So, Will You be Allies If He Goes That Way?

Once again, thinking they are Presidents of the United States, since it is now the new hot thing to do in the Beltway streets, Senators Larry, Moe, and Curly said something this morning in a WSJ op-ed piece (what a surprise) about how we need to stay strong in Afghanistan just like they said with Iraq. And Spencer Ackerman noticed this interesting thing in that piece of debris early in the morning:

In the interim, the president and his allies—and we count ourselves among them on this issue—must invest significantly greater effort to explain why, as the president recently put it, Afghanistan is a “war of necessity. [Emphasis added.]

Now, let's be clear here. Obviously, they will be angry as hell if Obama does the opposite, which would be the common sense thing to do for this country and the soldiers fighting a war that has gotten out of control to the point of not favoring us. It is a war when the agenda has shifted drastically over the years, where the question of "Why are we there" has grown louder and louder by every heart beat.

So, with that being said, all members of DC's Three Stooges said they are "allies" with the president on this with Afghanistan. And hey, shouldn't all parties be "bipartisan" on foreign policy issues in this country? You would hope so, since that is proper protocol to do so.

And because of that, then if Obama decides to reduced and remove troops out of the country, than Presidents Lieberman, Graham, and failed President McCain need to be his allies and support him on a reduction of troops if that is the final decision.

They said they are allies, and now, they must be loyal to the President. Especially if he makes the right, and obvious, decision.

And to add: John Murtha has given the opposite viewpoint of the Three Stooges thankfully:

House defense spending cardinal John Murtha, an early bellwether of congressional opposition to the Iraq war, has made his strongest comments yet opposing more U.S. troops for the war in Afghanistan.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker and Vietnam veteran, who plays a crucial role in forming the budgets that would fund an increased troop presence, is skeptical of the basic logic of adding personnel.

"In Vietnam it took 500,000 troops and that didn't solve the problem. So we have to take a different approach," Murtha told The Cable in an exclusive interview. "I think that's what McChrystal is trying to do," he said, referring to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, who recently delivered a status report to the White House on the situation there.

Shame that a lot of people still can't see the obvious answer.

But hey, that is American politics these days.