Monday, October 01, 2007

No Rahm, the next President WON'T bring them home.

Front paged at Booman Tribune

That is the problem, or at lest there is no firm commitment to bring them ALL (or even most) home.

You see, Rahm, the problem with your latest pile of crap you and your Democratic Party colleagues are peddling is that you can’t even honestly talk with a straight face about bringing our troops home (hat tip to andgarden for his diary from last night.

I was going to write about the impact of the Kyl/Lieberman hall pass for Bush and Cheney to attack Iran, the ongoing disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and the threats arising everywhere else on our already stretched too thin military. I was also going to write about the fact that the next President will inherit a military that will likely have barely functional equipment, subpar armor and weapons and will have the lowest morale in my lifetime. And while that is all relevant, we now know that the bar has now been moved to 2013 by none other than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in terms of when they can “bring our troops home”, as Rahm said.

Oh sure, we have the “we won’t get into hypothetical situations” line that Senator Clinton has become fond of and is now being adopted by other candidates. But the bottom line is that the Presidential primaries are a job interview for the Presidency and we, the ones who are interviewing you for that position want to know how you would perform in that capacity.


And if we can’t even get a commitment for the ONE THING that we were promised, when it is clear as day that sitting on your hands is not remotely close to all that you can do now to move us away from never ending war.

There is no accountability for this debacle. There is no plan for getting us out in the next eighteen months. Or to even try.

And that is a dangerous proposition for the Congressional Democratic leadership to be putting forth at this point in time. Dangerous for our troops, dangerous for the Iraqi people, dangerous for America’s security, dangerous for America’s economy and dangerous for your reelection prospects.

If you think that the independents who are sick of the occupation in Iraq, the never ending stream of billions of dollars sunk there and the complete lack of accountability to the troops and the American people by Mister Bush and now, members of the Congressional Democratic leadership like Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and even those who are running for President, then you are sorely mistaken. Despite the overwhelming disgust for the republican corruption and lack of caring for the needs of We the People, there are many who will see this as “more of the same” or “what’s the difference between the two parties”.

Now, I am not one of those people, but there are millions of them in this country. These people are not stupid. These people want out of Iraq. They know that Congress can defund the occupation and want Congress to do this in increasing numbers. To wait for “the next President” to bring our troops home is lazy and disingenuous.

And we now know that it is patently false, since the top three contenders on the Democratic side have joined all of the republican candidates (except for Ron Paul) in keeping our troops in Iraq.

How will you explain the difference between the parties to all of those independent voters and undecided voters?


Anonymous said...

spyder jackets spyder jackets spyder ski jackets [url=]spyder jackets[/url]

Anonymous said...

ijphnkmsq buwvfyqgl oojuigtid [url=]cheap north face jackets[/url] rcvnduabu wpwpsyrjq tbiltrlrp [url=]the north face on sale[/url] inknlfzzr ewfxrkvdt kuxmqylop [url=]north face jacekts[/url] udwalimwq klbigdchg jjrhquulw

Related articles: