Just received this from the Chris Dodd campaign. No elaboration; this seems to be as deep as the senator chose to go:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DODD
ON COMPROMISING ON IRAQ LEGISLATIONFor Immediate Release
September 7, 2007WASHINGTON — Today, Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd released the following statement on the proposed supplemental bill:
"Now is the time for Democrats to stand our ground, stick to our principles and fight for an end to this war. I know when to make a principled compromise and this ain’t one of those times."
You’ll remember Chris Dodd. He’s the principled "friend" of Joe Lieberman who was so willing to sell him out for the sake of something so stupid and useless as party loyalty.
Related Posts
I’m not sure I understand Brad’s point. The principle that Senator Dodd is defending is simply his belief that we need to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. By supporting Ned Lamont in the last election he was clearly supporting that exact principle. The latest release from the Dodd campaign further shows Dodd’s support for that principle. There is a logical disconnect by Brad here, not Senator Dodd.
Some of dem stickers accurately summarize situations, e.g. Can’t spell War without Dubya.
The point, Bud, is that Chris Dodd can be shown by example not to know “when to make a principled compromise.”
I understand the concept of principle, for a party so used to using policy simply to purchase votes, might be difficult to understand.
So here’s another idea: Maybe the idea of fighting to stop a war is just as antithetical as Chris Dodd standing up for ANYTHING on principle.
This would be way too funny if it wasn’t so tragic. Apparently it was General Petreus that “confirmed” that mobile labs discovered in May, 2003 were designed to manufacture chemical weapons. Of course they turned out to be nothing more than labs designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. In his own words our very own General David Petreus in May, 2003:
Petraeus said he spoke with experts May 13, and they have a “reasonable degree of certainty that this is in fact a mobile
biological agent production trailer.”
Should we believe this man at all? Of course not. He’s completely unobjective and he’s been dead wrong before. He could even be a flat-out liar. Yet, Brad and Weldon have the nerve to attack Chris Dodd for not being “principled.” For shame.
What? There are liars on either side of the aisle?
Goodness! A liar could be running for president.
And a liar might be running the war.
Where are good honest men like Chuck Schumer and Charles Rangel when we need them? We need more finger pointers. Mine’s getting tired.