Seattle Times: "Burner carefully balances her position on Iraq war". The sympathetic headline undermines the devastating article about Burner's position on Iraq, best summarized by a non-partisan analyst:
"a muddled message: It's time to end the status quo without offering a real solution."Burner praises the troops for having "fulfilled every military objective we have given them", yet characterizes the war as a failure, without offering an alternative plan. And while she speaks of her Iraq veteran brother to bolster her credibility on the issue, we learn that her brother disagrees with her:
She aimed her message at people like her brother, Jason Gibbons, a Republican and recently retired Army military policeman who served in Iraq. He disputes the contention that the war has been mismanaged, and said the morale of his former unit, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., is high.Jason Gibbons' informed view on Iraq more closely resembles Dave Reichert's.But he said his sister's empathy for the military is real. "That's one area I'm impressed with Darcy -- she's pro-military," he said.
When he talked to his sister earlier this summer, Gibbons said he reminded her of the good the U.S. has done in rebuilding Iraq. When Gibbons arrived near the ancient city of Babylon, south of Baghdad, just after the invasion, he worked with an Iraqi police force that had no radios, no training and few rifles.
The U.S., he said, needs to stay in Iraq until those forces can hold the country. "Iraq had a long way to go before it could secure itself because Saddam ruined Iraq," he said.
tip of the hat to Orrin Johnson, one of Darcy's classmates from UW Law School, who hasn't been favorably impressed with her intellectual integrity
There are a hundred ways we could be winning Iraq, but the left brings obstacles, not solutions to the table.
Posted by: Andy on October 16, 2006 05:17 PMAll of the sudden, he is now saying that we can no longer "Stay the course" (I guess he must now love terrorists as that is what he used to say about anyone that questioned that slogan.) However, he has not articulated what the new course is other than having a bi-partisan commission. Which the Democrats and Darcy Burner have been calling as a first step for 4 years now.
So why should anyone trust someone that is so late coming to the party and obviously changing only because he wants to get elected on Nov 7, not because he has actually any belief that this President has no plan or that his plan is flawed.
Posted by: Michael Caine on October 16, 2006 08:30 PMYou mean like they can already do with a volunteer army? Wow- you put a lot of thought into debunking that one.
Read up on your military history.
Posted by: Andy on October 16, 2006 10:08 PMReichert by 5.
Darcy has no depth, or nothing to offer that we need in this state.
Just another Hate Bush Tax raising liberal.
We have plenty of those in this state thank you!
I am not one to quible, and certainly care little about Reichert v Burner race, but a comment like she made does seem respectful given the GOALS layed out by Commander Chief to "find and destroy WMDs" The principle reason we were told for going to war.
Again I can care little about Reichert/Bruner Race. And being honest. Bruner does little to impress, but your (Stef) sugguestion that Bruner wants it both ways as if she does not truly appreciate the scarifice of the troops....appears a bit......SMALL.
U have better issues that matter to more people who appreciate your work, that you shouldn't waste time on such silly nick picking on a phoney democract.
Once At City
Posted by: OnceAt City on October 17, 2006 10:47 AM