I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to Florida's US Senators so I missed this - Bill Nelson's press release on the Surge.
He supports the non-binding resolution, opposes cutting off funding and then he says this:
Nelson said today he’ll oppose efforts to cut off funding. “I’ll do what I think
is right to support our troops, though I don’t support the president’s plan to
add 20,000 more in Iraq,” said Nelson, who is a member of the Senate’s Armed
Services, Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees. “That’s not enough
troops – not without a political solution to the sectarian violence that the
Maliki government has been unable to achieve.”
(my emphasis added)
So, is it that he doesn't support the plan to add troops or he doesn't support it because 20,000 isn't enough? It's very craftily worded, but he voted for the war and he has yet to call for a redeployment or draw-down.
In fact, after he went to Syria in December 2006, this is what he had to say:
At a news conference this morning, Bush said he will consult with top generals
before deciding whether to increase troop strength. An announcement is expected
after the holidays.
and this:
Nelson said he believes the United States has about 12 months to help facilitate
a political solution to the sectarian violence in Iraq, or it will be too late.
These all sound like the hedges and excuses that Republicans are using, not words I'd expect from my Democratic Senator.
I've sent a letter via email. I'll let you know of the response.
