On Thursday, John Kerry introduced a resolution which calls for the US to leave Iraq by the end of this year if they can form a government by May 15, immediately if they can’t.
But look carefully, apparently Bush’s frat brother couldn’t resist the thought that he might be president some day and might like to have an expanded Middle Eastern footprint of his own. On the subject of complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year if they do succeed in creating a government:
“…leaving only those forces critical to completing the mission of standing up security forces of Iraq [sic].”
This is an obvious loophole for the indefinite occupation of those “enduring” bases they’ve been building. Though in this age of “inherent” and “plenery” executive authority, what difference does it make what a law says anyway?
Now at least the Democratic candidates for House and Senate will be forced to take a stand for or against the continued occupation of that unfortunate land. Are they going to take the Hillary Clinton style “more murderous than thou,” position, or will they actually represent their constituents, assert their constitutional authority (against the executive for once) and put an end to this catastrophe.
Democrats are scared of looking weak on national security. The Republicans have been an absolute disaster for national security and from where I sit, the Dems look weak for being too cowardly to say so.
Again, one more time for those in the back or who have really small computer monitors:
If you want security, stop meddling in other people’s affairs.
Update: Arthur Silber weighs in.