The spineless UN -- many of whose members are petty dictators from 3rd world countries -- has decided to expand its role in Iraq. Yep, that vaunted organization that turned tail and ran the instant things in Iraq became difficult has now decided it's safe enough for a return. They're not sending any security forces (not like it would help much even if they did), but the humanitarian aid should be a good thing.
On another front, several key Democrats are now saying that any immediate departure from Iraq is impossible. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all saying that if they were elected President, they would all still leave some level of troops in Iraq for up to several years. While it's great that they're finally publicly acknowledging the dangers of a pullout (which I'm sure they've known privately since the beginning), it puts them in a bit of a curious position when General Petraeus gives his status report in September. It's the general consensus that it doesn't matter what Petraeus says, these Democrats are going to point to even the most miniscule delays and failures as justification for retreat. But, with the Presidential front-runners now all saying they'd leave troops there, it will be interesting to see how they reconcile that with a 'failure' there. For one thing, their far-left anti-war kook base is going to be livid; that'll be fun to watch if nothing else happens. But, in my mind, the more entertaining prospect is watching these Democrats squirm as they try to reconcile years of spouting anti-war garbage (the war is lost, the surge has failed before it started, etc.) with keeping our forces there. This should be a prime example of the hypocrisy and blatant double speak that far-left Democrats like to employ, so it should be very easy to watch them try to play both sides of the issue (think John Kerry's 'I voted for the war before I voted against it' moment). About a month from now, we'll see it happen. I can't wait!
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment