Patraeus confirmation hypocrisy?
Again, Bush is pretty clear about what he wants to do and acts accordingly. Bush selects a general who supports his plan, but we have the Senate who apporves Patraeus but then plan on sending a resolution to the enemy (oops to the Presidnet) stating that they don't support the plan. I know I am kinda slow, so can some one explain this to me? Can someone tell me why this is not political grandstanding while our military is at risk? If they don't support the plan why vote to confirm a general who does?
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2007 – President Bush’s pick for command of Multinational Force Iraq today supported the new strategy for Iraq, emphasizing that additional U.S. forces are essential in accomplishing the mission there.
|
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentc...20Hearing.aspx
Quote:
Senate leaders will introduce a bipartisan resolution of opposition to President Bush's new Iraq policy as early as today, taking the lead from House Democrats who are increasingly divided on how far to go to thwart additional troop deployments to Iraq.
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011601458.html
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|