Personally, I think it's delusional to think that ANY of these people support a complete withdrawal from Iraq OR the Middle East or are anti-war in ANY way. They're just throwing a legislative temper tantrum because their 'pigs' got 'skinned', their 'christmas trees' didn't get decorated.
I'm working on a blog post about permabases in Iraq right now. Here's the lead: "When the Democrats or Republicans advocating 'withdrawal' say "We're going to leave a contingency force in Iraq to prevent terrorism", keep in mind that ANYBODY who interferes with the flow of oil from Iraq is, by U.S. energy security policy definition, a terrorist. That means we aren't going to leave voluntarily until the very last drop of oil is sucked from Iraq's sand. If Iraq's oil output projections are somewhat like Iran's (and I'm not an oil geologist, so don't quote me on this), Iran's oil ministry recently stated they believe they will 'peak' in about 40 years. That's just when the decline begins, not when it runs out. If the above is even a remote approximation, be prepared for a 100 year occupation... and a 100 year war, and a hundred years of occupation-bred hatred & terrorism that will continue to swell for generations beyond 'the end of oil' in Iraq. An ugly scenario." On 5/25/07, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If only the 9/11 conspiracists would focus their energies on discovering how the DP leadership worked out who got to vote against & who had to vote for it. ;-> Louis Proyect wrote: > > 10 Democratic Senators voting against war funding: > Boxer (CA) > Clinton (NY) > Dodd (CT) > Feingold (WI) > Kennedy (MA) > Kerry (MA) > Leahy (VT) > Obama (IL) > Whitehouse (RI) > Wyden (OR)
