--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Colin Brace wrote:
>
> > [Juan Cole responds]
> >
> > Friday, March 16, 2007
> > Clinton Would Keep Troops in Iraq
> >
> > Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that
> she would keep some
> > US troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda, curb Iranian
> influence, protect
> > the Kurds and assist the Iraqi military.
> >
> > The elements of this plan will not work or are
> unnecessary.
>
> To steal a phrase from Noam Chomsky, that may be
> true, but it's
> irrelevant. Hillary's triangulating, in classic
> Clinton style,
> staking out a middle ground between Edwards/Obama
> and McCain/Giuliani.
>
[WS:] Why does the issue of Iraq matter? The damage has already been done, and the current "positions" to solve this issue boil down to differences in the numbers of US mercenaries that will be killed or maimed. Who really gives a shit other than their families?
This whole Iraq debate is really a diversion and avoidance of far more important domestic issues, such as health care, employment, stangnant wages, energy policy, transportation, or urban development. I will pay far more attentiona to what the candidates have to offer on those issues than where they stand on Iraq. If anything, the longer the empire is bogged down in Iraq, the better the chance that it will not mess around elsewhere, e.g. in Latin America, which is moving to the left.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/