http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3074748Source: New York Daily News
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Thursday, November 22nd 2007
WASHINGTON - Republicans are pouncing on new evidence of progress in Iraq to turn the tables on Democrats who believe the unpopular war remains their signature issue for 2008. In Iowa Wednesday, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney seized on lower U.S. casualty reports and signs President Bush's troop surge has worked to attack Barack Obama's criticism of the buildup. "It's fortunate we did not have Barack Obama as President. If he had been President, he'd have just pulled our troops out and Al Qaeda would have been a safe haven in Iraq," Romney charged.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded, "If Barack Obama were President, we would never have gone into Iraq in the first place. We would've gone after Osama Bin Laden, finished the job in Afghanistan, and made America a lot safer than it is after seven years of a divisive, failed foreign policy that Mitt apparently wants to continue."
Despite better news from the combat zone, Democrats aren't backing off criticizing a policy a strong majority of Americans still oppose. All three leading Democratic candidates agree that until Iraq has a government that can provide its own security, the long-term effects of a successful troop surge are limited. "Our troops are the best in the world, and if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference. But the goal of the surge was to create a political solution, and that requires the Iraqis to step up, which unfortunately has not happened," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer....
The Democrats believe Americans have made up their minds and at this point will not rally around the war in Iraq, even if the U.S. death toll keeps going down. "It took too long, and at what cost?" said P.J. Crowley, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff. "The President wants to spend $150 billion more on Iraq, but we can't afford $24 billion for children's health care. ... There is more to the war on terror than Iraq. Which is more important, Iraq or Afghanistan? I put my money on Afghanistan, where, last time I checked, Osama Bin Laden is believed to be in the area."
Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/11/22/200... thanks to deepmodeeemom for posting this originally.