Yesterday, with all of the political candidates for President making their 5th Anniversary of the War in Iraq speeches and commentary, it was no wonder that the cable news stations were filling their airtime with discussions about that war. Most networks used the point-counterpoint tactic by having both Democratic and Republican surrogates on at the same time so they could slug it out over their respective candidate's positions of either get-out (for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) and stay-in (for John McCain).
There is really no fun in listening to John McCain on the war because he's been a consistent hawk. But, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are a stitch. Since the campaign started, it is as if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater and the both of them are scrambling over each other, like two of the three stooges, to see who can get out the Iraq door the fastest. It is somewhat like that old game show, "Name that Tune", where the two contestants try to top each other by alternately declaring that they can name that tune in fewer and fewer notes. Except, in the case of Iraq, it is who can start pulling troops the earliest in their new Administration and who can get them out in the shortest amount of time. Of course, if things go awry, both Hillary and Barack reserved the right to put troops back in.
I was listening to one round table discussion on the topic, yesterday. Two of the panelists, both left but both moderates, thought that "neither" Hillary or Barack will actually pull troops out as fast as they have declared. Their consensus thought was that both Clinton and Obama would "not" go through with their campaign rhetoric on pulling the troops because of the grave consequences. Both thought that the two candidates have enough wiggle-room in their campaign promises that they can actually renege on those promises without looking badly. For example, they can start pulling troops from the day they take office and this will make the anti-War Democrats happy. However, they could slow the overall process to a snails pace so we, as a country, could continue to take advantage of the stability afforded by the surge while maintaining our commitment to the Iraqis and, while assuring our allies that we won't just dump them once we have made a commitment. Of course, that kind of logical thought won't sit well with the far-left anti-war Democrats who contribute a lot of money to the Democratic Party.
One of the panelists thought that the "polls" will ultimately drive what a Democrat as President will do. If we start pulling troops and things start to go badly, with public support waning, the troops will stay in Iraq. Knowing how poll-driven Democrats can be, he is probably right in this regard. However, my take on whether or not a Democrat, as President, will "actually" pull the troops out of Iraq is completely different. I think that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will "have to" because they will be "forced to do so" by the far-left-driven Congress that exists today. The only reason that the current Congress has not been able to do so, thus far, is because of the existing "balance of power" that gives President Bush the power veto their attempts. And, because this Congress doesn't have enough non-Democrat votes to override it. But, if a Democrat becomes President, the balance will probably shift because, more than likely, both Houses of Congress will remain Democratic. In that scenario, I hardly think a Democrat, as President, will override the wishes of his or her Democratic Congress; and, the Republicans will be in the minority and totally unable to launch any effective veto-override. My guess is that the a Democrat-controlled Congress will either de-fund the war or mandate a withdrawl and a Democrat, as the President, will be forced to comply with his Party's wishes. It's just that simple.
Let's not forget that the Democrats are being "steered" by a vast amount of campaign funding from the likes of George Soros (through his well funded, far-left political organizations), by other groups like MoveOn.org, and by the members of organizations like Code Pink and the Daily KOS. "Not" to get out of Iraq and "not" to do it quickly may jeopardize the flow of all that money; and, as had been said many times throughout history, money talks.