Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he believed the resolution could be viewed as a political attack on Bush and misinterpreted "by our enemies as abandoning Iraq." But, he added, he remained skeptical that additional troops in Baghdad would be successful.But the article goes on to say that Voinovich has indicated that he might sign on to John Warner's (R-VA) resolution, which specifically states that "the Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500," i.e., Bush's escalation plan.
"I have been waiting for the administration to extend an olive branch in an attempt to forge a compromise" that would make clear "we stand united as a nation," he said. "I obviously have been disappointed since that has not happened."
So Voinovich doesn't want to send the wrong message to our enemies or the Iraqis, but then at the same time he says outright that he is skeptical of the Bush plan and may even vote to voice his opposition to the plan. But that vote, somehow, magically, won't tell our enemies, the Iraqis, or the troops that Voinovich doesn't support their mission.
The Republicans are trying to play it both ways. They oppose Bush's escalation, are willing to say so publicly, but then won't vote to oppose it, even in a token resolution, because somehow that resolution, but not their own words already stated publicly, will harm the war effort and undermine our troops. Do they think our troops, the Iraqis, and our enemies are deaf or dumb?
