Dedicated to the proposition that Nancy Boyda is a one termer.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Boyda Will Vote to Cut Off Funding for Troops

Boyda makes "cut and run" strategy official(?) at a press conference in Washington with a group called "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq."

Interesting that she didn't make the announcement in Kansas? Maybe it's because in 2003 she said she was against the war. In 2004, she said that since the troops were there, she would support them and the commander-in-chief to win the war. In 2006, she turned back against the war saying she would support a timetable for withdrawl. Then, in January, she said she would back President Bush's surge and that we had to support the commander-in-chief. Then, she voted against the surge. Now, she's for a timetable again.

By the way, Americans Against Escalation isn't a group of ordinary Americans, it's a coalition of anti-war organizations,, and a union.


Anonymous said...

Those unions. Nothing ordinary or american about unions.

Anonymous said...

One union. And, there is nothing ordinary or American about union leadership.

Anonymous said...

Hardly a "cut and run" strategy, do you think, when $100 billion is being committed to the troops for the Afganistan and Iraq wars? Yes, there's a timetable; yes, there's accountability. Not remarkable or unreasonable, given the history and course of these last four years.
As for the announcement venue, few in KS are surprised or upset for that matter, since this is the same message she's spoken for the last 4 months to anyone listening.

Anonymous said...

Here in Kansas, we knew about this (which raises the question as to the home turf of this blog's author). It was even front and center in this morning's KC Star. (

Anonymous said...

Well yes, that Op-Ed is from today, but the press conference in DC was YESTERDAY.

Moreover, this post points out Boyda's position has indeed CHANGED many times over the last 4 years AND in the last 4 months. Did she not say she would support whatever the commander in chief wanted on ABC news?

I know you libs all want to run to Boyda's defense, but you're not making a great case for her, then again, she's tough to defend.

Anonymous said...

Name-calling aside, the facts just don't support your claim. From the "get go," Boyda has said that she would (a) not cut off funding for the troops already there (which, despite your claims, she did not vote to do. Congress committed the money and asked for accountability of that money), (b) didn't support an open-ended war. Not that it matters, but noone who's ever met me would accuse me of being a "lib," although I suppose in this space, it refers to anyone who disagrees with the last writer. I can live with that.

Anonymous said...

Actually, in 2004, she said she would do everything possible to make sure we won the war in Iraq. Maybe she said it because it was the popular thing to say in 2004, but she has not maintained the same position from the get go.

This has nothing to do with you.

And, calling someone a liberal is not name calling, it's applying an appropriate political liberal. If I called someone a stupid liberal or a whacko liberal, that would be name calling.

Anonymous said...

I assume you meant an "appropriate political" label---not liberal. In this case, though, as already mentioned, it was not an appropriate or accurate label. You're absolutely right: it's not about me; it's about thinking before you throw terms around. No sense being more incendiary and off-putting than necessary.

Blog Archive

E-Mail Me