ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Dems Offer a Bit of Reality

along with some spinning, non-specific answers, and zero attacks.

First, the reality - the leading Dems couldn't commit to pulling troops out of Iraq until perhaps 2013, causing much gnashing of teeth by the Duers, Kossacks, and other moonbat Lefties centrist Americans. Here's the story from the UK's Guardian:

Dems Can't Make Guarantee on Iraq Troops
Thursday September 27, 2007 6:01 AM
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

``I think it's hard to project four years from now,'' said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

``It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting,'' added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

``I cannot make that commitment,'' said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
I'm going to have to keep these quotes in my back pocket, for the next time that these idiots make some remark about pulling our troops out immediately. Because these "leaders" in the Democratic Party don't even have the courage of their own convictions.

Of course, they rightly recognize that success in Iraq is important. But they also recognize the politics of failure, which may be why they're trying to obtain withdrawal prior to January 20th, 2009. They don't care about the strategic (global or regional) or even military implications of a withdrawal from Iraq - they merely want to withdrawal in order to cause political damage on Chimpy W. McBushitler and the neocon conspiracy. I say this because no-one who clamors for withdrawal from Iraq can point to how this would be a positive development for our global struggle against Islamic fascism.

Profiles in courage, I tell you!

Second, check out this exchange between Biden & Hillary!TM on healthcare reform (also from the same Guardian story):
Health care, and the drive for universal coverage, also figured in the debate.

``I intend to be the health care president,'' said Clinton, adding she can now succeed at an undertaking that defeated her in 1993 when she was first lady.

But Biden said that unnamed special interests were no more willing to work with Clinton now than they were more than a decade ago.

``I'm not suggesting it's Hillary's fault...It's reality,'' he said, carefully avoiding a personal attack on the Democrat who leads in the polls.
Of course, by "unnamed special interests" I'm sure Biden was referring to the American people - who convinced even Democratic Reps & Senators that HillaryCare Release 1.0 was our doom and subsequently swept the GOP into majority status in both chambers for the first time in 40 years.

And, of course it was Hillary's fault back in 1993. Who in the hell else was leading the secretive task force? If Biden wants to have any chance, he'll have to stop playing footsie with his opponents.

Just saying...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler