More on Walsh and Withdrawal
Over at Open Left Chris Bowers has a post up on the recent news that Walsh is going to support withdrawal.
It would seem as though Bowers shares the same skepticism that others do about this issue. In his own words:
It does not seem to mean that be favors a timetable for withdrawal. It is not clear whether it will mean he will support any legislation apart from the bill that suggests withdrawal would be a good idea, but does not actually mandate it.
Again, I tend to agree that I’m not holding my breath or jumping up and down for joy at this news. Until further notice I am chalking this one up to empty rhetoric in a desperate attempt to win back votes in a district whose support he is bleeding away. Again, Bowers notes:
And this is all coming from someone who, since he narrowly won re-election in 2006, has been talking about withdrawal, oversight and “no blank checks,” but during the 110th Congress has voted with Bush every step of the way on Iraq
Personally I can’t wait for the time that Walsh states what is clearly in the best interest for his district and follows through for the benefit of his constituents. Again, right now he is talking a good game, but let’s all hope he starts to back it up with real action.
Related posts:
I’m no fan of Walsh for most of his voting record, but I tend to think he actually will vote with the Democrats on Iraq from now on… if he continued supporting the President on Iraq after switching, he would be blown off the map in 2008.
Actions do speak louder than words with regards to Iraq. I’ve heard Bush say he is a uniter not a divider and we see where that got us.
It is great Walsh is making these statements but no one on this blog and likely most of our readership is ready to blindly accept these statements.
Actions are louder than words or in this case “votes”
I agree. Like I said, I’m not holding my breath or considering this to be a real change until we actually see a real change that can be quantified in votes.