In 2004 and 2005 Hoekstra was fully behind the war and the policy set forth by Bush & Co. Pete changed his talking points to "islamofascists" and Islamic Jihaadists in the months following the surge debate so he could justify the war on his terms. Not on the merits of it's supposed reasoning (that he originally supported).
"The U.S. effort to install a democracy in Iraq within three to five years was a flawed strategy with little chance of succeeding"
He's just realizing this now? No, it's a ploy. He wants to distance himself from the Bush administration (and has been taking potshots at them for about 6 months) without actually changing his stance on the war. Apparently we are all supposed to be impressed that he said what intelligent people were thinking from he beginning of the war. Just remember, if his lips are moving he's probably lying.
Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said as the Iraqi government flounders, he’s changed his original support for the Bush administration’s stated goal of molding a democratic Iraq as a means to stabilize the Middle East. But Hoekstra said he opposes setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. He said Congress and President George W. Bush must decide on a unified course of action that will stabilize Iraq, based on new intelligence reports and a much-anticipated September status report by the U.S. top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.
Of course he opposes the withdrawl of troops. Maybe he wants to explain to the troops what they are there for now. Can we call do-overs?
And just because he can (and maybe has to, I think it's a tick, he just can't help himself) he throws this into the piece:
Radical Islam remains a real threat to the United States, he said, and that Islamic jihadists are using U.S. presence in Iraq for recruiting propaganda.
All the more reason to stay.Right Pete??