Friday, June 01, 2007

Reason 3,459 why the Democrats should have insisted on a hard timeline the Iraq supplemental bill...

From the LA Times (and thanks to Jobsanger for the heads-up on this one):
WASHINGTON — President Bush would like to see the U.S. military provide long-term stability in Iraq as it has in South Korea, where thousands of American troops have been based for more than half a century, the White House said Wednesday.

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, told reporters that Bush believes U.S. forces eventually will end their combat role in Iraq but will continue to be needed in the country to deter threats and to help handle potential crises, as they have done in South Korea.

Ummm, just a couple of points about this justification -

South Korea was invaded by North Korea, and NK is still a threat to the South Korea.

As for Iraq? The only threat to them was always themselves - in their wars against Iran and Kuwait, they were the invaders. In fact, regarding their invasion of Iran, they did so with *our* support.

Something tells me, cynic that I am, that the only 'potential crises" that the White House are worried about are any that threaten the continued flow of Iraqi oil revenue into the bank accounts of American oil companies.

Shame on the 86 Democrats for surrendering to Bush by voting for HR2206. And yes, that includes Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords.

1 comment:

Thane Eichenauer said...

Come now, you never really doubted that Giffords and Mitchell have always been war boosters and always will be war boosters - did you? The reason the race between Mitchell and Hayworth was so close was that when it comes down to the most important issue in the 2006 election they didn't really differ all that much.

In my opinion that is the same reason Kyl prevailed over Pederson. Pederson chose not to oppose the US occupation of Iraq and if you can't oppose that then there ain't much Pederson as as an orthodox Democrat could offer to the voters in Arizona that they would find appealing.