U.S. Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) returned last week from a second trip to Iraq. He voted against authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2002, and in May, he voted in favor of Democratic legislation that would have required President Bush to bring U.S. troops home next year.But after his recent visit, Baird has changed his mind. He now says he believes U.S. troops must stay in Iraq longer, and that a precipitous withdrawal could have catastrophic results for Iraq and the region.
I heard this article while I was on my way to work and was a little surprised by it. The article summarizing the interview has a link to listen to the entire interview (which is worth a listen).
1 comment:
I am surprised whenever a politician changes their position against the party position. Lieberman is the only democrat that I know who has wandered very far from the Democratic stance on the war. I think that the number of military units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan influenced Baird's decision. Check out the list of units that have deployed from Washington. http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2003/whos.htm
A growing problem for politicians who declared that the US has been defeated and needs to withdraw soon is that they will be unable to participate in the victory climate. This will become more uncomfortable as victory becomes more obvious and wide spread. Politicians of states and districts with the greatest number of deployed personnel will suffer the most.
P.S. How do I make a hot link rather than having to post the URL?
Post a Comment