More Democrats FOR More Troops in Iraq Before They were AGAINST Them

We could do this all day. America's Anchorman, the Truth Detector provides further examples of Democrats who were FOR more troops in Iraq before President Bush decided to agree:

DODD October 3, 2004: Certainly I think today people realize here that -- that the number of troops we have there, given the magnitude of the problem, given the problems we're facing, probably has to be increased.

DODD January 17, 2007: The idea that further military, escalating military, involvement is going to produce the desired results will work -- I'm very much opposed it.

BIDEN November 11, 2003: Because we haven't won the war yet. Everybody talks about winning the peace. We haven't won the war yet. There's a real counterinsurgency out there. It's genuine. It's made up of forces. It is more than just outside forces, more than Al-Qaeda, and we have to stamp it out, and we need more forces. There are not enough forces there.

BIDEN January 17, 2007: Mr. President, do not send more troops! It would have the exact opposite impact you intend.

HILLARY December 7, 2003: What I have said is that I do think we need more troops.

HILLARY January 17, 2007: Rather than escalation of US troops -- which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq -- we should be begin a phased redeployment of US troops as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility to its own security and future.

Notice how that word "escalation" has been making the rounds? You would think that a party with the discipline to enforce such rigid talking points on the prima donnas at the top of the ladder could come up with some IDEAS to go along with them.

But then, YOU would think!