Surrender Is As Surrender Does
Surrender enthusiasts may finally be surrendering. Dem candidates say getting out of Iraq may take years:
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
This think piece from the NYT would appear to be part of the growing campaign to get on the right side of this war and support a Democratic congressional surrender in September. They have finally figured out they can’t pull the rug out from under the troops in the field, particularly when they are winning. Now, they need to make it look like it was their idea. They being the candidates, NYT, etc. There isn’t much time:
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief.
No kidding! But then there’s this weird sentence:
Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
NYT, meet Cindy Sheehan. Also, these uninhibited old bats. This really is a fascinating article. Let’s keep reading:
...
