A couple observations and a follow up question for Mike Castle (UPDATED w/ FOIA note)

Michael Castle has posted his bullshit statement trying to explain why he thinks Bush deserves another chance to get Iraq right. You can read it on his web site. I just have a couple of observations and follow up questions.

First of all, Castle gives three reasons for voting to give George Bush a blank check to continue his debacle.

1) Redeploying the troops will endanger them. This is just plain stupid. Keeping out troops in the middle of a civil war is endangering our soldiers you idiot. Removing them would decrease the danger. MCFLY!! Hello !!

2) The bill contians “pork.” No shit sherlock. Like you never voted for a bill that contained money for other projects. Does the name Tom Delay ring a bell? Do the hundreds of bills that you voted for to give DuPont millions of dollars in import duty subsidies ring a bell?

3) Bush is going to veto it. Again, WTF? By this logic you should be voting against your our stem cell bill. Oh that’s right you have caved on that. Nevermind. Bush the the KING of America now. He might veto a bill so we have to go along with everyone of his his horrible decisions.

AND NOW THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION which I’ll be asking Wenky tomorrow:

You say, “While I have disagreed with many aspects of our strategy in Iraq, I have worked to encourage the administration to change direction and implement a robust diplomatic strategy to secure the country and turn responsibility over to the Iraqis.”

How? When?

How have you “worked” to “encourage” the administration to change direction? What ONE thing have you done? What little bit of pressure have you put on the President?

You vote with Bush on every Iraq vote that comes up. What have you done? Simply saying that you’ve “worked” to “encourage” Bush to change his policy is not the same thing as doing it. Name one thing and I’ll stop calling your flunkies.

UPDATE: Today Elizabeth Wenk et al will be recieving a FOIA request for documents related to any and all “work” Mike Castle has done (including but not limited to letters, editorials, bills/resolutions subitted to congress, meeting notes, issue advocacy statements, groups formed, petitions started) related to his efforts to “encourge” the administration to “change direction and implement a robust diplomatic strategy to secure” Iraq.

The fact is no such documents exists. Castle is lying. all of his statements on Iraq have been made in order to rationalize his continuing endorsment of Bush’s failed policies.