Nick Beaudrot directs my attention to this passage of a July 10 speech by Hillary Clinton on Iraq:

So as we redeploy our troops from Iraq, I will not let down my guard against terrorism. I will devote the resources we need to fight it and fight it smartly. I will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

They will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent we believe such training is actually working. I would also consider, as I have said before, leaving some forces in the Kurdish area to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that has developed there.

Nick focuses on the fact that this plan to bring the troops home from Iraq seems to involve leaving a lot of troops in Iraq. That sort of thing, though, has gotten a lot of blog coverage (the proviso that training must be “actually working” seems like a step in the right direction). Now I’m curious as to which “other terrorist organizations in the region” she thinks our troops need to be fighting. Hamas? Hezbollah? Or is that just a throwaway line to cover all the semantic bases?

Doyle McManus, card-carrying member of your liberal media. doing some “news analysis” for The Los Angeles Times. points out that if you vote for Democrats, terrorists will kill your children:

Although fireworks erupted last week among the leading Democratic candidates, those differences are narrow compared with the chasm between the two parties’ worldviews, one focused on battling the threat of radical Islam, the other on ending the war.

The point, of course, is that ending the war in Iraq isn’t something contrary to improving the country’s ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism, nor is it something other than improving the country’s ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism, rather, it’s a constitutive part of improving the country’s ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism. If someone had given me a bunch of money to start a Democratic-oriented national security think tank and an LA Times writer had called me up to discuss this issue, that’s the point I would have made. Instead, the powers that be decided that Kurt Campbell should start a think tank instead:

Foreign policy is playing a role in this campaign unlike any election since the Cold War,” said Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton administration official who heads a new centrist think tank in Washington, the Center for New American Security. “The debate so far has made the two parties’ positions appear polarized, more than they need to be…. The election may well be decided on foreign policy and national security, but it’s all about just two issues: Iraq and the war on terror.”

Very Serious!

David Ignatius assures us that the real question in Iraq is “How to extricate ourselves in a way that minimizes the damage to the United States, its allies and Iraq?” That is a good question. Ignatius’ not-so-good answer is that “A good start would be for Washington partisans to take deep breaths and lower the volume, so that the process of talking and fighting that must accompany a gradual U.S. withdrawal can work.”

In short, we’re supposed to believe that the Bush administration is eager to commence a sensible withdrawal plan but the main obstacle standing in their way is congressional Democrats’ stubborn insistance that Bush . . . commence a withdrawal plan from Iraq. Brilliant. Sure. Have we really not yet figured out that George W. Bush wants to stay in Iraq in full force through the end of his term and is also a kinda stubborn guy?