Gotta love a big debate on this site -- and a very friendly one, I might add. For the record, as per the Prowler's last sentence below, I care not what the Romney camp thinks. I had an immediate and visceral reaction when I saw on the news what Brownback had done. It was only later, much later, after Romney's folk saw my post, that they e-mailed me the video.
As for the Prowler's insistence that Brownback hasn't changed his position because in December he supported only a "short-term" troop surge, that won't wash. He clearly indicated support for a surge then; what Bush offered in his speech should have allayed his concerns: "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended." Meanwhile, the president also did in his speech address political and social challenges (as per Prowler's explanation of Brownback's position) that supposedly are of concern to the Kansas senator; indeed, he addressed them more specifically than Brownback did in his remarks either in December OR on Wednesday. Brownback's vacuous, platitudinous call for a "political solution" had no specifics in it.
Finally, if Brownback really opposed a troop surge as far back as eight months ago, that raises two more points: First, he thus has not just flip flopped, but flip-flop-flipped. First position A, then position B, then back to A. Second, to have opposed a military boost eight months ago was to really be on the wrong side, which is why (as the Prowler reports), probably, there was so much consternation around the table when Brownback said that. If the president had gotten off the ball eight months ago and done a serious troop surge and seriously new tactics then, we would be far closer to victory now than we are. The report about this gathering 8 months ago makes me doubt Brownback's judgment as much as I doubt his sincerity.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article