Third Party & Independents Archives

Democratic Leader Wants Permanent Iraqi Bases

I am by no means a Republican. However I am absolutely sick and tired of Democrats lying to us over and over and telling us that it is all the Republican’s fault. They know its not true and they won’t say it. Democrats need to stop pretending that they are progressive and anti-war, because while some of them may be, their so called ‘top’ 2008 candidates are not. Just look at Hillary Clinton.

"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have." (1)

"The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not – dare not – waver from this commitment." (1) So basically Hillary wants to put Israeli interests in front of our interests. And when considering that she says the security of Israel as a key component in our war with Iraq we must realize that if this is the case a permanent military base would be implied as it would help the security of Israel according to this tone of logic she is trying to use.

"On her return from a Thanksgiving trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton responded to the "how long" question on ABC's This Week with a reminder that the U.S. still has bases in Korea and elsewhere, long after wars have ended" (2).

Can you say already trying to start a war with Iran? "This advice was proffered on the morning of Jan. 18. By that evening, when Hillary gave her scheduled speech at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, it had clearly been taken to heart: “I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran,” she averred. Accusing the White House of choosing to “downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations,” she disdained Team Bush for “standing on the sidelines.” (2)

Yeah Hillary is pro-peace and a good candidate hahaha! "Hillary’s newfound centrism isn’t completely insincere. Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you’ll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary’s Choice: Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: ‘I urged him to bomb.’ The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, ‘You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?’ The next day the President declared that force was necessary." (3)

Keep going: "Hillary is nothing if not consistent: in her floor speech to the Senate during the debate over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she declared, “the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt”—a statement she has never acknowledged regretting. Particularly endearing to the War Party, she framed her “aye” vote in terms of the classic neoconservative myth of Bush I’s betrayal: The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge."

Do you Democrats want to pretend to still be pro-peace: "“No, I don’t regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.” (3)

1. AntiWar.com
2. Counterpunch.org
3. Amconmag.com

Posted by Richard Rhodes at June 14, 2006 3:00 AM
Comments
Comment #157497

To all Democrats and Hillary supporters:

I don’t know for sure but I have always heard that blood doesn’t come out in the wash. Think about it.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 14, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #157501

Democrats are not mindless drones. I suggest you stop focusing on any one issue or person. The Dems are diverse and inclusive. We take anybody.

So kindly stop pointing at this or that. It has little merit.

Posted by: Aldous at June 14, 2006 5:07 AM
Comment #157503

To continue…

There are many segments in the Democratic Party that represents nearly every spectrum out there. I have seen pro-life Dems, pro-gun Dems, pro-war Dems and even pro-gaybashing Dems (though that is rare).

It is to be decided if Hillary will become our Leader. It will be voted upon.

As it should be.

Posted by: Aldous at June 14, 2006 5:17 AM
Comment #157504

Aldous:
Your comments that say ‘we’ and ‘our’ make you sound like a Democrat. So let me say this in response to you and all Democrats. This post was directly in response to Paul Seigel’s post “Republican Leaders Want Permanent Iraqi Bases”. My whole purpose for this post was too point out that there are Democrats, and top Democrats (and if you want to argue that the Dems don’t consider Hillary one of their top candidates than try doing that), who also support the exact same thing. And thus by only pointing the fact that Republicans want to do that while ignoring the pure fact that some Democrats want to as well is hypocritical. To only show one side of a story is hypocritical. Period.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 14, 2006 5:25 AM
Comment #157512

Richard Rhodes:

You equate A FEW Democrats with ALL the Republicans?

The Article to the Left clearly states that the entire Republican Leadership wants Bases in Iraq. You point to a single Democrat and claim its the same?

HA!!!

Posted by: Aldous at June 14, 2006 7:26 AM
Comment #157515

Richard:

You have to understand the thought process behind Aldous’ statement:

I suggest you stop focusing on any one issue or person. The Dems are diverse and inclusive. We take anybody.

So kindly stop pointing at this or that. It has little merit.

Aldous is hoping to avoid having to focus on what Democrats say. If a Democrat, even a leader within the party, says something that is troubling, he can now say “Dems are diverse and inclusive so that single comment means nothing.”

If someone points out an inconsistency within the Dem party, he can say “Dems are diverse and inclusive so that single comment means nothing.”

If a Democrat makes a mistake, he can say its just one Democrat, not the whole party. In this way, he can try to minimize what any single Democrat says. If a Dem leader were to publicly praise the gentleness, wisdom and caring of that great leader Kim Jong Il, Aldous would say “Dems are diverse and inclusive so that single comment means nothing.”

He is right about one thing though. There is little merit to many of the diverse opinions within the Dem party. Until they, as a party, make a solid stand instead of taking every position under the sun, they will have “little merit.”

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #157517

Aldous

You have your opinion about Republicans and nothing anyone says or does can change it. On may occassions, I or another Republican has written something only to have you comment that ALL Republicans believe the opposite. Both parties are diverse and most of us think for ourselves.

It seems impossible for some people to grasp that when others make what they consider logical or just choices, they may come to different conclusions.

Mr Rhodes is certainly right that many Dems support the samee things that many Republicans do. That is a good thing. It shows that party is not the only thing that counts, whether or not you like the choices they make.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #157520

Dems ARE diverse and inclusive. When was the last time you heard an independent GOP thought outside of Election Time? Walking like mindless drones is a GOP Trademark. It is not surprising that joe would welcome such an occurance.

Posted by: Aldous at June 14, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #157528

Aldous

Just read the red side. If you do not see it, I cannot help you. It is something you must do for yourself.

Don’t let reality stand in the way of a neat world view. It is too bad for Dems that they do not get to run against the mindless drone strawmen they create to be their opponents.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #157531

Walks like a drone strawman. Talks like a drone strawman. Probably is a drone strawman.

Posted by: Aldous at June 14, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #157534

Yes. They exist in your mind. Maybe you should check into that.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #157607

Aldous
We take anybody.


Maybe y’all should be a little more picky. Then maybe y’all could come up with some sort of platform. And then maybe win an election.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 14, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #157613

Ron:

Aldous pointed out that “Dems are diverse and inclusive. We take anybody.”

Hee hee—I think I understand how they settled on John Kerry and Al Gore as their last two candidates.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #157689

Richard,

I for one, agree with you — and I’m a Democrat. I can’t vote for Hillary, who btw, has been receiving boos for the way she wants to have everything both ways when she speaks about the Iraq war. She is so transparently pandering for votes when she claims she doesn’t like the “open-ended” Bush approach, but also doesn’t want to set a “date certain” for a withdrawal. It’s ridiculous, and I can’t respect her for it.
I refuse to give my vote to any candidate who can’t think clearly enough to take a firm and focused position on this disastrous, illegal, and unnecessary war at this stage — nor for any who refuses to acknowledge that our troops are now being forced to fight Iraq’s civil war for them.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #157864
“I refuse to give my vote to any candidate who can’t think clearly enough to take a firm and focused position on this disastrous, illegal, and unnecessary war at this stage — nor for any who refuses to acknowledge that our troops are now being forced to fight Iraq’s civil war for them.”

This statement is strongly seconded by me.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 14, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #157883

I dare say that upon initial view this appears much like a very poorly cast vaudville act, cluttered equally with inept Republican
Magicians whose only visible talent is to dodge bullets, and equally inept Democratic Ventrilloquists whose opening lines are consistently “Don’t look at me, look at the dummy”. If there were ever a time for a cohesive and inclusive third political party, now would be the time.

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #157949

DOC:

“Don’t look at me, look at the dummy”.

Isn’t that Dick Cheney’s line?


“If there were ever a time for a cohesive and inclusive third political party, now would be the time. “


I’m open to suggestions.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 15, 2006 12:56 AM
Post a comment