Since the nbr was specifically against the surge, now exactly what is it for? Oh yeah, votes. That's what drives most politicians. They legislate with polls and voter sentiment. The democrats I can (sorta) understand, Bush's numbers are low and support for the war is low. But for the 'republicans' it's really hard to figure. Three out of four Republicans support the war, the President and the Surge; so what's the thinking behind alienating your voters? Who knows, but hopefully these politicians will pay the ultimate price for their shenanigans: ie. loss of job.
Senate corners Bush over troop increaseThe article didn't give a specific list of 'republicans' who support this measure (and the one that will go around the House), but I'm sure it's the same thugs who were signing on earlier (represented in the Pledge). If you haven't signed up for the pledge, do so now. Let these politicians (and the NRSC) know that we do not support these people.
Thursday February 1, 2007
George Bush was today facing further political isolation over his policy on Iraq after top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed on a provisional resolution opposing a troop increase.
US marines patrol west of Baghdad. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images.
The White House has been lobbying fiercely to head off such a resolution and its failure to do so underlines the unpopularity of Mr Bush's plan to send an extra 21,500 troops to Iraq.
Several proposals had been circulating in the Senate, but the Democratic chairman of the senate armed services committee, Carl Levin, and his predecessor, the Republican senator John Warner, have managed to craft a resolution designed to attract maximum support from both parties.(link)
Reason to care