What a morally and intellectually confused individual...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/nyregion/31shays.html?ex=1314676800&en=102dc51755ce8aa6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote :

"G.O.P. Congressman Shifts to Favor an Iraq Timetable WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — Only a few weeks ago, Representative Christopher Shays, a Republican from Connecticut, minced no words in responding to calls led by Democrats for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. “To have a timetable is absolutely foolish,” he said. But now, as he faces an increasingly tough re-election battle against an antiwar Democrat, Diane G. Farrell, Mr. Shays has undergone a conversion: He is proposing a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, an idea derided by the Bush administration and many Republicans. “A lot of thought has gone into this,” the congressman explained in a lengthy interview this week. “I had a lot of resistance in my own office in moving forward with this.” How Mr. Shays came to this change of heart is, he says, a matter of a newfound substantive belief that Iraqis need to be prodded into taking greater control of their own destiny under the country’s newly formed government. But it also comes amid growing signs of strong antiwar sentiment in his state. Earlier this month, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a centrist Democrat who supports the war in Iraq and opposes a timetable for withdrawal, was defeated in the Connecticut primary by an antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont. Mr. Lieberman is now running as an independent. Political analysts say Republicans in other states may be feeling similar pressures. At least two other House Republicans who strongly support the war — Representative Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota and Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina — now embrace the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, according to strategists in both parties. While Mr. Shays made his new position known recently in comments to reporters after returning from his 14th trip to Iraq, he said he planned to follow that up with a series of hearings in September, suggesting that he wants the issue to be at the center of his agenda during the election season. Mr. Shays, the chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on national security, said he planned to draft a timetable for a phased withdrawal and then push for its adoption. In the interview, Mr. Shays sought to distance himself from both President Bush and antiwar Democrats, a position not unlike that of Mr. Lieberman, whom he considers a political ally. Mr. Shays and Mr. Lieberman appeared together at an event this past weekend. “The administration wants an open-ended commitment and that sends a wrong message to the Iraqis,” he said after describing how Iraq’s leaders had failed to take steps that would lead their country toward full-fledged political independence. “I want the Iraqis to know that they do not have an open checkbook,” Mr. Shays continued. “I also want the Iraqis to know that our troops will not be there in the numbers they are now.” But he also dismissed Democratic timetables for a speedy withdrawal as “arbitrary” and asserted that it would be a disaster to reduce the American presence in Iraq before the Iraqi government had the capacity to protect its citizens. “It would be obscene for us to leave before the Iraqis are able to defend themselves,” he said. “We completely dismantled their security forces.” Republican officials have sought to minimize the political significance of Mr. Shays’s position. “The president still has a lot of support for the war,” said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. “What you are seeing is certain members express their own opinion.” Democrats, in turn, have sharply questioned Mr. Shays’s motives, arguing that his conversion had less to do with principle than with the realization that he could no longer afford to vigorously support a war and a president who, polls show, are not popular in Connecticut. Ms. Farrell, Mr. Shays’s Democratic challenger, described the congressman’s shift as a desperate attempt to divert attention from his record of support for the war. “Chris Shays knows he is in the fight of his life,” she said. “And it appears that he will say anything in the hope that voters will forget his past record.” Charlie Cook, a nonpartisan political analyst, argued that more Republicans are likely to begin giving serious thought to embracing a timetable for troop withdrawal given that opposition to the war remains deep as Election Day draws closer. He noted that in Mr. Shays’s case, his shift came around the same time polls began to show the congressman in an increasingly tight race against Ms. Farrell, who has drawn comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Ms. Farrell came within five percentage points of defeating Mr. Shays in 2004. “If you’re a Republican in a tough re-election, you have to stop and reexamine your position,” Mr. Cook said. Mr. Shays cautioned against reading too much into Mr. Lamont’s victory. He said that Mr. Lieberman did not lose simply because of his war position. He argued, among other things, that Mr. Lieberman had run a “terrible campaign” and that he had alienated many Connecticut Democrats by becoming too close to Republican leaders in Washington. Mr. Shays said that his plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq would not necessarily reduce the American presence there quickly. “Americans may not like the timeline,” he said. “It may be too slow.” He said the withdrawal would be based on recommendations from military commanders, as well as on a monthly inventory of the number of Iraqi troops that are trained."

And since a lack of commitment to an open-ended invasion amounts to "Cut and Run"--at least according to practically ALL of the administration's rhetoric on the matter--he's apparently joined the Democrats. And the terrorists.

I'm sure Osama's delighted over this turn of events...

8/31/2006 12:26:10 PM

good ole election years......

8/31/2006 12:28:31 PM

This is why politicians generally speak very vaguely...

I feel bad for his poor campaign spokesman/dedicated spinner

8/31/2006 1:02:22 PM

and people wonder why politicians are almost universally disliked

8/31/2006 1:13:24 PM

he's a flipflopper. I, as a republian, hate flip floppers.

8/31/2006 1:20:40 PM

^
and a liberal too. this is nothing out of the ordinary for teh L3ft, no matter their party affiliation.

8/31/2006 2:15:01 PM

The left apparently has a pretty expansive membership in the GOP. The RNC ought to look for examples of flip-flops on Google and smoke'em out!

How does Walter Jones fit into your category of teh l3ft?

8/31/2006 2:52:43 PM

RINOS? We dont need no stinkin RINOS!

8/31/2006 6:02:18 PM

not a real republican

8/31/2006 6:04:41 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: How does Walter Jones fit into your category of teh l3ft?"

The guy's a former Democrat. His ties to the Republican Party have always been tenuous but for his ability to thump a Bible.

8/31/2006 8:38:55 PM

Wow. Gotta admit I didn't know that.

8/31/2006 9:54:41 PM

Quote :

" Osama Bin Laden is Kicking George Bush Ass An ass kicking isn't just getting bitch slapped, it's getting viciously, relentlessly pummeled to the point where you are forever changed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060901/cm_huffpost/028478&printer=1

Quote :

" Bin Laden's only way to reduce American influence in the Middle East is to make the cost of dominating the region outweigh the benefit. Bin Laden realizes he can't bankrupt the U.S. with just one attack. America is too vast and strong and supported for even a massive terror attack to create the sustained economic blood letting required to get the U.S. to quit the Middle East. While devastating, any single attack will only wake a sleeping giant, making further attacks on U.S. soil harder and harder to pull off. Each subsequent gashing will be smaller and less effective, only making it harder to bleed America from within. However Bin Laden believes if 9/11 comes off as planned the U.S. will invade Afghanistan, where he may be able to bleed the US like he did the Soviets in the 80's. If he can gain access to enough U.S. assets on AQ controlled turf he's confident he can prick us to death. Bin Laden knows he will have one shot at an attack on American soil sufficient to lure the U.S. into a decisive military move in the Middle East. It's a weak plan. The U.S. is no Soviet Union. But it's all Al Qaeda has. Bin Laden said to anyone listening he wants to get the U.S. military en masse in the Middle East. Today's Iraq shows why he worked so hard to make that happen. The tragedy here is that Bin Laden was wrong- he could never have bled us to death in Afghanistan. Had Bush immediately gone into Afghanistan with overwhelming numbers and sealed the border Bin Laden would be dead by now, he could have forced Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to stop supporting terrorists and 9/11 would not have been a turning point in world history. But Bush, it turns out, wanted Iraq all along, and skimped on Afghanistan so he could have Iraq. When Bush invaded Iraq he made Bin Laden's desperate snow ball's chance in hell strategy pay off. Lucky guy, that Bin Laden. Today Al Qaeda thinks they can break our back by pressuring our allies to withdraw economic and military support. That is why we haven't seen any significant attack pan out on our shores since 9/11. It's got nothing to do with Bush's inept wire tapping bullshit. However, if this approach does not begin to bear fruit soon Bin Laden will refocus his resources directly on us. At that point we'll be in for a rough ride. George Bush, your ass is being thoroughly kicked. And it's not over yet. Not for you, not for the next President, and not for America. ""

[Edited on September 2, 2006 at 11:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/2/2006 11:13:02 PM