OBushma
Boston Herald editorial: Obama the president pushes Congress for quick, no-effing-around action on his $83 billion warfighting request, to a great wringing of hands among his erstwhile pals in the anti-war left.
“This funding will do two things: It will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
Worcester’s own Rep. Jim McGovern told the Wall Street Journal that he too is wary.
“I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” he said.
At the very least McGovern is consistent. He used almost the exact language in 2007 when he spoke out against a $500 billion spending package onto which $70 billion had been attached for Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, however, it was for “George Bush’s policy of endless war.”
And in the Senate, of course, Obama voted against a $99 billion war funding bill when it was stripped of a strict timeline for an Iraq troop withdrawal.
But things aren’t always as simple as they seem under the campaign klieg lights.
Awww. Remember when it was Bush who used to take crap from the anti-war left over his multi-billion-dollar war supplementals? To paraphrase Colin Powell: You got elected to it, you own it.
Related: Surber on the failed campaign against Bush. Might work better if they try it on Obama, given the history of surrenderism.
Topics: Afghanistan, Bush, Iraq, Obama, military, pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:09 am on Monday, April 13, 2009
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
