Posted on 12/06/2005 12:44:19 AM PST by rdb3
Carl P. Leubsdorf:
If it's not settled by '08, the 'Iraq question' could split the Democratic Party
A former Green Party member and professional saxophone player says he plans to challenge Hillary Clinton for renomination to the Senate next year. The reason: her support of the war in Iraq.
Steven Greenfield's challenge is unlikely to succeed against the heavily financed New York senator. But it illustrates the growing pressure in the Democratic Party on leaders who backed the war and are trying to distance themselves from its unpopularity.
Another sign: Sen. Joseph Biden's declaration that, while he still backs the war and thinks it can succeed, he now feels it was a mistake to vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to attack Saddam Hussein.
"It was a mistake to assume the president would use the authority we gave him properly," said the Delaware senator, who is exploring a 2008 presidential bid.
The bottom line is that, unless the United States succeeds in Iraq by 2008, anti-war sentiment could dominate the Democratic primaries and create a split that would damage the party's chances.
A similar division may mark the GOP race, though Republicans still back the war more than Democrats and independents do.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Username:foxwatch@yahoo.com
Password: help2it
Iraq has already been settled. We're leaving as soon as it is feasible, and that will be some time next year. Minimal presence in Iraq by this time next year.
It will be interesting to see how Iraq handles their new found freedom, but it won't be a matter of national policy for us after next year.
We will still have probably around 90 thousand troops in Iraq by this time next year.
I imagine we'll have about half that, around 45k-50k troops in theater this time next year, with most of those troops being maintenance, support and training for Iraqi front line security forces.
That's about the level that I consider minimal. Any less and there'd be no benefit from having troops there, and I doubt we'll derive much benefit from having any more than that level.
I think eventually we'll be down to just maintenance personnel and training cadres, with Iraqis providing their own heavy artillery and aerial support. By the 2008 elections, we'll be doing joint exercises with the Iraqi military along the Syrian and Iranian border... just for show.
wse will also have troops in Kuwait
We'll have about 250,000 troops between iraq and Kiwait next year. We'll be smashing Iran.
The American public is realizing that this war on terror is real and that the DemocRATS cannot be trusted to run it. Success in Iraq will only further cement the demise of the RATS. This is why the RATS want to us to lose the war and they want to get Iraq off the front burner before the 2008 elections.
The funniest thing we will see in 2006 and 2008 are the DemocRATS flip flopping back and forth from one side of the fence to the other, depending on which way public opinion is shifting. Yeah, Bush lied but I supported the war although our troops are behaving badly but I support them anyways because I believe Saddam had WMDs but I was lied to because although I saw the intel report I never read it, blah blah blah.
Many Democrats are against the war in Iraq because they cannot politically afford to let the GOP have a victory. A victory would further cement their reputation as the party of defeat.
For 'rats it is better for islamofascism to bloom and explode across the world than to endure a GOP victory.
You've hit on a point that often gets overlooked: by this time next year, we very well could be forced into doing something about Iran.
If so, that will be another tipping (backward) point for the Rats, I think.
NOw that they all are in the "mea culpa" mode for their supposedly "wrong" votes in supporting the war, if Iran turns up with a nuke, threatens or does use it, the Rats will all have to spin like a top to get back on the supporting the war bandwagon.
Either you're for defeating global terrorism, or you're not. The Rats want to be for it when they think they need to to win elections, against it when they think they need to to win elections and so on and so on.
At some point, it becomes transparent to even the sheeple.
The Rats cannot be trusted with national security. They are digging their own hole on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.