Dems Debate Who Would Lose Iraq the Quickest

In the usual foolish rush to the left the Democratic Presidential candidates tried to upstage each other in the debate as to who would get the troops out the soonest, and thus ensure complete failure and instability in the middle-east. A perfect performance for all who prove beyond any doubt that they really shouldn't be running the country.

"I'll strongly support in the coming days efforts here to terminate that participation based on firm deadlines," said Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd in the debate, which was broadcast on Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language network.

Yep, tell the terrorists and sectarian fanatics when we'll be gone to ensure they wait until they have no restrictions on the devastation they can cause.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said he is concerned the Petraeus report "will be basically a sales job by the White House, that it'll be a PR document." He said Congress should use its power to fund the war to insist on a withdrawal timetable.

Right, and Silky Pony is an advocate for the poor. With that type of rhetoric, I'm thinking that I'm much more willing to believe Petraeus than Edwards. Screeching that Petraeus is going to spin this for the president and not tell the truth is shameful. This also blatantly ignores that there is no "Petraeus report." The legislation required that the President provide the report and that Petraeus testify. McQ at QandO has gone into that point several times. (and apparently isn't making much headway with the clueless.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton said nothing in the report will change the basic problem that there is no military solution in Iraq. "We need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible," she said.

Now that is scary. Hillary is a more moderate voice. Of course she, like most of the screeching dems misses the basic point, which is quite strongly supported by historical president, that all counterinsurgencies have a portion of their solution that is military. Without the military part, none of the others have any chance of starting, never mind succeeding. This line of rhetoric is so lame that it's nonsensical. What is her solution then? Run away and let the region go into a destabilized state with Iran as the central power? That would make things so much better.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson retorted that Clinton and others who want to leave residual forces in Iraq would leave soldiers at risk.

"I'd bring them all home within six to eight months," Richardson said. "There is a basic difference between all of us here ... This is a fundamental issue."

Idiot. It is a fundemental issue. Remember what happened in Afghanistan when the Russians left? No, he probably doesn't, but let's remind him. They stopped fighting in Afghanistan and started attacking the western countries. So Richardson is advocating leaving a known battlefield where the battle is being fought by soldiers and moving it to where civilians have to fight. That's just precious.

And to no one's surprise, the bottom of the barrel proves that they haven't any clue:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich was loudly applauded for saying he would pull troops out of Iraq immediately. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama aligned himself with Kucinich.

"I was a strong opponent of the war, as Dennis was," Obama said, adding that President Bush is trying to make it appear that the 35,000 troop surge earlier this year has had an impact.

Makes you wonder if anyone bothered to point out that at least Richardson's time line was moderately possible, while this is just moronic. There is no "immediate" withdrawal. These clowns are completely out of there little shriveled up brains if they can't even realize that it's not physically possible without abandoning vast amounts of equipment that will then be used in the mess they think of as a solution.

Then there are the voices of reason like Joe "bug-out" Biden:

"The truth of the matter is that the American administration's policy and the surge are a failure," said Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), a White House candidate and chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

Petraeus, who recently sent a letter to his troops saying the surge is making slow progress, is expected to argue the same at 12:30 today in a televised House hearing and tomorrow in the Senate.

"I think he's dead flat wrong," said Biden on NBC's "Meet the Press," signaling the tone Petraeus and Crocker will hear from Democrats. "The fact of the matter is that this idea of the security gains we've made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic."

So much for hearing the evidence before making a judgment. My point? This guy isn't even near being reasonable. He, like so many of the screeching dems have already decided what Petraeus will say and have denounced it. Biden proves he holds politics ahead of doing the right thing right from the start and with that standard of behavior sets himself in the ranks of fanatic.

Success starts slow in Counterinsurgencies. The surge has started the movement toward success. No doubt it can easily be lost, and no doubt it took too long to start, but it has started. With the advocates of cut-and-run braying again we can see the probability of failure rearing up again. Unity of effort only appears to have any standing in Iraq itself. Here in the US they prove that they would rather play politics rather than succeed. This in itself is helpful to the insurgent.

The part I find most offensive is that neither side will ever mention historical perspective. Every time Vietnam is used someone shrilly points out that it doesn't apply, and that's the only place they will go. Malaysia, Algeria, etc are all examples that are more appropriate, yet they are generally ignored by the MSM and the politicos. Unfortunately I see this as iron-clad evidence that those who ignore history are bound to relive it.