Perpetual War

Force projection, baby. It's all about the force projection.

What kind of numbers are we talking about? That would make a difference.

"she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."

"Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence -- even if it descended into ethnic cleansing."

This seems rather disingenous, if not incoherent. Exactly what is encompassed by "fighting Al Qaeda" in Iraq? I presume this means preventing the Salafist or Al Qaeda-like elements of the Sunni resistance from establishing a political foothold in Iraq, and possibly even establishing an Islamic state based on reactionary Salafist principles (sort of like Saudi Arabia) - a state which they have already declared in some parts of the country. These groups are responsible for the bulk of the daily meat-grinding slaughters constituting the sectarian violence in Iraq. They are the ones setting off all those truck bombs. So how is it exactly that Clinton plans to "fight Al Qaeda in Iraq" while at the same time not protecting Iraqis from sectarian violence? These are substantially the same operation at this point. It's either one or the other.

If one really does want to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, then the way to do it is to empower the Shia and Kurdish groups who have been fighting these elements all along, and to foster strong Iran-Iraq ties leading to a potent and durable foundation for the security of the Iraqi government following a US departure. The Shia community, and the Iraqi government it dominates, will only be able to stave off a full-out, Saudi backed assault by the Sunni insurgency if they are able to draw on economic and security support from their neighbors to the east.

Of course, the administration itself seems to have relinquished the goal of fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, and has decided to empower the reactionary Sunni movements, with the aid of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states in the region, in order to fight Iran instead. In a pattern not much different from Afghanistan in the 80's, they are exploiting the zeal of radical Sunni Islamist jihadists to take on Iran and its allies in Iraq, hyping a new regional Shia-Sunni Cold war in the region (with a pronounced US tilt toward the Sunni side), and are thereby encouraging the influx of more of these holy warriors into Iraq. They have decided to get more cozy with the people who have been killing our soldiers in substantial numbers since the war began, so as to use them against the people who have not been killing our soldiers in substantial numbers. And they are consequently making the lives of the soldier-killers easier, and helping them do their job.

I wonder where the usual stab-in-the-back theorists are on this? I would think that switching sides in a war, and supporting your army's enemies, would count as a classic stab in the proverbial back.

Clinton is, of course, determined to be on all sides of this struggle at once, based on the polls and interest group pressures of the moment.

A question I always find myself asking when reading these articles is how much politicians twist their words to fit conventional wisdom, and how much they actually believe. Does Hillary relieve believe herself when she says:

"The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said."

If? If Iraq had been turned into a failed state. That's rich.

This part is also interesting, given recent discussion:

"It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”"

Israel's interests eh? On a side note, what does she mean by "interests of regimes"? Iran and Syria?

Just despicable,

This is the ultimate 'blame Iraqis' strategy. We'll keep all the worst aspects of the occupation, which will in themselves guarantee that there is no chance of things improving. As long as we're there, there IS an occupation and violence will continue and it will be impossible for any Iraqi government to establish any rule that can establish legitimacy while we have our tropps there.

But we will minimize the things that cause Americans distress: our involvement in day-to-day combat and our casualties. Let the Iraqis figure out this impossible puzzle, coz fuck'em, it's all their fault anyway.

This plan combines the worst of all possible scenarios: it doesn't do anything to make things better like staying there and really helping security would; and it increases the odds of things getting worse by us being there.

I don't think it's that unwise of a policy. For two reasons:

1. Because there is a moral responsibility to help the people that the US put in that shoddy position.

2. Because as sure as we are about certain policies,like let's say withdrawal, the truth is that the situation with possesses a multitude of permutations and possibilities it can go. Completely disengaging means that the US would remove itself from some situations where her presence could play a constructive role. For example, while I do not think that the US can solve the situation on her own right now, I think that with the possibility of an all out civil war breaking out loose; a civil war that would entail a large degree of ethnic cleansing and possibly a regional war, a US military presence could be the pivotal factor towards the direction of stability.

Also, if one makes the argument that a completely withdrawn US could intervene if such a case would arise, I can make the counter-argument that a complete withdrawal might create a dynamic where such an option would be possible.

Again, for all these reasons, Hillary's position - a position which recognizes american failure in certain crucial areas and thus withdraws from them, but keeps american troops as an instrument for future opportunities- looks wise to me.

The one thing HRC makes clear is that she, like almost all US "leaders", views Iraq as America's latest colony and limits her concerns for Iraq to American and Israeli interests.
Speaking like a Czarina she hasn't the decency to apply even the fig leaf of suggesting that she might respond to independent Iraqi demands.
Oil and Israel. Oil and Israel. Oil and Israel
So do we, as MY suggests, give her points for honesty?
Hell no!
Aware that she has irretrievably lost the anti-war vote she has instead tailored her position to that of "the middle".
It is the same thinking which led her to vote for the war, a vote she will never repudiate.
It is the thinking of the DLC as MY correctly notes.
And it is deeply and cynically dishonest.
Among other points she is saying that she would accept a second Clinton Rwanda, the US acting as bouncer keeping other interests out as Sunni/Shia warfare roils Iraq.
Does anyone believe that likely or even possible?
Does anyone believe that the US can protect oil wells while seeing children blown up? Of course not because there is no clear bright line between national and international terrorists.
There really are just two choices, the Bush plan or the Murtha.
HRC's attempt to have it both ways, her Potemkin village of an Iraq policy, is just another reminder of her abiding dishonesty and pervasive contempt for her putative subjects.

As a mere foreigner, I'm moved to ask whether there's any plausible Democratic candidate who's likely to regard the Iraqi government (whatever that may be at the time) as a stakeholder in these calculations.

Yes; "just despicable," a despicable stance, destructive of Iraq and America and of the Democratic Party. Though we have known who Hillary Clinton is, I am nonetheless shocked by how meanspirited. Despicable.

I've been saying for weeks, particularly on MyDD where I'm mysteriously not allowed to sign in anymore, that Hillary has no intention of ending the war in Iraq. I doubt that she's even scale the operations there down. Instead, she'll seize some incident that happens shortly after her inauguration and declare that it's a reason why we have to stay another 6 months. When those 6 months are up, she'll use another incident similarly, until her term as President is over. I'm also fairly certain that Hillary will start a war with Iran, her ties to AIPAC are just to strong.

It's always been pretty obvious how Edwards or Obama or some as-yet unknown quantity will beat Hillary. It's the same way they'll beat the Republican nominee. Make your campaign about the war, the war, and nothing but the war. Make pointed remarks at every debate and flood the airwaves with accusations over it. That's what you do when you hold a position the vast majority of the country holds and that your opponent won't be able to articulate.

Can you please explain why you think this is equivalent to perpetual war? It can't be because she doesn't want to bring all the troops home in the next year or so; we're not in perpetual war in the Balkans, are we? Korea (whatever the technical fact about an unended war)? Germany?

So is it because what she is calling for here in reality will guarantee that we don't draw down troops in any significant number, that we don't really stop our massive military presence and action in Iraq?

My own view is that most Democratic politicians haven't even thought this far. They've just latched on to the ISG's bit about withdrawing combat forces or whatever, shifting to smaller numbers and training and advising. It's not necessarily their responsibility to think further at this point. But my criticism of the Democratic foreign policy establishment wouldn't be that they embrace something like this, but that they embrace, however uneasily, the surge, as something worth a shot.

I'll also add to Dan Kaufman above that if you really believe your 1. - which I do - then Clinton's plan is completely irresponsible, since she is very very explicit that she is abandoning Iraqis to their fate as far as sectarian violence goes.

Is the aversion to any sense of moral responsibility to Iraqis here just a matter of ought implies can and there's nothing we can do to avert a humanitarian disaster? If there were something we could do, would we in your view have a responsibility to do something about it?

Yes, and here's a newsflash- if elected, Clinton will not be rolling back those Presidential Power-grabs Bush has been making.

Well, who knows- maybe we'll need a sort of dictator to deal with global warming, someone who can directly make the will of the people into the seizure of offending industries and the exile of those who would interpose the rule of law between us and meaningful action to halt global warming.

Between the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, the legal tools are in place for some brutal and effective action against the upper classes. Will nobody rid us of that pesky WSJ?

Jeff: "Can you please explain why you think this is equivalent to perpetual war? It can't be because she doesn't want to bring all the troops home in the next year or so; we're not in perpetual war in the Balkans, are we? Korea (whatever the technical fact about an unended war)? Germany?"

Oh, Jesus H. F*cking Chr*st, this argument was stupid back when it was first brought up by right-wingers, a few years ago. I'll assume that you just need an explanation, and aren't being deliberately dishonest:

WE AREN'T AT WAR IN KOREA, GERMAN OR THE BALKANS!
WE ARE AT WAR IN IRAQ!

Get it?

"So is it because what she is calling for here in reality will guarantee that we don't draw down troops in any significant number, that we don't really stop our massive military presence and action in Iraq?"

'War', Jeff, not 'military presence and action'.

'I'll also add to Dan Kaufman above that if you really believe your 1. - which I do - then Clinton's plan is completely irresponsible, since she is very very explicit that she is abandoning Iraqis to their fate as far as sectarian violence goes.'

We already have abandoned Iraqis to that fate. Actually, we did our damnedest to bring that fate to the Iraqis.

"Is the aversion to any sense of moral responsibility to Iraqis here just a matter of ought implies can and there's nothing we can do to avert a humanitarian disaster? If there were something we could do, would we in your view have a responsibility to do something about it?"

Now I know that you're lying - the old 'we have a responsibility' lie, favored by those who were in bed with Saddam, and who merely wanted war, and who brought us to the current state.

For baby boomers perpetual war is the norm. We were children during Korea, adolescents and young adults (and maybe participants and casualties) during Viet Nam. A partial respite follows peppered with various small wars and incursions (Grenada, Libya, Iran) before the Balkans and Gulf War One. Now Iraq and Gulf War II. You, your kids, your grandkids and all the generations that follow them will read about and fight wars. Hillary's specific policy on Iraq is important. But if it wasn't Iraq it'd be some other war her position intrigued and concerned us. And there'd be many of us hoping she wanted us out and many of us wanting her to forge ahead in the battle. Nothing changes except those doing the dying and those doing the killing.

I say we give her credit for honesty. She could have more easily pulled a Nixon, promising to get us out in some unspecified way, and then reneging on it once she was elected. Instead, she has staked out a reasonably clear position which is different from those of Edwards and Obama. Now, we can have an honest debate about what to do, which will (hopefully) result in Obama being the nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/l03iraq.html

Is It Time to Leave Iraq?

To the Editor:

"Empty Words on Iraq":

My son, a 19-year-old American marine, is scheduled to be sent on the "deadly fool's errand" to Iraq in September. I live with constant fear that he, too, will be pointlessly injured, maimed or killed in this "obvious quagmire."

Unspeakable horrors, as in the town of Haditha, are creating victims of both innocent Iraqis and young Americans being exploited for their patriotic ideals by leaders who support the war but don't, in fact, support the troops.

I have opposed the war since its beginning. Now, three years on, with my own son's participation in it looming, I'm living the ultimate nightmare where I'm screaming and no one — but no one — is listening.

Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, June 2, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/opinion/l12herbert.html

Is This 'Supporting the Troops'?

To the Editor:

My 20-year-old son is nearing the end of his first deployment to Iraq with the United States Marines. Only a few days ago, we learned that he received a commendation for initiative and bravery for pulling wounded and dead Iraqi soldiers out of a bus hit by a roadside bomb during a recent midnight convoy.

Specifically, he was recognized for "tirelessly moving multiple wounded Iraqis to the casualty collection point and loading them on the medivac helicopters ... and also volunteering to help collect the dead and ensuring that they were evaluated."

It's bad enough that my son is risking his life fighting a war that was waged on lies and deception. How infinitely more galling it is to realize that his value to the Bush administration wouldn't even merit decent care at Walter Reed if he were wounded or disabled.

Bob Herbert is right about the troops being shortchanged: it's something I never thought that America would do either.

My son has been commended for extending a degree of professionalism, respect and devotion to duty in aiding wounded Iraqi soldiers that the United States government doesn't extend to its own troops.

The horror, the horror.

Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, March 8, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/l18iraq.html

The Relentless Tragedy Called Iraq

To the Editor:

"Insurgent Bombs Directed at G.I.'s Increase in Iraq":

I can't help but compare your headline with President Bush's bizarre remarks on Wednesday: "There's some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They're not bad people when they say that, they're decent people":

"President Joins in G.O.P. Attacks on Democrats About Terrorism."

You better believe I'm a decent person — and a decent mother whose 19-year-old United States Marine son is being deployed to Iraq next month to face a deadly, targeted anti-American insurgency that has nothing to do with the "war on terror."

Why should my son, or any other mother's son, be sacrificed in a mounting civil war because it's not politically advantageous for the Bush administration to admit that its Iraq policy has failed?

My decency is suffused with bitterness.

Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, Aug. 17, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/l10iraq.html

This Time, a True Strategy for Iraq?

To the Editor:

"Quagmire of the Vanities":

Paul Krugman is right: gambling on the Iraq war is much easier "when the lives at stake are those of other people's children." Except that it is my son, a 20-year-old United States marine stationed in Falluja, whose life is being gambled with.

It is my son whose blood may yet protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong. And it is my son whose 3,000-plus comrades-in-service have already paid the ultimate price for fighting another nation's civil war.

After four years of pointless, fruitless, uninstigated combat, if President Bush indeed escalates the "sacrifice" of other parents' beloved children — against all reason, against the will of the electorate and without any personal sacrifice to call his own — it would not be vanity. It is called tyranny.

Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, Jan. 8, 2007

Hillary Clinton was for war before the war, for occupation before the occupation, for continuing occupation and war forever. Enough, we need to leave Iraq, immediately, and I will work for Barack Obama and John Edwards and never ever support or vote for Clinton no matter the circumstances.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903EED9163EF930A15756C0A9629C8B63

The Hawks on Iraq, And My Lost Son

To the Editor:

In ''The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts,'' you note that the shapers of thoughts and architects of the war now have troubling doubts about their enthusiastic support of the invasion of Iraq. How sad for them.

I am the mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker of the Pennsylvania National Guard, soldier 720. That number is seared on my soul now, along with the screams and despair of my family and the wind carrying the sound of taps above the weeping crowd at the grave site of my son.

To me and mine, the consequences of the failed judgment and outright lies of the Bush administration and its apologists and spokesmen are not just becoming ''depressed'' or ''angst-ridden.'' We have lost our brave and beloved son, who was ordered to the war these folks dreamed of and hoped for.

The explosion that killed my son in Baghdad will go on in our lives forever. Sherwood gave the full measure of his responsibility as an American citizen doing his duty for an administration that betrayed him.

CELESTE ZAPPALA
Philadelphia, May 17, 2004

The falsity and deception in the drive to war and occupation was mass destructive weapons, which Sherwood Baker was assigned to search for when he was killed in Iraq. Now the falsity and deception for a forever occupation from Hillary Clinton is "Al Qaeda." Always we are supposed to be driven by fear and falsity.

Anne,
I'm with you. All the reasons Clinton gives are full of holes. The Taliban and al Queda are coming back from their hole in Wizaristan, while we are messing around in Iraq so that Exxon and BP can get their oil. Whose Oil is it, Anyway?

I find it impossible to be able to judge Hillary as an individual candidate. Isn't this Iraq strategy coming out of her mouth actually a classic Bill Clinton move, i.e., usurp an position of importance to the Republican party.... co-opting and triangulating it?

We already have an untenable situation where the current President is the weak figurehead and the Vice is the real power. That Republican 'arrangement' was started when Cheney self-selected himself for Veep, forestalling all those who feared that Bush couldn't lead the country by himself.

I am aghast at the situation of Hillary's campaign whereby the same ploy is in progress, with the not so subtle references to 'the Clintons', and frequent references to the 'Clinton years' by supporters who answer about Bill Clinton whenever Hillary's credentials are examined.....all suggesting that Hillary is strong because she has a strong Bill by her side. I would like to ask people to imagine whether Hillary has the ability to lead by herself.

At least we know where she stands, which is better than Lieberman did. She's more honest than Lieberman (a relatively small task, I'll admit). Now we can thank her for her honesty and candor and nominate someone else who actually wants to do what most Americans want to do.

Yes; Russ rightfully calls our attention to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?ex=1331438400&en=b451250c7648123b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 13, 2007

Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?
By ANTONIA JUHASZ

....

Donna rightfully calls our attention to the joined responsibility of Bill Clinton in noting the terrible callousness of Hillary Clinton.

Obama's plan (offered at the end of January) actually states the same thing as Hillary just did - it allows for a residual force to remain in Iraq.

Barack Obama was against the war before the war and against occupation before occupation and has these last months repeatedly asked that we leave Iraq. What have I missed?

Obama: "The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces."

This furore is handy for Senator Clinton, she gets credit for candor and her fellow Democratic presidential candidates take a hit, since their supporters were not aware that their positions are identical to hers.

Democrats were elected largely to end the war in and occupation of Iraq, and the well-being of the Party will depend on honoring what I hold as a promise. John Murtha was called a coward, a cutter and runner, in the House of Representatives always before he could finish calling for leaving Iraq. The call of Murtha is still there, and has to be honoroed for Democrats to be a meaningful opposition or governing Party.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

[Barack Obama wants us out of Iraq. This is vastly different than the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton, who wants us to remain in Iraq.]

Barack Obama was against the war before the war and against occupation before occupation and has these last months repeatedly asked that we leave Iraq. What have I missed?

Why then did Obama vote against a phased withdrawal? Why did he offer a bill for withdrawal that leaves a big loophole for Bush to exploit? Why does he use GOP talking points when arguing against defunding the war?

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

This is apparently Hillary's position. I'm not a fan of Hillary, but she has the exact same position as Obama on withdrawal.

Thank you, Clark. I do not have answers to your fine questions other than to note that if Barack Obama does not support leaving Iraq in no uncertain terms than I will give over support for Obama. I will support only a candidate who calls for leaving Iraq. If there is no such candidate among the leading Democrats, I will be terribly sad. I only know now could never vote for Hillary Clinton.

No; Hillary Clinton is asking for troops to remain in Iraq while she is President. Barack Obama is doing no such thing. Obama wishes to pull troops from Iraq in 2008. there is a veast difference.

The problem is the hypocrisy and deceit and fear-mongering of Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama or John Edwards are entirely different. I thoroughly reject Clinton.

Ahem! From Barack Obama's own plan (the one you cited!!):

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

Add me to those who think Clinton is right on this one. A small force in an area easily supplied from accross a friendly border allows us to do many things including: prevent set piece battles with tanks, artillery, etc. between combatants, destroy al-Qaeda training camps, discourage Turkey from invading the Kurdish areas and provide air support if the Iraqi army gets in trouble against a large force. We become the calvary over the hill which makes it possible for the homesteaders to settle an area. Iran has and will have major influence politically in Iraq, but their aims and ours do not have to be a zero sum game.

Barry

Tempting as it is just to tell you you're a fucking moron, let me explain it instead, since it's brief and easy.

The issue is how we end the war in Iraq. I take it you're not so stupid not to realize that at point A we were at war in the Balkans, in Korea and in Germany; at point B, later in time, we were no longer at war in either of those places, but we still had a substantial military presence there. The point - which I take it your not so arrogant not to be able to recognize - is that ending the war in Iraq need not be equivalent to the complete absence of a military presence there.

So of course the very thing I'm questioning in the post here is why Matt equates Clinton's recommendations with endless war. I hope to get an answer from him, since all you're likely to offer is abuse - and not a bit of thought.

Exhibit E or F of your thoughtlessness:

We already have abandoned Iraqis to that fate.

This is just a complete dodge, so you don't have to think about the difference between what is happening now and what might happen were we to simply withdraw all forces. In effect, we'd be siding with the Shiites whom we have armed and trained in the civil war. This is an easy route to Dick Cheney's preferred solution, the 80% solution. Sometimes also known as genocide.

Now I know that you're lying - the old 'we have a responsibility' lie, favored by those who were in bed with Saddam, and who merely wanted war, and who brought us to the current state.

It's too bad you are so thoughtless as not to be able to recognize the difference between before the war and now that we have actually wrecked Iraq and ruined the lives of millions of perfectly innocent Iraqis. I did think earlier in your comment you recognized it, when you mentioned our responsibility for the situation the Iraqis find themselves in. But I guess when it doesn't suit you, you don't. It's so much easier to accuse someone of lying.

It's one thing if you want to argue there's nothing we can do to make it less bad. Fine. That may well be. That's one of the questions I was raising. But simply being a thoughtless monster is going to get you very far.

Barry

Tempting as it is just to tell you you're a fucking moron, let me explain it instead, since it's brief and easy.

The issue is how we end the war in Iraq. I take it you're not so stupid not to realize that at point A we were at war in the Balkans, in Korea and in Germany; at point B, later in time, we were no longer at war in either of those places, but we still had a substantial military presence there. The point - which I take it your not so arrogant not to be able to recognize - is that ending the war in Iraq need not be equivalent to the complete absence of a military presence there.

So of course the very thing I'm questioning in the post here is why Matt equates Clinton's recommendations with endless war. I hope to get an answer from him, since all you're likely to offer is abuse - and not a bit of thought.

Exhibit E or F of your thoughtlessness:

We already have abandoned Iraqis to that fate.

This is just a complete dodge, so you don't have to think about the difference between what is happening now and what might happen were we to simply withdraw all forces. In effect, we'd be siding with the Shiites whom we have armed and trained in the civil war. This is an easy route to Dick Cheney's preferred solution, the 80% solution. Sometimes also known as genocide.

Now I know that you're lying - the old 'we have a responsibility' lie, favored by those who were in bed with Saddam, and who merely wanted war, and who brought us to the current state.

It's too bad you are so thoughtless as not to be able to recognize the difference between before the war and now that we have actually wrecked Iraq and ruined the lives of millions of perfectly innocent Iraqis. I did think earlier in your comment you recognized it, when you mentioned our responsibility for the situation the Iraqis find themselves in. But I guess when it doesn't suit you, you don't. It's so much easier to accuse someone of lying.

It's one thing if you want to argue there's nothing we can do to make it less bad. Fine. That may well be. That's one of the questions I was raising. But simply being a thoughtless monster is going to get you very far.

Well, allow me to say that we need to leave Iraq immediately. Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton alone has betrayed principle and I will bitterly oppose her from this day along with any number of other Democrats. Iraq is not our country to occupy. We are not to be colonialists. This occupation is physically destroying Iraq and morally destroying America.

Interestingly, every conversation I have had this morning made clear just how much Hillary Clinton's stance is resented and will rightfully not be forgiven.

Obviously this has nothing to do with the fact that Mrs. Clinton understands even her liberal detractors are opposed not to American Empire (so long as it has the imprimatur of the UN and the approval of France) but to Mr. Bush's Iraq War.

My impression is that most of what passes for the Democratic national security establishment agrees with Clinton. I think you're right, and that's a big problem.

Hillary's new Iraq plan has all the clarity, simplicity and political appeal of her old health insurance plan.Questioning Bush's tactics but not the premises of his policy, her plan triangulates by half steps and half measures to perpetuate the morass we find ourselves in. It seems destined to fail. Like her ill-fated health insurance proposal of 1993, it offers bewildering complexity when bold initiatives are called for. If, by some miracle, the plan survives the Democratic primaries, it would most likely destroy any administration that tried to implement it. The American people want out of Iraq, and this doesn't do it.

Before Hillary and the other Democrats totally take over ownership of this war, they need to realize that the real issue facing the American public is no longer just Iraq. The real issue is whether we should get out of the business of empire before we expend even more treasure, both human and financial, destroy our democracy, and bankrupt our nation.

The plan in Iraq has always been to leave about 50,000 soldiers there in the permanent US bases that have been constructed. Every single sitting Senator knows or should know this as they vote on bills that authorized the funds for building said bases. There's a reason so many of them dance around this question, especially people who want to be president. The presidential aspirants, Biden most obviously, see themselves in command of those troops when in office. So they don't look so bad to them.

Madison Guy, a fine comment.

"Before Hillary and the other Democrats totally take over ownership of this war, they need to realize that the real issue facing the American public is no longer just Iraq. The real issue is whether we should get out of the business of empire before we expend even more treasure, both human and financial, destroy our democracy, and bankrupt our nation."

Hillary Clinton is not a progressive candidate. Her policy decisions are premised on political calculations, not statesmanship. Please don't vote for her.

I suppose she'll still be better than the GOP candidate on some issues. Too bad. I'm not going to vote for keeping any troops in Iraq.

I thought I was going to be able to watch the campaign unfold and observe and reflect in a rational and dispassionate way.

However, I have had some very negative visceral reactions to Hillary. The first was the flare up with Obama. I had a flashback from that strong whiff of privileged self-righteousness and their need for power justifying all means... “destroy thy enemy at all costs”. They are just too corrupt. The Marc Rich pardone does says it all.

The waffling on the immorality of gays and the “I’ve got big balls” on Iraq has sealed the deal for me.

The country does need to move on from the Bush and Clinton dynasties. They do share a sense of entitlement and arrogance that we could all do without.

Assuming that there was a liberal media bias, we didn't believe the media, even though they were correct. The obvious solution, now that the media is vindicated and we were proven wrong, is to correct the liberal media bias which, as I just stated, only existed in our imaginations.

av av

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

thanks

ı have you flowers

thanks.

very nice...

Thanks your article

I am glad to have the change to read all. Very useful information for all who has interest in this area. I personaly had great advantage from these informations..

mylesef.com

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Thnx :

thanks you

Thanks for you sites..

SDFDSFDSFSDFSDF

SADSADSADSADSAD

SADSADASDASDASDASD

thanks

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

geciktirici

Erotik Shop | Geciktirici | Penis Büyütücü | Bayan Azdırıcı | Göğüs Büyütücü | Ereksiyon Geciktirici | Penis Büyüt | Azdırıcı | sex shop | Geciktirici sprey | Azdırıcı damla | Seks shop | v-pills | Eros Geciktirici | Penis Büyütme | cialis | Levitra | lovagra | dooz forte | vprx | Ereksiyon İlacı | Kayganlaştırıcı Krem | Azdırıcı Kahve | Azdırıcı Toz | Zayıflatıcı | Zayıflama Bandı | fx15 | Ti-ji |

Erotik Shop | Geciktirici | Penis Büyütücü | Bayan Azdırıcı | Göğüs Büyütücü | Ereksiyon Geciktirici | Penis Büyüt | Azdırıcı | sex shop | Geciktirici sprey | Azdırıcı damla | Seks shop | v-pills | Eros Geciktirici | Penis Büyütme | cialis | Levitra | lovagra | dooz forte | vprx | Ereksiyon İlacı | Kayganlaştırıcı Krem | Azdırıcı Kahve | Azdırıcı Toz | Zayıflatıcı | Zayıflama Bandı | fx15 | Ti-ji |

seks.com

seks.com

seks.com

sex shop

sex shop

gömlekçi

gömlek

oryantal kostüm

gömlekçi

gömlekçi

oryantal kostüm

http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html

thank you

thans

hıı ı lowe you

thanks for all

thanks ...

thanks saol thax

thanks admin..

thanks good subject

thanks. erotik shop

thanks.
erotik shop

thanks seks shop

thanks azdırıcı damla

thanks afrodizyak

fantazi iç giyim

thanks Şişme Bebekler

feromon parfüm

güvenli alışveriş

thank you very good
mirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirc inndir
mirc yükle
mırc
türkçe mirc
mirc download
kameralı mirc
kaçak
kaçak script
kelebek
kelebek indir
kelebek script indir
indir
sohbet
chat
chat sohbet
sohbet sitesi
chat sitesi
film indir
divx film indir
divx indir
film izle
dizi izle
mp4 film indir

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc

Thanks

Fibercement
Dış cephe
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe
Dış cephe
Dışcephe
Güvenlik
Dış cephe
Fibercement
Fibercement

http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html
http://www.izokon.com/sss.html
http://www.izokon.com/fiberust.doc
http://hekimboard.blogcu.com
http://www.izokon.com/style.css
http://www.izokon.com/sitemap.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunlergiris.html
http://www.izokon.com/hbteknik.doc
http://izokon.blogspot.com/2008/06/hekimboard-fibercement.html
http://izokon.blogspot.com
http://fibercement-kaplama.blogspot.com/