Friday, July 13, 2007

Here's what I don't understand about Keith Ellison 

When we talked last week on the Final Word about his cosponsorship of the Kucinich bill calling for investigation of the president for the war, I noted that his press secretary said that the bill had no chance and that they were only making a statement.

The next day he makes a big statement, which he now says we are misconstruing. It doesn't take belief that Bush has created a Reichstag fire to find enough things about the war that could be impeachable. But rather than list those, Ellison only lists foreign policy disagreements.
...[I]n the aftermath of 9/11, instead of invading Iraq, President Bush should have responded militarily where necessary, but even more so, diplomatically, and with all of our intelligence resources.

If the president had embraced the good will of the post 9/11 world to marshal an international effort to eliminate the terrorist cells responsible for this heinous act, we wouldn't be mired in a five-year war. We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida instead of creating a virtual recruiting station for them in Iraq. As it is, we may need years to shake off the taint of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, FISA violations, Patriot Act encroachments and other Bush administration failures.

If Ellison believes these are policy disagreements, he should not have signed onto the Kucinich bill. If he believes they are more, why his climbdown from the rhetoric of his remarks?

Which is it, Representative?