Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democratic presidential candidates: US troops could stay in Iraq until 2013

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 11:19 PM
Original message
Democratic presidential candidates: US troops could stay in Iraq until 2013
Looks like the Democratic establishment wants to take ownership of the Iraq War. 2013 my ass!

Democratic presidential candidates: US troops could stay in Iraq until 2013

By Bill Van Auken
28 September 2007

The Democratic Party’s pretense of opposing the war in Iraq has largely collapsed following a series of defeats in the US Senate last week of Democratic-sponsored legislation proposing timetables for partial “redeployment” of the more than 160,000 troops currently occupying the country.

Nothing could make clearer the real position of the party, however, than the Democratic debate Wednesday night in New Hampshire, in which all three of the party’s leading presidential candidates—Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards—refused to commit themselves, if elected, to withdrawing all American troops from Iraq by the beginning of their second term—in 2013.

<snip>

The claim by all the leading candidates that a substantial US military force will be required in Iraq indefinitely to protect the US embassy is particularly telling. This American-built fortress, occupying a 65-acre compound, is by far the biggest embassy on the planet and is built to accommodate a staff of over 1,100.

What is being prepared in this massive structure is not a diplomatic mission, but a colonial-style administration that is meant to continue wielding the real power in Iraq. For such a project, large numbers of American troops would indeed be needed for many years and even decades to come.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/iraq-s28.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Trisket-Bisket Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why doesn't WSWS ever change anything?
Is it taking the easy way to whine and bitch from the bleachers?

Has this party ever elected anybody to any office in this century?

No, that would queer the self-righteous excuse for being a loser.

That is the way I see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. When all three of them said that we would be in Iraq
through the end of their first term, they lost my vote. I was deeply offended and deeply disappointed. We can't even begin to change our financial situation until we get out of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC