The Democrats and the likely next U.S. president Hillary C. are ready to continue the Bush agenda.
In the Senate they claim to know what’s best for Iraqis:
[T]he U.S. Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly endorsed the decentralization of Iraq into semi-autonomous regions.
The nonbinding measure sponsored by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) — which supports a "federal system" that would divide Iraq into sectarian-dominated regions — won unusually broad bipartisan support, passing 75 to 23.
The media fails to note that this was Bush’s original plan. In his confidential talks with the Spanish Premier Aznar in February 2003, just published, he said:
We know they have accumulated an enormous amount of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure and also the oil wells. We expect to occupy those wells soon. The Saudis would also help us bring the oil to market if necessary. We are developing a very strong package of humanitarian aid. We can win without destruction. We are already planning the post-Saddam Iraq, and I believe that is a good basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized into a federation.
At the same time Sec.Def. Gates tells Congress that the U.S. needs a Long-Term Presence in Iraq:
Mr. Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee, “When I speak of a long-term presence, I’m thinking of a very modest U.S. presence with no permanent bases, where we can continue to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq and help the Iraqi forces.”
He added that “in my head” he envisioned a force as a quarter of the current combat brigades.
That would be five combat brigades and including headquarters, logistics and air support would add up to some 40,000-50,000 troops. Very modest indeed.
Gates did not explain how a ‘long term presence’ of such an army differs from ‘permanent bases’. Will the GIs live as nomads?
We can be sure that pretty soon some Democrat will rise in the Senate and propose an ammendment calling for just such a ‘commitment’. The relevant presidential candidates will certainly agree.
As for those – the elite media has decided that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic primaries. Reporting about other candidates has all but stopped. She is a ‘wise woman’ as you will certainly understand from her remarks on Israeli attack on Syria:
"We don’t have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that."
The senator from New York also backed up reports, first exposed by The Washington Post two weeks ago, that that the IAF targeted a North Korean shipment of nuclear material that arrived in Syria three days before the strike.
This of course bullshit that was provided by ‘anonymous sources’ like John Bolton. Aside from an old Chinese research reactor that provides a few kilowatts and is under IAEA control, Syria does not have any nuclear program or aspiration.
Clinton knows as much:
She went on to emphasize that she had no other information on the incident because of its "highly classified" nature.
So she doesn’t know and facts, but simply asserts based on anonymous partisan voices in press reports that have been refuted by the specialists and found baseless by reporters in Syria. Factlessness is certainly a pre-condition for staying in Iraq and attacking Iran and Syria.
I believe she expects to be elected by a significant chunk of Republicans while some progressive Democratic voters, miffed about continuous imperial Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidencies, will just abstain.
Shares of weapon manufactures and oil companies had quite a run during the Bush rule. It looks like they will continue to be a lucrative investment.