May 08 2007

Surrendercrat Shift On Iraq?

Published by at 7:58 am under All General Discussions,Diyala,Iraq

I detect a hint of concern from some Dems who may be realizing Iraq is not the magical election issue they thought it was. When Sen Clinton (who has an army of smart, observant political consultants at her fingertips) hedges on Iraq something must be up:

But she also added some notably optimistic comments about the soldiers’ recent success in the mostly Sunni Al Anbar province where Al Qaeda has its stronghold.

“The war is 360 degrees, there is no battlefield,” she said. “So I want to get our combat troops out of a sectarian, civil war. And I have also said, and I somewhat do differ with some of my other colleagues, I think you have to take a hard look at the situation we are in. We are making some progress it turns out, in what is called Al Anbar province against al Qaeda, and the reason we are is that our military leaders have learned a lot in the last several years there and they have made common cause with some of the tribal leaders, who don’t like Al Qaeda any more than we do because Al Qaeda is also going after them.”

Hillary explained yesterday why she disagrees.

“We don’t want Al Qaeda to get a foothold in Iraq. They weren’t there before but they’re there now,” she said. “So we may need to leave some troops to deal with the Al Qaeda remnant, primarily situated in Al Anbar. They are the ones who mostly are attacking our troops, attacking the markets, attacking the mosques, because they do the very dramatic and fiery suicide bombings that kill so many Iraqis and kill our young men and women.”

As I said – all eyes should be on Diyala (the final strong hold for the Islamo Fascists tied to al Qaeda) and Anbar. As they go so goes Iraq, al Qaeda and the Democrat Party.

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “Surrendercrat Shift On Iraq?”

  1. Soothsayer says:

    Hillary is just trying to CYA, and when you’re as broad in the beam as she is – it can be a full-time job.

  2. scaulen says:


  3. DubiousD says:

    What is a mystery to me is why Democrats haven’t played this issue smarter.

    When Dems seized control of Congress in November, Bush’s first reaction was to ditch Rumsfield and Casey, put Gates and Petraeus in charge of things, and implement a bold new Iraqi strategy. This afforded Dems a golden opportunity to claim that the Adminstration’s more aggressive, hands-on approach was a direct result of pressure from newly-empowered Democrats. (Whether there would have been a shred of truth to that contention mattered not in the least; the Beltway governs on spin, and most Americans are pretty gullible anyway.)

    Instead, the new Congress has gone out of its way to let the voters know: “We condemned this surge right from the get-go.” So where does that leave Dems two years from now if, heaven ferfend, the surge actually works?

    Had they at least straddled the fence early on, that would still have given them opportunity to jump to either side depending on which way the surge was going. But now they’ve committed themselves. No one, *no one*, except for maybe the absolute dumbest of Americans, will believe any Democrat claiming in Nov 2008 that “if you recall, we Dems had the President’s back 100% when he proposed the surge. In fact, the surge was largely *our* idea.”

    Not after Harry Reid and “this war is lost.” Not after playing games with funding for the troops. Nope, don’t think so.

  4. scaulen says:

    They couldn’t straddle anything, they had already been bought and paid for by moveon. They had to toe the line their masters set for them.

  5. BarbaraS says:

    Nah, they believed the newspapers. That is where they get their news. And it is the only place evidently since the dims in congress couldn’t be bothered to attend the meeting with Petraeus.