You could smell this coming from a mile away:
The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.
"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."
Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.
It didn't take a political genius to figure out that when the Dems crowed about really pushing back against the Iraq war in September they would, as usual, just cave. Somehow, Nancy "Everything opposing Bush is off the Table" Pelosi and "Give 'em hell" Harry Reid (who can't even manage a "heck" or a "darn" most days) thought their ingenious strategy of siding with the WH and Republicans was going to give them leverage. (Don't ask me - I didn't invent that game plan.)
The Dem leadership (and I use that term loosely) justifies this Good News™ about Iraq burst as a "preemptive strike" (hmmm...where have I heard that before?) against a barrage of right-winger war pimping ads that will play the next month. A $15 million budget? They'll need a helluva lot more money than that to turn things around in the polls. And that is what has people like me scratching our heads and wondering why the Democrats are so damn afraid to pick a position and stick to it. Cut the funding. Get it over with. Can't do that though if you're beholden to oil and military industrial complex lobbyists, right?
Meanwhile, 1) Bush speeches are carefully calculated fearmongering propaganda. I don't doubt that Bush actually believes the shit that he spews, but trying to reignite a debate about the Vietnam war is just a distraction. If he was so damned concerned about the Vietnamese people, he wouldn't have been playing a game of Where's Dubya in the US during the war and would have bucked up to actually go over there to fight.
2) Bush is an idiot.
Here's what he said:
"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary, new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields.'"
Here's a reality check:
Few Americans realize that close to two million people died, that none of the perpetrators have been brought to justice and that the United States helped bring about the crisis that lead to the Khmer Rouge takeover.
And, of course, war criminal Henry Kissinger is one of Bush's Iraq war advisers. So there actually is a similarity between then and now. Unfortunately, for Saint Dubya, it doesn't work in his favour.
I'm sure the newly rekindled Vietnam war debates will be quite lively in the next little while, but Bush's predictions about what will happen in Iraq when troops withdraw have no basis in current reality. Different war. Different time. Different circumstances. And, as CNN analyst David Gergen put it, you really have to wonder why Bush would refer to Vietnam when his administration hasn't even bothered to learn the lessons of that war ie. the "quagmire" predicament. So, what is there to argue about and why are the Dems still cowering when it comes to Iraq?
Oh, and one more thing:
Democrats Would Want Australian Troops To Stay In Iraq As Long As Possible
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Sources close to Sens. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have said a Democratic president would ask Australia to maintain its troop presence in Iraq for up to a further three years. A Democratic administration would also look to use Australian assistance in training Iraqi forces and seek its assistance worldwide.
So no, Dem supporters, your precious top tier candidates don't plan to bring US troops home any time soon. Sorry to burst that bubble, but someone has to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment