What a title for my first diary, but is there any choice? I just watched ABC World News Thursday evening. Charlie Gibson interviewed three newly elected Dem representatives: Nancy Boyda (KS), Patrick Murphy (PA), and Heath Shuler (NC).
Gibson asked the three about Iraq. They agreed that they are "Against the surge; the solution in Iraq must be political." Then Boyda said something that made me want to put my hand through the TV and shake her: "But we'll vote for funds for the surge because there's only one Commander in Chief. If he asks for money for a surge we have no choice but to go along." Murphy and Shuler sat there without a word of disagreement on this point.
Charlie Gibson gave them a chance to stand up and show some conviction and responsibility to the people who had just elected them: "But didn't the voters of America just say they're overwhelmingly against the war?" Boyda's response: "They should have thought of that when voted for Bush not once but twice."
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? These are US representatives. Do they realize the president is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nothing more? That the president is (supposed to be) a public servant? Do they realize what the 2006 groundswell was, the sweep that just put them in office? I tellya, two years in Congress and a lot of these people will be out of there.
Call me a jaded 60s guy, but in the election of 1968 (I was 16) there was the supposed choice between the lesser of two evils -- Dems who wanted to spend $100 billion on the Vietnam war and Repubs who wanted to spend $105 billion. Call me a pessimist, but I'm afraid our current situation will turn out the same way.