Reid supports, Clinton opposes? (Their positions are the same!)

[Sparkly]

I realize this are two different news agencies, but it's odd!

Sen. Clinton opposes troop surge in Iraq

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would not support a short-term increase in American troop presence in
Iraq unless it was part of a more comprehensive plan to stabilize the country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_go_co/clinton2008

Reid backs temporary rise in troops in Iraq

By Lesley Wroughton Sun Dec 17, 3:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday he would support a short-term increase in U.S. troops in
Iraq being weighed by President George W. Bush if it is part of a broader withdrawal plan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061217/pl_nm/usa_iraq_dc

Is there a difference there? :shrug:

[bigdarryl]

1. Bottom line is these two are not true DEMOCRATS they have no spine

And i am sick and tired of Dem's like Hillary and Reid sucking up to Bush

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. PURGE PURGE PURGE! n/t

[babylonsister]

2. Nice catch. No wonder Americans are so screwn; this is the news

they're waking up to? I don't see a difference...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. No, there is no difference between their positions.

Just slight differences in the way they stated them.

[Dhalgren]

5. Yes, there is a difference. Clinton can say she "opposed" the

increase, Reid can say he "supported" an increase. It is for future, political use. This makes me sad for the country and the Party - this playing politics with the lives of soldiers and Iraqi civilians is disgusting whenever it happens. Let's not accept anything less than total withdrawal on an immediate basis. Sometimes people who love their country and want to do the right thing have to let politics be damned. I wonder if we have any politicians of that caliber? I doubt it...

[rodeodance]

6. seem the same to me.