US Won’t Leave Iraq Until After 2013

This
is a serious blow to the left-wing blogosphere that thinks it actually
calls the shots for the democrat party. All serious contenders for the
democrat presidential nomination have come out saying that they will
not be able to get troops out of Iraq before 2013! Here’s the lead to this story from 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.

From apnews.myway.com

Realization of this situation hasn’t just dawned on democrat
presidential candidates either, it has dawned on the democrat party as
well. They could be doing a lot more in the senate and house to oppose
the war in Iraq but they don’t. According
to the Politico, an online paper started by ex-Washington Post staff
(so it slants to the left in my opinion), they agree.

There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at
least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do
not have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over
Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and
through planned vacations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could let filibusters run
from now till Christmas rather than yield to pro-war Republicans.

Such tactics might or might not be politically sensible, but in
their absence, anti-war lawmakers can hardly say they have done
everything possible to challenge the war and bring attention to their
cause.

From politico.com

Democrats are relying on their left-wing base’s ability to forgive
this transgression against current liberal dogma. They may be right for
the next election since there is such hatred and contempt for
republicans from those on the left that it might outweigh their
necessitating strict adherence. But how long will that last?

Having read some of the left-wing blogs recently I don’t think it will be long. Some from their side have stated that they already “own” the democrat party. And when someone has ownership of something they may require results at some point, don’t you think?

And I would be bereft in my duty to you if I did not mention one other little news article that plays a part in this story. According to examiner.com President Bush is advising Hillary Clinton with regards to Iraq.
Is it just a coincidence that Senator Clinton has softened her stance
on Iraq recently or is due to what she has heard from the president?

My guess is that it is based on the situation on the ground over
there that she has changed her stance. If, hypothetically, the
left-wing kookosphere got its wish and troops began a withdrawal right
now and were all gone by 2009 when Hillary takes office
(HYPOTHETICALLY!). Iraq would be ripe for the picking to whichever
thugocracy had the most power at that point. Based on its large Shiite
population the going theory is that Iran would take over Iraq.

In a situation where Iran had control (maybe it would be a puppet
like Syria is to Iran right now) of Iraq it would have control over an
immense amount of oil, which it could use to accelerate whatever plans it might have.
Furthermore, Iran would be on the doorstep to one of the world’s
largest oil fields in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, who are mostly Sunni,
would hold no special place in the hearts of the Shiite Iranians
meaning the Iranians would probably not have a problem taking over
control of those Saudi oil fields.

If Iraq falls into the wrong hands it could very well become one of
the greatest disasters in history. Hillary does not want this to happen
on her watch. BigT