Democratic Presidential candidate and Senator Hillary Clinton came right out and told the New York Times on 3/14/07 that US troops should stay in Iraq because "it is right in the heart of the oil region." Contrary to the Democrats' cynical belief that we have nowhere else to go, we can and must vote for the peace parties on the ballot: Any socialist party and the Green Party.

The World Socialist Website analyzes the whole sordid interview in a 3/17/07 article by Bill Van Auken entitled "If elected, Hillary Clinton vows to keep US troops in Iraq" at
www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/clin-m17.shtml

Pertinent paragraphs are:

"Clinton told the newspaper that there are “‘remaining vital national security interests in Iraq’ that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.”"
"As for Iraq’s importance to US “national security,” Clinton could not have been clearer: “It is right in the heart of the oil region.”
"Asked how many troops would be left behind under such a plan Clinton demurred, claiming that she would bow to “the advice of military officers.” "
"Indeed, as the Times notes, Clinton’s proposal closely resembles the position taken by Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s comptroller under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He estimated that such a “limiting” of missions would reduce the number of troops required to 75,000."
As to the rest of the US Congress, House & Senate, do not expect the Democrats to provide any serious leadership in total withdrawl from Iraq, as the following demonstrates:

"In the end, the Senate approved two nonbinding resolutions—one Republican and one Democratic—declaring support for the troops in Iraq. The Republican version included a clause vowing never to cut any funds for “troops in the field.” Both passed overwhelmingly."

"Just hours earlier in the House of Representatives, members of the Appropriations Committee voted 36 to 28 to approve a package—ironically dubbed an antiwar measure—that provides over $100 billion more to finance the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the escalation announced by the White House earlier this year."

"This legislation calls for most US combat troops—again, by no means all—to be withdrawn by August 31, 2008, and sets earlier deadlines if the Iraqi government fails to show progress in key areas, including the passage of a new oil law, allowing US energy monopolies to begin exploiting the country’s vast oil reserves. Like the Senate resolution, however, these deadlines have no force of law, and no teeth should Bush ignore them."

And Hillary clearly plans to perpetrate more war crimes against Iraq:

"Of course in all of this blaming the Iraqis for the historic catastrophe that the US war of aggression has inflicted upon their country, the Democratic Senator does not raise the obvious hypothetical: what if she and fellow members of her party had opposed the war and refused to vote for the October 2002 resolution granting the Bush administration the power to invade a relatively defenseless country on the fraudulent pretext that weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties (both nonexistent) posed an imminent threat to the US?"

"Instead, in Clinton’s view, it is a matter of the Bush administration—which is responsible for the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis, the wounding of countless more and the imprisoning of tens of thousands—failing to “assert our authority.”"

"There is an obvious reason for Clinton’s refusal to repudiate her 2002 vote to authorize war against Iraq. She is signaling America’s ruling elite that, should she be elected president, she is prepared to carry out even more horrendous crimes against the Iraqi people and to launch future wars of aggression against other countries in order to assert US hegemony and seize control of vital resources and markets."