In 2006, Sestak ran not only as being against the Iraq War, but also SPECIFICALLY

SPECIFICALLY FOR TIMETABLES!!!

Of course, when the time came, Sestak voted for a blank check for Bush, without timetables.

Now, Sestak is in favor of sending troops, but AGAINST A TIMETABLE!

Also, when Sestak ran in 2006, he used to talk about withdrawing from Iraq in 1 year. A year later, once he was elected, he began using 24 months as a minimum time to withdraw.

Sestak’s votes and statements show too much affinity for open-ended conflict.

Sestak’s campaign messages and pledges seem rather hypocritical to me. I have to concur with Diano. Sestak disappointed liberals, but thankfully Specter is taking issue with the inherent flaws in this approach.

Shocking comments from the first two posters. Shillin’ made easy.

I don’t know what to think about Afghanistan. I’ve never been briefed on the intelligence (although I’m sure other people who post here get daily briefings) and I’d hope and trust that Obama wouldn’t make this decision unless he felt he had to.

Kevin-
I disagree with Specter, and support Obama’s decision to send in troops, though with some reluctance/concern.

My point is to highlight Sestak’s phony “warrior who doesn’t like war” theme. Sestak fooled us in 2006 with his argument that as a former high ranking former military officer (hey, can you say “3 stars” every 60 seconds) that he would be able to make the strongest arguments against the Bush administration as a member of congress. He claimed he could stand up to the Bush administration.

However, in May 2007, the vote to continue funding Iraq with a blank check (no timetables or accountability) occurred right before Memorial Day. The GOP made it clear that they were going to paint anyone against the funding as being against the troops and tie it to Memorial Day. Sestak, who should have been immune to such an attack, voted with Bush and the GOP, betraying the troops and the voters.

So, either Joe loves war and votes for it, or Joe hates war and votes for it. Either way the outcome is the same.

We all hate war, but sometimes our senators must vote to fund our troops who already deployed. Specter now voices his anti-war sentiments, after continually voting with Bush for Iraq. If we wouldn’t have taken our eys off (and troops away from) Afghanistan, with the unnecessary Iraq war, Afghanistan would be in better shape than it is. Too late for Specter to sound like he is anti-war. In my opinion, he is just trying to win votes from the anti-war left. I am anti war and Specter just lost my vote by voicing his disagreement with our Democratic Commander-in-Chief.

Specter’s position cannot be trusted. He will change it if it means a better chance on getting elected. This man has absolutely no credibility left with the citizens of Pennsylvania.

Specter is dead right.

The win scenario is beyond cloudy and this commitment of troops still doesn’t give us the the minimum force-to-population ratios prescribed by prevailing counterinsurgency doctrine. Not to mention the fact that an 18-month commitment is imaginative, at best.

Whatever his motive, Specter is correct in opposing Obama’s escalation of the Afghan War. It is a waste of lives and treasure. It will accomplish nothing significant in 18 months.

As someone else said, if al Qaida can attack from Yeman or Somalia or any number of other places, why are we fighting in Afghanistan where history has shown that foreign powers cannot win?

What we need to do is escalate the special ops forces and covertly get bin Laden and the other al Qaida leadership, regardless of which side of the Afghan-Pakistan border there are found. Then get the hell home, build up the military and be prepared for the next threat. That’s just the way the world is right now. Obama is still fighting a 20th century war strategy.

David-

I just think this is a different war. Iraq is not Afghanistan. The conditions aren’t parallel. It just seems to me that Specter, regardless of Sestak, supported Iraq and Afghanistan while trying to court Republicans to vote for him. Why didn’t he say anything about it over 8 years?

This looks political and with national security issues, that’s too risky for my book. I also think Specter veering so far left on so much hurts him as a general election candidate against Toomey, who must be defeated.

Kevin-

Im glad sestak has shown his true colors so he doesnt fool everyone as a “fake progressive”. I oppose this troop movement because its a waste of money with a “make-believe” timetable, which essentially does not create an exit strategy but sets the table for public policy dictated by generals in 2011.

He is a flip flopper and any progressive dem worth their salt wouldnt vote for him after promising to end the war in 06 and then turning around and funding it.

BerksWoman-
Well, maybe “we all” Dems hate war, but not the hawks. Cheney and the right wing neocons want the 40,000 troops that McCrystal requested. They LOVE war.
Sestak talks a good “peace” game, but when push comes to shove, we keep seeing hawk from him.

Kevin-
Hillary and Kerry voted for the Iraq war too. I can’t see penalizing Specter for the same vote they made when 29 out of 50 Dems voted for it and 48 out of 49 Republicans. The final vote was 77-23 in the Senate. Hillary and Kerry weren’t trying to curry Republican favor.

Considering Sestak’s own voting record, I have no doubt he would have voted for the war as well (he can make any BS claim NOW about how he would have voted THEN, but he couldn’t even keep is own campaign promises about he was going to vote for timetables and accountability in 2007).
I (reluctantly) have to give Specter a pass on his Iraq vote, since Sestak has NO credibility on being anti-war.

Lee-
I agree: “What we need to do is escalate the special ops forces and covertly get bin Laden and the other al Qaida leadership”.
However, there is still the problem of the Taliban regrouped when Bush diverted resources to Iraq. The Taliban provided sanctuary for al Quada and they can’t be allowed to take over again.

I think Obama’s taking a better approach with Pakistan to convince them to help, instead of turning a blind-eye to the problem.

Though I dislike sending in more troops, I trust Obama’s judgment to approach the strategy realistically and thoughtfully AND combining it with diplomacy and international cooperation, unlike Bush/Cheney.

If Obama is successful, I think it could usher in a new (superior) way of dealing with these problems.

I’m not sure trying to read candidates’ motives is of the essence here. If one of the two has the guts to stand against one more “surge” — meaning killing, wounding, bombing, dislocated lives, big money, occupation of a foreign country with no firm withdrawal (Clinton was very clear that the dates mentioned are somewhere between a goal and a hope), and the continued decline of our image abroad (polls show Pakistanis regard the US as the biggest threat to world peace) –, then that’s a voice for sanity when we most need it.

Nathaniel-
That’s why Sestak is “all glory, no guts” as a congressman.