For all of 2006 Ben Nelson was FOR the war. He never once said that he wanted the troops to leave immediately, or that it was a bad idea, or that we shouldn’t be there, or any other anti-war statement you want to come up with. You could certainly claim that one of the problems Pete Ricketts had in his campaign against Nelson was that Nelson held so many traditionally Republican positions – including being for the war – that Ricketts couldn’t differentiate himself from the “conservative Democrat”.
So Ben Nelson waits and waits and waits to take a position on the troop addition, then finally comes out against it. Why? He’s never told us why. But he’s not for cutting funding. And he’s not, as near as we can tell, for just leaving Iraq and ending the war, or really any other proposal for getting out.
Now all the Dems are up in arms, beating their chests, claiming that Republicans don’t want to debate the resolutions in the Senate. And Nelson comes out with this little gem:
If not now, do we wait for more troops to die before we oppose the president’s plan?
New York Times – 2/6/07
It seems that even when it comes to the lives of our troops, partisanship prevails.”
Lincoln Journal Star – 2/6/07
Uh, well, guess what Senator? You can debate and debate and vote and vote on your swell resolution. But it sure as heck won’t stop anyone from dying. And it won’t stop the President’s battle plan. Oh, and even if your plan DOES pass, YOU still want to keep THE OTHER 140,000 TROOPS THERE!
You’ve said it over and over for the past year.