Does anyone really expect the Democrats to fight the bush policy on Iraq in September?

A group of Democrats visiting Iraq are also going to indicate that the surge appears to be working. The sad truth is should they be held accountable in 5 years when nothing changes?

Here are some comments from Mike Gravel, but it just doesn't apply to Hillary:


In an attempt to please an audience of veterans yesterday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was "working" and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine, Pentagon dead-enders and right-wing pundits who have already begun to quote her.

"Of course the surge is working," they'll say, "even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that!" Just when Congressional Democrats were beginning to grow spines and stand up against the war, Hillary has cut them off at the knees.

As always Hillary tried to have it both ways and went on to say: "We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war." I'm not sure what she meant by that, but I do know the surge is not working.

Whatever success we might achieve in Bagdad is temporary and isolated. We've just nudged the terrorists and death squads to other parts of Iraq. If you want to know the truth about the surge, look at the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and the number of people fleeing the country this summer. In both cases the numbers have remained fairly steady.

In January, before the surge, bombings in Baghdad killed 438 people. After the surge began in February, that number jumped to 520, declined in March to 323 and rose again in April, to 414. The lowest total came in June with just 190 dead, but then swung back up last month, with 354 dead. And that's just Baghdad.

Some Americans, like Hillary, might find those numbers encouraging but the majority of Iraqis view us as an inept occupation force that has failed to keep them safe from terrorism, ethnic cleansing and violent crime. That's why they continue to abandon their homes and families to join millions of their countrymen in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria.

General Petraeus' September report will of course paint a different picture. He'll offer the same cheerleading that we always hear from Bush's media savvy, but militarily clueless generals. We, in the anti-war movement, will counter his lies with facts and try to push the cowardly congressional Dems and wavering Republicans to cut off funding. But thanks to Hillary our task will be more difficult.

After yesterday's speech, Clinton aides tried to clarify her remarks, saying she was specifically referring to increased cooperation from Sunnis battling insurgents in Al Anbar province. But that clarification was too little too late. Unless Hillary publicly reverses herself and personally calls the surge an overall failure, Bush's allies in the media and the Congress will have the cover they need to impede any funding cuts next year.

Endorsing the surge is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right. (Remember Sister Souljah?) Last week Hillary sand-bagged the LGBT community with her states rights argument against gay marriage. This week she throws the anti-war movement under the bus. I'm curious to see who's going to be next week's victim

  I still remember though those memories are yellowing.

PB

..I will be amazed if they actually do stand up to the Chimperor...

There will be a few words, as usual, but no action.

Which again gets IGNORED on DU.

What do you propose them to do exactly??? Eliminate all Defense spending????

:shrug:

until finally either it gets over-ridden, or it is time for the election

what they do.

I'll even furnish you with a Subprime loan if you can't afford it.

... Because that way:

(a) I prove myself to be the most cynical and hopeless person EVER (which is awesome), and

(b) I can make fun of those losers who actually *hoped* for something better, and tried to make it happen. What schmucks!!!

needs to read FAILED STATES.

whilst bickering amongst themselves about who is the most against the war.

The majority of Dems support the US Occupation of Iraq for an indefinite time frame ; that includes Sen. Clinton. . There are various reasons for this. You can speculate as to those reasons. The US Occupation will continue & the Dems will keep funding it. There will be a draw down but at least 60K US Troops & 140K Mercs will remain in Iraq. US presence in Iraq will continue for decades.

picking up steam and the Dems will say that since this is true we will have to give it more time to work.

They didn't stand against the IWR because the feared they would not get re-elected now they fear the same thing if the go against the surge.

The war just is not as important to the Dem congress as it is to us.