August 17, 2007 | Page 2

GEORGE W. Bush's strategy in Iraq is to keep the U.S. occupation going indefinitely--these days, we're told, to prevent Iraq from becoming a base for al-Qaeda in the "war on terror."

So it's little wonder that so many people have looked to the field of Democratic presidential candidates to provide a plan to bring the troops home. But these Democrats are promoting plans that would keep the U.S. military on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

"Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years," the New York Times observed.

Take, for example, John Edwards, who claims to be one of the most antiwar of the Democratic contenders. "We've got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq," Edwards declared in a recent candidates' debate.

Then there's Barack Obama, who argues that it's necessary to "leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis," as the Times put it.

In other words, the major Democratic presidential contenders are struggling to redefine "withdrawal" to mean downsizing--but not ending--the occupation.

In fact, during the seven months they've held Congress, the Democrats not only failed to stand up to the Bush administration on Iraq, but they voted to give Bush even more war funding for the war than he requested.

At the very moment that the Democrats could drive a nail into the coffin of the Bush regime by appealing to the antiwar majority, the party's presidential candidates are instead extending a helping hand to Bush by buttressing his central claims about the war.

Thus, Hillary Clinton argued in the recent debate that if there's any "possibility that al-Qaeda would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run, as we currently are doing in Al Anbar province." George W. Bush couldn't have said it better.

The party's leadership is now attempting the ultimate high-wire act on Iraq--playing to antiwar sentiment among its base, while lowering expectations and keeping all options on the table in the event that a Democrat lands in the White House.

In early August, Obama said that he ruled out the use of nuclear weapons against "terrorist targets" in Pakistan and Afghanistan--hardly a controversial point of view.

Immediately, however, candidate Clinton went on the offensive, calling Obama "unpresidential" and irresponsible for foreswearing the use of nuclear weapons. "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," said Clinton.

For his part, Obama threatened to pursue Osama bin Laden into Pakistan, with or without the permission of Pakistan's government. "Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," warned Obama. "They are plotting to strike again...If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Democrats--especially those in Congress--are paying the price for promising to end the war while allowing its escalation. According to a Gallup poll, just 14 percent of Americans express confidence in Congress--the lowest number since the organization began tracking government institutions 34 years ago.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -