Democrat Doubletalk: Leaving Iraq May Take Years

In the ever-shifting universe where Democrats reside, sticking to one position, let alone having any semblance of core values, is nearly impossible.

Pandering to the nutroots, the crop of 2008 presidential candidates have been bellowing about immediate withdrawal, deployment to places unknown, suggesting surrender, and in the case of Barack Obama, invading an ally.

Since this campaign began what seems like three years ago, however, things have changed on the ground in Iraq and now it appears the candidates have begun to realize we can't just pick up and leave without disastrous consequences, so it's now CYA time, and the Koslamists will not be happy.

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

Granted, all those idea are crazy and would hopefully be abandoned were one of these three elected; naive thinking perhaps, but they will need advice of the military.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Then you get to the hapless Governor Blutarsky with his shameless pandering.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”

Way to man up, Bluto.

Most of the Democratic candidates mention the significant military and logistical difficulties in bringing out American troops, which even optimistic experts say would take at least a year. The candidates are not only trying to retain flexibility for themselves in the event they become president, aides said, but are also hoping to tamp down any expectation that the war would abruptly end if they were elected. Most have not proposed specific troop levels or particular rules of engagement for a continued presence in Iraq, saying the conditions more than a year from now remain too uncertain.

As expected, the biggest batch of doubletalk comes from The Pantsuit herself, who loves having it both ways, but needn't worry about being called a hypocrite by the feckless press.

In political terms, their strategies are a balancing act. In her public appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

As everyone now realizes, there has been significant progress the past couple months on the ground in Iraq, and by this time next year, it's impossible to determine whether that success will have culminated in a resounding victory or whether the situation has deteriorated.

Which is why listening to Democrats who can change their mind on a daily basis is bad for national security. These folks will do anything, say anything and promiose anything in their quest for political power.

Were any of them to actually become President, anything bad that may occur would be blamed on George W. Bush, anyway.

They cannot be trusted.

Read the rest...