truth-monger

Yep, you heard right, the sissy Femocrats are now saying what is so
obviously true. Shrillary and Osama and Breck Girl and Dennis the
Menace and all the rest are starting to acknowledge truth, for a
change.

So, who's got the 'just a bumper sticker' slogan now?

Femocrats know they have no chance with their former anti-war stance.
George McGovern, the anti-war Democrat who lost in a landslide in 1972
even says so about today's Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us...gewanted=print

August 12, 2007
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
By JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA

DES MOINES, Aug. 11 - 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 region 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.

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.

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!"

On the other side of the spectrum is Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of
Delaware, who has proposed setting up separate regions for the three
major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central
government is established before removing most American troops.

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.

"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."

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.

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."

So while the senators' views expressed on the campaign trail do not
conflict with their votes in Congress, particularly to set a deadline
for withdrawal, they are grappling as candidates with the possibility
of a sustained military presence in Iraq, addressing questions about
America's responsibility to Iraqi civilians as well as guarding
against the terrorism threat in the region.

Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem
to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to
do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And
what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the
staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the
United States?

"While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to bring the troops
home, the question is what is the plan beyond that?" said Gov. Chet
Culver of Iowa, a Democrat. "The first candidate running for
president, I think on either side, who can best articulate that will
win."

Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of
war protest, particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase
of the debate seems to be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the
Democrats latitude to take positions short of a full and immediate
withdrawal. Neither MoveOn.org nor its affiliated group, Americans
Against Escalation in Iraq, have sought to press Democrats here in
Iowa to suggest anything short of ending the war immediately.

"Of course we would like to get them out right now. That sounds
wonderful," said Sue Dinsdale, who leads the Iowa chapter of Americans
Against Escalation in Iraq and has seen nearly all of the Democratic
candidates. "I don't think that people realize what their specific
plans are and what they are saying about it, but just that they are
working to end the war."

The leading Republican candidates have largely chosen not to wrestle
publicly with Iraq policy questions, instead deferring to President
Bush and waiting until Gen. David H. Petraeus delivers a progress
report next month on the troop buildup this year.

While the Democrats talk exhaustively about Iraq, a review of the
remarks they have made during campaign stops over the last six months
leaves little ambiguity in their message: If the president refuses to
end the war, they will.

To accomplish that goal, they all discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy
in the region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a
phased withdrawal of troops to begin as soon as possible. But their
statements in campaign settings are often silent on the problems of
how to disengage and what tradeoffs might be necessary.

"It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less
safe," Mr. Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly
despite the pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last
month.

Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making "bringing the troops
home" a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi
government would be simple: "I would say 'I'm sorry, it's over. We are
not going to baby-sit a civil war.' "

Both candidates, in interviews or debates, have said that they would
not support intervening in a genocidal war should the majority Shiites
slaughter Sunnis - and Sunnis retaliate - on a much greater scale than
now takes place.

Mr. Edwards, who has suggested that he would intervene in a genocide,
has tried to position himself as the more forceful antiwar candidate
by criticizing both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama for not pushing hard
enough in the Senate to bring the troops home.

"There are differences between us," Mr. Edwards said in a June debate.
"I think there is a difference between making very clear when the
crucial moment comes, on Congress ending this war, what your position
is and standing quiet."

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has called for the United
States military to "begin redeploying immediately." In a debate this
week in Chicago, he said: "We can do so with two and a half divisions
coming out each month, done safely and reasonably well."

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq has created its "Iraq Summer"
campaign to persuade members of Congress to support legislation
changing course in Iraq. While the group is focusing on Republicans
across the country, including deploying a blimp to fly above the Iowa
straw poll on Saturday, it has not weighed in on the Democratic side
of the presidential race and the fact that several Democratic
candidates call for an extended but limited military commitment in
Iraq. "We are in a good position when leaders are debating the best
way to bring our troops home," said Moira Mack, a group spokeswoman,
"rather than whether or not to bring them home."

Marc Santora contributed reporting from New York.

j carroll

1/20/09: End of an Error

That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First

If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran

Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President

Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant

Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore

One Nation, Under Surveillance

They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It

Who's God Do You Kill For?

Cheney/Satan '08

Jail to the Chief

No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?

Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full of Crap

Bad President! No Banana.

We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language

We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

Is It Vietnam Yet?

Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either

Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.

Impeach Cheney First

Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too

When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46

Pray For Impeachment

The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?

One Nation Under Clod

2004: Embarrassed
2005: Horrified
2006: Terrified

Bush Never Exhaled

At Least Nixon Resigned


--
John R. Carroll

www.machiningsolution.com

truth-monger

Typical dumb atheist. You'd be better off in Iran, where un-religious
ppl get killed. You sure don't appreciate that nothingness atheists
still have freedom in USA.

And what's with 2004, 2005, 2006? Nothing different happened, except
for the propaganda.

Wake up!! ISLAM uses PROPAGANDA!! You be a gullible guppy!