Democrats still want to leave Iraq...umm, probably, well, possibly, no thats not right, then maybe.... okay, so no, they admit we just can't leave a "failed state behind.
Okay, so all the promises to get out of Iraq before the last election, were....ummm, empty.
Their varying degrees of double speak comes to us by way of the NYT:
Lets start with John Edwards, shall we?
He wants to leave, then GO BACK!!!!! If genocide begins, (which all experts have said it will if we leave prematurely)then we must be prepared to step back in and put an end to that.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries.
If? Thats his double talk for when.
Then we get to Hillary Clinton, who thinks we should keep enough troops there to fight terrorism....ummm, isn't that what Bush has the troops doing? Routing al-Qaeda, taking on the insurgents that blow people up (isn't bombing people considered terrorism?)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north.
What a great idea!!! So, Bush is right after all. General Petreaus is right after all.
Nice to know.
Moving right along we get to Obama!!!!!
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.
Security, fighting terrorism and training the Iraqi's, well hell, we have another one that admits, without actually saying the words, that BUSH IS RIGHT, cause after all, that IS what we are doing.
Still, many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a war can be as complicated as starting one.
Ya think???? Too bad the idiots that voted for these people didn't think to ask about that BEFORE they believed all their promises that they didn't have a chance in hell to keep!!!!
Edwards does get the vote for idiot of the day though with this:
“We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq,” Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi’a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”
Wow, no one ever talks about the genocide that would occur huh? He never heard anyone talk about it?
Seems to me that Obama has spoken about it, he just doesn't think preventing it is worth it.
SUNAPEE, N.H. --Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
McCain spoke of it multiple times, once here:
To enumerate the strategic interests at stake in Iraq does not address our moral obligation to a people we liberated from Saddam Hussein's tyranny," McCain just said. "I suspect many in this audience, and most members of Congress, look back at America's failure to act to prevent genocide in Rwanda with shame. I know I do.
"And yet I fear the potential for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq is even worse.
"The sectarian violence, the social divisions, the armaments, the weakened security apparatus of the state –- all the ingredients are there. Unless we fight to prevent it, our withdrawal will be coupled with a genocide in which we are complicit."
Then here:
McCain led GOP efforts to defeat legislation this month that would force the withdrawal of combat troops. Doing so, he said, would mean chaos and genocide.
Andrew McDonald has spoken about it:
American troops are currently the only obstacle to an even worse disaster in Iraq than the one now on our hands. An immediate withdrawal would unleash a hellish failed state that would demand later American intervention. The left would support a mission to end the resulting genocide (think Darfur, but with 10 more sects)
Family Security Matters has spoken about it:
3. The Killing Fields of Iraq. Victory means that the Iraqi government and nation have achieved sufficient political stability so that after the U.S. withdraws there will be no cataclysmic eruption of civil war; no "Killing Fields of Iraq;" no mass slaughters of Sunnis and Shias echoing the mass slaughters of Cambodians and Vietnamese after the U.S. withdrawal from South East Asia in the 1970s
There are examples all over the web about Genocide and Iraq and premature withdrawals, yet John Edwards claims "you never hear anyone talking about it????"
What freaking planet has he been living on?
He needs to cut that hair a little shorter or get his ears cleaned or maybe get some glasses, because people have been discussing the fact that Iraq would fall to genocide if we left prematurely since they have been talking about withdrawing.
Once again just outright lying.
Back to the NYT article with these brilliant quotes from the Democratic candidates:
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.
Conditions on the ground, did they say? WOW, yet another novel idea.
In fact, the President has been talking about the conditions and challenges ON THE GROUND in Iraq since we got there and saying that decisions have to be determined by "conditions on the ground".
Once again, it seems they agree with him without actually daring say they agree with him.
Tell me, if the same thing is said but using different words and said by different people, does that change the basic message any?
Obviously the Democratic presidential candidates think so and they also believe their supporters are too freaking stupid or filled with enough Bush Derangement Syndrome that they won't notice.
They may be right.
Last but not least and then you can read and critique the rest of this ridiculous article yourself is to point our Hillary Clinton's idiocy, with this statement she made:
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. The United States’ security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
Oh really? tell us more Hillary.
Once again, it seems that they are all simply repeating everything they have criticized President Bush for saying.
I wonder how many of their supporters will call them on it?
Probably the same amount that asked them BEFORE the 2006 elections how they planned on keeping their empty promises.
Tracked back by:
Sunday Reading List 8/12/07 from Right Truth...
.