 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
I believe this is true, but can we get a Democrat to confirm it1?
BAGHDAD, Iraq - President Jalal Talabani said Thursday that he had been assured by Democrat congressional leaders during a recent visit to Washington that they had no plans for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces.Here's an indirect sort of confirmation, in the form of a trial balloon:Talabani, a Kurd whose post is ceremonial, said Democrats also backed the idea of placing U.S. troops in bases while putting Iraqis in charge of security in and around cities.
“They all told me that they want the success of Iraq’s democratically elected government and continued support for the Iraqi people to defeat terrorism,” Talabani said about his trip to the United States in late September as many were predicting the Democratic congressional triumph in Tuesday’s midterm elections.
“One of them (a Democrat leader) told me that any early withdrawal will be a catastrophe for the United States and the world,” Talabani, speaking from his northern hometown of Sulaimaniyah, told the Dubai-based Al-Jazeera satellite broadcaster.
Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.Carville's talking money, of course, but tossing Dean in favor of the "moderate" (actually to the right of some Republicans) Ford would signal the Party's embrace of the American's who helped return them to a majority in the House.The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.
Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."
The rise of what could ultimately be called the "Dean wing" in the Democratic party began following the 2002 election defeat, when extremists in the "base" insisted the party had "failed to deliver it's message" - and that it had abandoned it's principles in support of the pending war in Iraq. The growth of that faction was coincident with the failure of the party through the 2004 elections. This year's vote reflected a "new direction" indeed, as "moderates" like Ford, Webb, and Joe Lieberman proved the Party didn't need the presumed "base" as bad as they thought.
By the way, Republcans are positioned to repeat the Dems' '02 mistake - signs of that are beginning to appear too.
Nores:
1. Probably not, but there are many good reasons to do so, including these.
