Bush/McCain/Lieberman troop-scalation Tally
Think Progress is keeping tabs on who's for, against and meh on Bush's impending escalation of the troop-level in Iraq.
Of the 21 who oppose escalation, 6 are Republicans, 15 are Dems, including the leaders of both the House and Senate, Reid and Pelosi.
Of the 15 "wait and see"-ers, 3 are Dems, 12 GOP-ers.
Of the 7 supporters 6 are Republicans and one is a Lieberman. If Ned Lamont's campaign did anything (and it certainly did, showing the power of a true opposition, not to mention the blogs...) it shoved Lieberman into the no-man's-land of being an Independent, removing the imprimatur of bipartisanship from every shitty Bush plan that sees the light of day.
Joe, if George decided to jump off a bridge...
The most interesting thing is the tone of the quotes from supporters. More mealy-mouthed and contingency-filled and just patently full of BS than even the hedgers...
You just assume? That's a pretty sound reason for ensuring that more people will die. Cool.
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO): Ã¢â‚¬Å“If the White House says more troops are needed, I would assume it is based on the recommendations they are getting from the commanders in the field, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll support that.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): Ã¢â‚¬Å“I happen to agree with my colleague John McCain that there are probably several missions in which more troops would actually be a big help, particularly when it comes to securing unsecured areas. If that is the presidentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s decision Ã¢â‚¬â€ and I know weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re being a bit premature here Ã¢â‚¬â€ I think we ought to give it a chance to try to help the president and see if that can work.Ã¢â‚¬ÂProbably...actually...particularly...if...premature...I think...chance...try...if...can...
Are you f**king kidding me?