DR. STRANGELOVE, AGAIN?
How long? Bush’s general, David Petraeus, who was sent to Iraq last year with a surge of more troops to produce quick results, has now said that a 50-year U.S. presence there would be a “realistic assessment.” And, indeed, well before the surge, the Pentagon was building a dozen permanent American bases in Iraq.
Then comes Sen. John McCain, a big backer of Bush’s surge, declaring that he supports an ongoing occupation and permanent military bases there. He even has a fantasy that you and I would be happy with that, declaring:
“I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years,” as long as we don’t have too many troop deaths.
Aside from Bush, Buckshot Cheney, and Halliburton executives, what “Americans” is McCain talking about?
Even with deaths in Iraq down in the past few weeks, polls consistently show that the public overwhelmingly thinks this occupation is a horrible mistake, that Bush is doing a poor job, and that we need a short timetable for withdrawal. Also, does McCain really think Americans want endless trillions of our tax dollars thrown down the bottomless hole of that divided country? There are a few more important needs to spend money on in our country.
We the People must demand not only the quick withdrawal of all of our troops from the deadly sectarian violence of this civil war, but also the defunding of permanent American bases in Iraq.
“McCain’s Imperial Plan,” www.americanprogressaction.org , January 7, 2008
PS: John McCain is not the only presidential candidate who has talked about a permanent US presence in Iraq. Hillary Clinton on Sept. 23, 2005, after meeting with anti-war Mom Cindy Sheehan said - "I happen to think that fighting for freedom is a noble cause. There are lots of things wrong with how Bush did it. I believe we should have gone through with the inspection process and acted through the U.N. But I believe that standing up against someone as dangerous as Saddam was a good goal.”
RAD: When Slick Willie was president the Bush/Powell No Fly Zone regime was in place. One assumes given Hillary's role as the "co-president" that she concurred in restraint then. Why did she change her mind in 2002? Answer, the politics of 9/11 - she is the Senator from NY after all. Duh.
Hillary also rebuffed Sheehan's demand that she lead the charge to get the U.S. out of Iraq ASAP. "I think it is a much more complicated situation," Clinton explained. "I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw."
RAD: If Iraq was "more complicated" in 2005 what has made it less so in 2008?
Hillary has triangulated her way around the war in Iraq since her ill fated vote in favor of the war in 2002. Her late term conversion since the New Hampshire primary calling for an immediate withdrawal appears to be another triangulation.
If elected president what would she really do if faced with generals who say the surge has worked? We know how Bill gave in to Colin Powell on gays in the military in 1993 - "don't ask, don't tell."
What will Hillary do on her watch when the issue is not PC, but when the military industrial complex comes calling? Will she triangulate and do a "Condi Rice?"
Reader Comments