EDITORIAL: Out of Iraq - who will lead?

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 9/23/7 | Editor

[SmithL]

IN WASHINGTON, there is a stalemate about Iraq. President Bush continues to stay the course, buying time with surges and promising troop-force reductions if and when the security and political situation merit. The Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to force a withdrawal - and there is reason to wonder whether they would have the stomach to force an abrupt end to the war even if they could do it.

It's defense versus defense. Neither party wants the blame for "losing Iraq." So the surge goes on. Even when it ends next summer, 130,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, barring a break in the D.C. stalemate.

[goldstategop]

If the Democrats were on the side of victory rather than on the side of America's enemies, our troops could be brought home sooner. The more they keep fighting to end The Surge, the longer our troops will remain in Iraq.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[larryjohnson]

POTUS in 2019.

[elhombrelibre]

The Democrats inspire our enemies by assuring them they’ll always be the soft underbelly of America.

[abb]

What the SF Chronicle says is of no consequence. They’ll be out of business within two years.

[MNJohnnie]

Big let down coming for the Hysteric Left. The minute Hillary is elected President all these Surrender NOW Democrats are magically going to discover all the reasons we have to stay in Iraq.

Iraq is shaping up to be the big Clinton betrayal of 2008 just like the “Middle Class Taxcut” here husband promised in 1992 was done knowing full well they had NO intention of actually cutting taxes

[Puppage]

The Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to force a withdrawal surrender.

There, fixed it.