Washington just ain’t as friendly as it used to be.
CRAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 31 — Republican lawmakers appear uneasy about — and in some cases outright dismissive of — the idea of sending many more troops to Iraq, as President Bush contemplates such a “surge” as part of his new strategy for stabilizing the country.
The climate has changed. Nothing focuses a Senator’s mind like getting kicked out of his plush office and moved into a basement closet next to the furnace. Take wingnut supreme, Sam Brownback:
“A short-term buildup in troops, if it simply is to impose military order without the possibility of political equilibrium, that doesn’t seem to me to be too farsighted.”
“We have got to get to some acceptable balance between the Sunnis and Shiites,” Brownback said. “We cannot impose a military solution.”
Or, how about the man that said Max Cleland was a coward?
“I don’t want to send more troops on a general wartime basis without them having a specific mission,” said Chambliss, who is also up for reelection in 2008.
Or Susan Collins?
“I don’t think the addition of new American troops in a situation plagued by sectarian strife is the answer,” Collins said. “I think more American troops will present more American targets.”
Or Arlen Specter?
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition” that at this point he could not support more troops for Iraq. “If there is a road map to victory, then I would be prepared to listen to what the president has to say about more troops. But on this date of the record, I do not see it,” he said.
Or Richard Lugar?
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), said he does not know “whether I do or do not” support more troops and advised the president to consult much more seriously with Congress about Iraq than he has in the past. “There’s been an election; Republicans lost the election,” he said.
It looks like in 2007 we are going to be seeing a different kind of politics than we have grown accustomed to. Only one thing looks like it hasn’t changed.
Bush has been hoping for bipartisan support for his new policy. But with the exception of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), comments from the leading Democratic experts on national security matters last week indicated strong opposition to any plan that would involve increasing troops in Iraq beyond the current level of roughly 140,000 soldiers.
I like how they refused to put a ‘D’ next to Lieberman’s name. Bravo to Michael Abramowitz and the Washington Post.
Happy New Year everyone!!
