Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dems, GOP sidestep talk of Iraq endgame (both parties have their heads in the sand)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Doondoo Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-25-07 11:23 AM
Original message
Dems, GOP sidestep talk of Iraq endgame (both parties have their heads in the sand)
While Democrats on Capitol Hill are denouncing President Bush for sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, both parties are skirting the question of what comes next.

By the administration's own description, the troop surge is temporary. Yet with a handful of exceptions, few politicians are discussing an endgame, even as national security experts warn that Washington must begin laying the diplomatic and military groundwork for the next phase if U.S. options narrow.

Much of the congressional debate has consisted of maneuvering to blame the other party for losing Iraq. House Democrats passed a nonbinding resolution opposing but not stopping the troop increase. Republicans blocked the resolution in the Senate, blaming Democrats for undermining the troops and emboldening the enemy.

Discussing anything beyond the surge is "fraught with danger for Republicans and Democrats, because few people want to be exposed to the charge two years down the road that they had endorsed a policy that deprived the United States of that one chance of making Iraq work," said Steven Simon, a former Clinton administration national security official and author of a special report, "After the Surge," for the Council on Foreign Relations.

"And many are convinced that upon the withdrawal of forces, all hell will truly break loose in Iraq, leading to a kind of genocidal slaughter for which the U.S. will be blamed," Simon added. "Taking those two things into account, it's really hard for politicians on either side of the aisle to begin to speak seriously about withdrawal."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/25/MNGGKOAVCQ1.DTL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brokensymmetry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-25-07 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Or maybe....
this is all a choreographed little dance for
our benefit. Perhaps neither side has any
intention for getting out of Iraq. Not in
2007, nor in 2009, nor even in 2013.

There's lots of oil in Iraq, and more in the
surrounding areas. Without that oil, the U.S. and
the developed world descends into the abyss of
depression - and no, I don't mean a recession.
The wheels will stop, both figuratively and
literally.

Possibility? No, of course not. It couldn't
work out that way. Our rulers would never be
so cynical. Would they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC