Newsflash! Nelson is Anti-War?

Are we now living in bizarro world where what you’ve said for the past year means nothing?

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

Or even:

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.

14 comments

  1. Uncle Wiggily says:

    Politicians changing their tune is as hum-drum as Britney abjuring her scanties … yawn …

    But the pic – wow – terrific job of Photoshopping, Sweeper. Color me impressed.

  2. Street Sweeper says:

    UW,
    Ordinarily, I would agree with you — if his feelings had at least evolved over time or whatever. But in the span of two months — after slamming his pro-Bush Iraq positions down our throats for a year? Is there a weather-vane sticking out of his back?

    And what is this “photo-shop” of which you speak?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Sweeper – good photoshop and a good post and attempt to rage against the machine. But even in your post you contradict yourself.

    The reality is Nelson’s resolution is about the president’s troop surge – not the war. His opposition to the surge was almost immediately after it was announced. His comments you quote selectively are completely consistent with where he has been all along.

    The interesting thing about Ben is he’s never second-guessed his vote on the original war resolution and he always backs up his mouth with his voting record.

    And whatever you say, at least Ben Nelson didn’t impugn the courage of his colleagues by saying they should “sell shoes” if they cant take “tough votes”, grandstand at a soldiers funeral, talk tough on a weekend show about needing to have the debate about the Iraq war and then vote against his own resolution when it came time to go on the record.

  4. Street Sweeper says:

    Anon,

    We make no attempt to compare Nelson to Hagel. We compare Nelson ’07 with Nelson ’06. His yelp about soldiers dying b/c the Senate won’t debate his little resolution is a bunch of crap. The soldiers that he voted to put there are still under fire and this resolution will never affect it.

    And the resolution was on a procedural matter, and the Democrats (and I’m guessing you too) know it.

    Finally, debate all the tough talk stuff you want with Hagel. But when the parents of a West Point grad, who you nominated, ask you to come to their son’s funeral, you come. Hagel didn’t speak or “grandstand” there from anything I saw.

  5. Anonymous says:

    duh, leavenworth. the surge is a very specific mission aimed at pacifying baghdad, which means putting u.s. troops squarely in the middle of a civil war. ben nelson said again and again in 2006 that our troops can’t win their civil war. it’s perfectly consistent to oppose efforts to make them do so.

    that is not to say that all troops should be pulled out or pulled off of other missions. it is to say that we shouldn’t be sending american men and women to die in a no-win situation. (btw, this is about the third time we’ve tried to pacify baghdad and most security experts believe that any real attempt to do so would require more like 100,000 troops just for that mission).

    so the “surge” and the on-going missions are NOT THE SAME – despite your attempts to link them.

    that said, at least nelson was willing to take a tough vote. hagel ducked the issue and is today whining that he didn’t get the chance to vote on a resolution he helped block. typical of hagel: lots of bark, no bite.

  6. Street Sweeper says:

    No, Nelson is specifcally grandstanding, trying to say that by not debating his non-binding resolution, soldiers are dying. This is a full load of crappola.

    As far as Hagel goes, he stated he wanted ALL the resolutions debated, and not just the couple Harry Reid wanted. Now apparently Reid is taking his ball and going home.

  7. plains drifter says:

    Sweeper- in all seriousness, I went and re-read Nelson’s speech. He says no such thing as “by not debating his non-binding resolution, soldiers are dying.” And has been pointed out before – the speech was about the surge, not the war. Normally your comments are spot on even if sometimes personal attacks, but in this case you’re off base.
    Nelson asked the Senate how many more soldiers woulddie before they would act. A legitmate question asked by many Senators, not just Nelson.

    And by the way, it took Hagel only 48 hours to reverse course on his vote to debate “ALL” the alternatives.

    I find it interesting that you posted six (or five) posts in a row on Hagel’s WH bid but have been silent on how his disasterous week has essentially eliminated any chance he might have (aside from the fact he has no money, no staff and no national party support). That’s not an attack on you, just an observation.

  8. Street Sweeper says:

    PD,
    On Nelson, no, he was trying to tie in debate of the non-binding resolution to soldiers getting killed. Total crap.

    On Hagel, the question of him running has pretty much nothing to do with whether he would or could win the Presidency b/c his anti-war mojo hit a bump. I have no doubt he’ll get that back. But we’ve NEVER claimed that we think that that position could make him a winner. What him running for President means is that his seat is open and would carry a huge domino effect in Nebraska politics.

  9. Street Sweeper says:

    PD,
    The readers, are perfectly capable of clicking where ever they want. I and they are also capable of inferring what Nelson was really saying. Apparently, you are not.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Ironically, I have a picture of Scottie Kleeb striking the same pose, in the exact same apparel during his days in Boulder. However, in the picture of Kleeb, there is considerably more smoke in the air. We in the 3rd Dist. (Kearney area) keep hearing reports that Scottie Kleeb is seriously considering running for Senate if Hagel bows out. Which leads me to ask: Is Kleeb still smoking the Buffalo County vegetation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.