Friday, March 28, 2008

Presenting ... Donkey Candidates For "Drawdown"

The Washington Post says "42 Democrats Vow a Drawdown in Iraq If They Win Seats"
More than three dozen Democratic congressional candidates banded together yesterday to promise that, if elected, they will push for legislation calling for an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq that would leave only a security force in place to guard the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Of course the Embassy could end up encompassing all of Baghdad and require upwards of a million troops to guard it, but I'm sure the Democrats will cross that bridge when they come to it.
Rejecting their party leaders' assertions that economic troubles have become the top issue on voters' minds, leaders of the coalition of 38 House and four Senate candidates pledged to make immediate withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of their campaigns.
They can campaign on whatever platform they like; if and when they get elected it'll be a different story.
"The people inside the Beltway don't seem to get how big an issue this is," said Darcy Burner [photo], a repeat candidate who narrowly lost to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) in 2006.
I beg to differ. The people outside the Beltway are still under the mistaken impression that anybody inside the Beltway cares what they think.
The group's 36-page plan does not set a specific deadline for when all combat troops must be out of Iraq. "Begin it now, do it as safely as you can and get everyone out," Burner said.
It's an open-ended statement that sets up all manner of possible contradictions, some of which are already visible. Are they pushing for "a security force in place to guard the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad" or do they really want to "get everyone out"?
The starkest difference between the group's proposal, dubbed a "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," and those embraced by many senior Democrats and the party's presidential candidates is that it rejects the idea of leaving U.S. troops on the ground to train Iraqi security forces or engage in anti-terrorism operations. The group instead calls for a dramatic increase in regional diplomacy and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces, if necessary.
Or are we going to have "international peacekeeping forces" guarding the US Embassy? My head hurts!

And it may seem like a contradiction; but in politics there are no contradictions. Watch this and all the others vanish in the wink of an eye:
Democratic leaders said the new candidate coalition does not signal a divide in the party's war policy.

"Democrats are united in our need to bring change in Iraq," said Doug Thornell, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "It's up to the individual candidates to determine how to best do that for their district."
In other words, each candidate can promise whatever it takes to get elected, after which the central committee will tell them to concentrate on the economic troubles that have become the top issue.

You heard a similar song two years ago; in fact the tune was identical but the words went "Just get us elected, and then we'll impeach them."

Then they got majorities in both houses and impeachment was suddenly "off the table".

Go ahead. Vote for more Democrats. See how much good it does.

They may say they want to stop the war in Iraq but they all want to keep fighting the war on terror.

They may say they want to protect us from "another 9/11" but they won't even discuss a truly independent investigation of the actual 9/11.

The party leaders let their candidates say whatever they want when they're campaigning, but they'll be "united" if and when they get to Washington...

... or I'm a small blue fish with big green wings.