Weldon Gets 4-Stars for Failed Policies

According to Delco Times, Weldon hauled out Sestak's old boss, "Retired four-star Adm. Robert J. Natter, former commander of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, praised Weldon's ability to work with congressional Democrats and defended the increasingly unpopular Iraq war Sestak opposes."

Wow! What brainiac on Weldon's staff thought this one up?

65% of the country opposes the War in Iraq, and Weldon hauls out a guy that not only promotes the war, but uses all discredited arguments to do so.

Some examples from the article:

Natter defended the Iraq invasion as an appropriate response to terrorist attacks against America and its military and described it as a crucial battle in fighting terrorism. He said the war was further justified by the fact that Iraqi troops had routinely fired on U.S. pilots enforcing United Nations sanctions.

First of all, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 ATTACKS ON THIS COUNTRY. Under what twisted logic is invading a country that did NOT attack us an "appropriate" response? Saddam did not permit extreme religious terrorist organizations, like Bin Laden's, in his county because they would fuel sectarian violence and overthrow his regime. Oops. Too late. We did all that.

Second of all, Iraq opposed the no fly zone over it's country as well as American spy planes gathering information for a future attack. (The future would come in March 2003.) Of course they fired at us. Wouldn't we fire at Iraqi planes flying over the US checking to make sure we weren't violating UN sanctions? Iraq firing at our military overflights is hardly sufficient provocation or justification to invade but rather the cost of a containment policy that had worked.

Another quote:

"We didn’t invite this war," he [Natter] said. "We weren't doing anything when the USS Cole was attacked. We weren’t out sticking it in somebody’s eye when somebody decided to go after us on 9/11. So those of us who might say, ‘Well, all we’ve got to do is withdraw and start minding our own business,’ in my opinion, are dead wrong."

Iraq was not involved in the attack on the Cole, either. Going after the Taliban and Bin Laden after 9/11 was a fine response. Diverting our attention and resources to Iraq before the job was done was a fatal mistake for thousands of brave soldiers and countless citizens caught in the middle.

Ironically, in all this praise for the failed Iraq policies and support for our failing Congressman Weldon, Natter declined to say anything bad about Sestak.

Speaking to a room full of veterans, Natter called Sestak a "good naval officer," but clearly supported Weldon [...] "I will say, in my opinion, because you're an admiral doesn’t make you necessarily a good congressman."

Apparently, being a 4-star admiral doesn't seem to make you a good judge of military strategy either.
I thought it interesting that while Weldon's campaign tries to trash Sestak as dishonorable, that Natter referred to Sestak as a good naval officer. As for supporting Weldon, I can see why a fan of Bush's failed Iraq policy would support Weldon.

I think this is a great strategy on Weldon's part to alienate the 65% percent of voters that oppose the war and latch onto those 35% that are still in denial. Maybe Weldon can use his campaign funds to buy "Weldon still thinks War in Iraq a good idea." pins and bumperstickers. I'd replace my Sestak stick with one of those babies.

BTW, I find it ironic that a guy like Weldon, who never served in the military, and voted against increasing Veteran's Healthcare Benefits, would hold an event at the Herbert W. Best VFW.

Was it really appropriate for Weldon to put lawn signs all over the place, too?