Before the President even gave his speech the Dems were coming out against it. The biggest complaint - the troop surge. But let's go back in time and see what the Dems (and even the NY Times) said about increasing the troops in Iraq BEFORE it was part of President Bush's plan...
12/5/2006: In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
4/18/04: MIAMI — More U.S. troops and a new president could be needed to win international support for U.S. efforts in postwar Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Sunday... (snip)... He also said that "if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos" discouraging the United Nations and other countries from helping, "that's what we have to do."
6/30/2005: Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place. "I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
10/24/2006 NY Times Editorial: Under the heading “Stabilize Baghdad,” the editorial states: “The problem is not one of military strategy.... The problem is that the commanders in Baghdad have been given only a fraction of the troops—American and Iraq—they need. There have never been enough troops...”
Of course now that increasing the troops is part of President Bush's plan, the Dems have changed their mind. I guess that's what happens when you try to govern by the polls instead of with your brain.
UPDATE: Sweetness & Light reminds us that the Iraq Surrender Group recommended a "troop surge". Troop Surge Was Recommended By Iraq Study Group. Didn't the Dems fall all over themselves praising the recommendations in the ISG?
From the ISG report: While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. We should continue to maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations forces, intelligence units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection units…
Wesley Clark's Ignorance on Iran:
On another note - on tonight's O'Reilly Factor, the smarmy Wesley Clark let it slip that he did not know that Iranian fighters were in Iraq. Here's an unofficial transcript (will get the official as soon as available)...
Discussing option on dealing with Iran...
Clark: What's wrong with this as a scenario? You talk with Iran. You hold them at bay one way or another somehow western influence seeps into Iran. And the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living than being under the ayatollahs.
O'Reilly: I am not opposed to that.
Clark: Isn't that a better approach.
O'Reilly: If Iran continues to kill american soldiers and we don't do anything about it as the scenario has been for two years.
Clark: Where is Iran killing American soldiers. Inside iraq?
O'Reilly: Did you just miss the guys that were captured there.
Of course Clark demonstrates his complete ignorance of the real world by his plan to "talk" with Iran. But to not know that Iranian fighters are in Iraq and killing our soldiers, that's just ridiculous.
President Bush, Wesley Clark, Iraq, Troop Surge, Iran, John Kerry, Joe Biden