracy will come to Iraq nor do I care if it does. To those neo-conservatives with a bleeding heart -" I feel your pain, average Iraq citizen- It is so awful living under a dictator- We're going to help you become a democracy" - get over it. Get real. The place is in a civil war. Iraq broke apart because we didn't have the balls to place our strongman in power after we knocked off the last one. The average Iraq person knows that. Their diaappointment with us is we were too concerned with process not results. Cut to the chase- Do we forget about Marshall Tito - do we forget that the Shah kept Iran in our court for about 25 years. Are we all so wrapped up in "Compassionate Conservatism" - high and lofty - "pie in the sky" plans- that we forget that planet Earth is one violent place. Life for the great majority of people is about simple, daily survival- looking for food, water and shelter. Only a tiny fraction of the world has the ability to think about "spreading democracy" or any intrinsic thought. Men- soft men- men far removed from nature, from hunger, disease, violence and daily death -have been in charge of our foreing policy . They are simply out of touch with life for the majority on Earth. Life for the majority on earth is a punishing ,unforgiving grind. We forget that reality at our own peril. All people - simply want to live with their family-with food and water-in relative stability. Our foreign policy should ,for the most part, not get much beyond that reality. Spare me the musings of the Harvard and Yale types. Discussion in the Oval Office I hope are about sewers, electricity, water and regional stability. The question is simply what force is going to use all necessary power to establish peace and keep it. The gov't in this region is not functioning and is not that force. It is time we accept that fact. The area needs to be broken into factions -or one of the factions must win and establish by force the fact that they are now the controlling power - the stability. Or just maybe- someone in Washington- might just grab his Corleones and tell Mr. Bush - it is time to establish our own strong man in the region- spend the resources to arm him to the max- and come on home. This pointy headed- meek- mamy pamby- (too many charts , General Prateus) foreign policy must end. Just maybe Walsh is seeing that. .
We need to ally with the biggest/ baddest bastard over there- make him our own- arm him and his army and get the hell out of there.
I think I agree with some of your underlying points.
Six years ago we were attacked by a malevolent force and Bush appeared ready to take on that force wherever it was. We did what was necessary in Afghanistan and started off OK in Iraq.
But somewhere along the way the Bush who rejected "nation-building" became the great spreader of democracy. For too long he failed to let our troops fight the insurgents fully. We never had enough troops to do the job.
Now it seems out of hand. The war with Islamic fundamentalism will be longer and more painful since we have done so poorly in Iraq. Our enemies will be emboldened by our failure. I don't know what strategy is right at this point.
I still worry about a quick withdrawal. It could be a bloodbath and the a major breeding ground for terrorists. I must admit, the "fascist" in me likes the idea of a strongman ally. It seems unlikely that any solution other than a partition of Iraq will work.
One final thing, though, Jim Walsh has a new postion on Iraq for one reason only: he hopes to save his seat in Congress. I simply refuse to believe that the post-2006 election Walsh has had any genuine change of heart. Its all about his seat.
Post a Comment