send to a friend | print | comment
LEFTOVERS: Specter calls flip-flop, Schenker wants a convention & another candidate in PA-8
Senator Arlen Specter is calling primary opponent Joe Sestak’s distaste over a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan a flip-flop from his 2006 campaign, when he fiercely advocated for timetables in Iraq.
“Of course, Sestak only supported an Iraq timetable when he was a candidate,” Specter’s campaign manager Christopher Nicholas said in a statement Wednesday. “Once elected, he voted to fund the Iraq war without a timetable, and now he wants the same kind of open-ended escalating conflict in Afghanistan. This is another flip flop from Joe Sestak. He owes voters an explanation why he believes timetables were right for the Iraq war but are now bad for Afghanistan.”
I see what they’re saying here, and the fact that Sestak voted to continue funding the Iraq effort without a timetable has been well-documented. But if there’s one thing almost every expert has cautioned, it’s that parallels between the two war theaters should not be drawn casually. It’s fair to debate Sestak’s stance, but calling this a “clear flip flop” seems a bit of a stretch. This is a different war.
Meanwhile, reform darling and Lieutenant Governor candidate Rick Schenker called for a constitutional convention Wednesday. Calling it a “last resort” on his blog, he said that “Pennsylvania government is so wildly corrupt that I must support a constitutional convention.”
And lastly, there’s another Republican seeking to take on Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8) next year. Rob Mitchell, a small business owner from Doylestown, declared his candidacy Tuesday. He told The Bucks County Courier Times that the government’s reaction to the tea party movement helped prompt him to run. Here’s his campaign Web site.
December 2, 2009 at 11:03 pm













David Diano
Dec 3rd, 2009
Dan-
I’m not sure how “different war” is the critical factor in whether this is a flip-flop.
The hawks, neocons, conservatives, right-wingers, etc. have consistently opposed the idea of timetables, under the reasoning that it telegraphs a lack of long term commitment and incentivizes the enemy to “wait us out”.
The position on the Left is that it discourages the Afghan/Iraqi governments from dragging their heals to build up their own defense forces. It also puts some pressure on the diplomatic efforts and lets our allies know we are not interested in an open-ended conflict without a plan.
I don’t see how Sestak’s arguments regarding timetables from 2006 should fail to apply now. This is not a “casual parallel” but rather a principle of military/diplomatic policy in conducting a war against an insurgency from a deposed government using asymmetric warfare and terrorism against us.
Of course, in May 2007, on the House floor, when Sestak voted to give Bush a blank check, he said (in his official remarks) that he still believed timetables were the ONLY VIABLE OPTION.
So, in 2007, Sestak voted for a plan that he, himself, declared was not in his universe of “viable plans”.
Sestak has ZERO credibility on timetables.
WESTPADEM6
Dec 3rd, 2009
Sestak pledged to end the war… he funded it, and he personally even admitted a 3-5 yr commitment is ultimately needed in Afghanistan. Thats time nor money that we do not have in todays economic environment. We know we only have “peacemeal” international effort.
Not Important
Dec 4th, 2009
So in Sestak’s vote on Iraq, does that mean he actually opposed timetables, or just that he voted for a bill that didn’t have them? The former would be problematic; the latter would be voting for something over nothing even if he wanted more.