Are you kidding me? According to the LJ World, Nancy Boyda said, "I think it’s time to say ‘President Bush, Congress no longer authorizes you to take this war in the direction we’re going."
For those of you who have been following the twists and turns of Boyda's war position, this week Boyda is playing to the anti-Iraq vote in Kansas.
But, on May 30th, she said, "I'm going to vote to fund the war." This was obviously aimed at our military communities and other patriotic citizens who don't want our troops cut off while in harms' way.
Boyda tapped into the anti-Iraq sentiment last year, calling to withdraw our troops when she announced her candidacy last April. Yet, by October, she changed positions saying she would wait for the Baker-Hamilton Commission to report first. Then this winter, she said she would support the what the President decided on the surge. Then, she voted against the surge.
Democrats were swept into majorities in Congress because of Iraq. Maybe these ever changing positions on the issue are why Democrat approval ratings in Congress are as low as Republicans were when they were in charge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yes Boyda flips and flops around on the war. But don't most people.
Nobody - and I mean nobody - is happy with Iraq. I don't think people like the idea of just calling retreat and admitting that we lost. At the same time, people don't want our troops there any longer. Mostly, people are just pissed at Bush and the GOP for putting us in the lose-lose situation.
Now, Nancy Boyda isn't particularly bright and she doesn't have a clue how to handle Iraq. However, she knows that it's screwed up and she knows that what we're doing isn't working ... and that's more than you can say for Jim Ryun who simply signed off on everything Bush wanted.
"Democrats were swept into majorities in Congress because of Iraq"
That's right. But it wasn't b/c Democrats had a plan or even an idea. They were elected simply b/c the GOP had made such a mess of things. The public figured that the Ds couldn't possibly do any worse.
The logic is right - Boyda was elected simply b/c she's not Ryun. She was lesser of two evils. That really makes the case to elect Lynn Jenkins.
Boyda's position hasn't changed...she wants the war over, but doesn't want to cut funding to do it. She wants the president to wise up and do it himself.
I think her position is the same one I'd be in- I want the war over, but I sure as hell won't cut off funds to our troops.
I've noticed that Ryun's people are totally silent in defending their candidate's stance and record on the War in Iraq.
Are they assumed of their candidate and his war?
They should be. The Jim Ryuns of the world is terrible terrible damage to the country. We are not as safe and not as free thanks to the last Congress.
I guess that we shouldn't have been surprised at how Jim Ryun's defense committee conducted itself in build up to failure in Iraq. What experience does Jim really have? What did he do before Congress? Running camps? Give me a break. No wonder we're losing the war.
Post a Comment