This time its Christopher Shays, faced with a strong Democratic opponent
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), once an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, said yesterday that the Bush administration should set a time frame for withdrawing U.S. troops. He added that most of the withdrawal could take place next year.
Shays, who faces a tough reelection campaign because of his previous support for President Bush’s war policies, made his comments after completing his 14th trip to Iraq this week.
Fourteen trips to Iraq in one week?
Well, maybe if he approaches each one from the correct side of the International Date Line ….
Kinda like this, OW?
“I voted for this war. I was wrong,” Edwards, of North Carolina, told a crowd of about 300 people gathered outside the Yale University School of Medicine. “I should not have voted for this war and I take responsibility for that.”
Which of Edwards’ faces do you like best?
Let’s see, Edwards came to the decision as a private citizen based on the evidence at hand. Shays jumped on the bandwagon as hes about to have his electoral ass handed to him.
Nice try, Dugger, but it’s weak sauce. Edwards stopped supporting Bush’s War of Whimsy when it became apparent that it was entirely predicated on lies, half-truths, and deceptions. Shays is only _now_ backing off Bush because the electorate is finally waking up to the same things, courtesy of the Dems’ rejection of fellow-Repub Lieberman.
Eh, Shays is one of the good ones.
He stood firm against the DeLay ethics shenanigans and I believe he’s strayed from the party line on Social Security.
legion,
Name one, just one, lie (be careful – consult a dictionary) Bush has told about the war.
OW,
Please. Do you really think Edwards is not a rank political opportunist? A trial Lawyer??? Come on. At the time of the war, he stuck his pinky in the wind and thought it politically expedient to vote for the war. Later he noted the increasing dominance of the loony anti-war left in the party, TADA! he decides the war vote was wrong. I can only hope for Edawrds sake that Kos doesn’t decide that progressives should shed their earthly skins for the next arrival of the Hale Bopp Express.
That “name one lie Bush has told” routine’s getting really old really fast, Dugger.
And of course John Edwards is an opportunist. He’s a politician.
Well, there was the time when Bush said to Matt Lauer that he didn’t think we could win the war on terror.
Then he said to a crowd that we would win the war on terror.
He has to have been lying on at least one of those charges. Either that, or he’s exercising some serious doublethink.
Roche,
Please. Make it harder than that. Thats your lie? I believe the WOT is ongoing, unless you know something everybody else doesn’t – so how could we have already lost an ongoing war. Anybody else?
He didn’t say we’d already lost, he said he didn’t think we could win.
Do you see the difference, Doogy, or is this how you frame a debate?
If you are going to argue on the platform tht no one can know what others are thinking when they speak, you should at least try to listen to what they say.
Dugger frames a debate by carefully devising labyrinthine mobius strips of circular logic that make it impossible for the other side to be right about anything.
Logic, Dugger, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.
Roche documented no lie. Merely his recollection of apparently contradictory statements. But then the charge is not that Bush can and does make contradictory statements at times, but that he does so intentionally (i.e., lie).
You gripe about the dictionary definiton of lie. Its your problem not mine. You chose “lie”.
Dugger