Dems say they can't promise troop withdrawals

Despite, what some people here say, the truth is the Dems aren't going to pull the troops...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTOBOG0.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a bunch of slimy politicians.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm still amazed all those who thought they would withdrawal the troops actually believed that...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

of course they won't.
it's easy to throw mud and demagogue shit around when you're not the one responsible for decisions. but as the possibility of them being in that position increases, and the date of that approaches, the know that they shouldn't promise things that they can't guarantee.

and now they are showing that they know that you can't just remove soldiers from that hot spot without considering the implications.

to tell you the truth, having Hillary as the prez would not be so bad. she's the toughest of the Democratic lot so if a Dem has to win in 2008, it better be her.

Edwards or Obama, on the other hand, that would be a disaster

 

No surprise. I said this ages ago

 

A few of my friends did actually believe that, no matter how much I tried to persuade them that the immediate withdrawal they so desired was an absolute fantasy, politically and otherwise. The Democrats don't have a reliable majority in the senate, never mind the 60 votes for procedure or 66 for a veto override. Also, if the political leadership decided our military and government assets should be out of Iraq ASAP an orderly egress would take at least a year.

I think it goes back to the whole cultural pendulum thing. Every eight years or so it seems like the bulk of Americans who aren't rabidly partisan get sick of the incumbent party's bullshit and go to the cold side of the pillow. A few years later they start to get reminded that the other party can sling bullshit just as well as the previous one, but theirs smells and tastes a little different so they tolerate it for a little while.

 

The only way it's going to happen quickly is if people elect a president who is committed to rapid withdrawal of troops. In that case Congress is not going to go against the President in setting foreign policy (any more than did when the President wanted to start the stupid war). As far as I can tell there are 3 candidates who are committed to that course of action: Mike Gravel, Denis Kuchinich & Ron Paul and a couple others that are sort of committed (Barack Obama for one).

 

I'm sorry, my friends, that's not the story. They can't promise to withdraw every single one of them, but they all plan to drastically reduce combat troops. Besides, none of you except for SAM even want any troops withdrawn, so I don't know what you're complaining about. This is Bush/Cheney's war we inherited, the only question is do we end it fast or less fast? We will be too busy cleaning up your mess to care about your venomous wormtongue voices calling from the caves, "...our precioussss majority LOST! Lost forever, my preciousssss...

 

Spider you continue to live in rankly partisan denial. You've denied on numerous occassions that Clinton and most of the Dems backed the war and campaigned for it, then you denied the fact they egged it on for years. Lately, and I mean in the past coupled of days in another thread, I remember you denying that Clinton wasn't going to leave Iraq. She's said it now several times. They all have. Wake up, man!

 

I guess that depends on what the definition of "leave" is. The war will be under new management, and no one could be worse than the war criminals in office now. This is a last ditch effort on the part of those who were drastically and dangerously wrong about everything to save face.

 

If any of them said they would leave *no matter what* they would of gotten fried by the media? However, it is disturbing that they all said that they wouldn't guarantee by leaving in 2013...

I believe Obama would try to end it as quickly as possible, based on the reasoning I've heard from him. He doesn't believe preventing a civil war that would follow withdrawal is a good reason to stay for either countries.

Hillary doesn't surprise me though. Countezero is quite right, she made the case for the war the same as the neocons. It doesn't make any sense to replace Bush with her. Anyone who made the case for war with Iraq is not who you want to manage that war, or be President when things are tense with Iran.

 

What makes her different? I think Hillary supporters like to ignore she was dumb enough to actively make the case for war. Given that, I can only guess you must prefer her for her war management skill? If so please explain.

 

As is usually the case with a partisan who is confronted with an unfortunate reality, you are quibbling over words and otherwise obfuscating what is already very clear: Your party leaders aren't getting out, despite arguing for getting out and attacking Bush for not getting out and promising their base of support they would get out. I suggest you try dealing with that reality and dealing with the fact that what has come before now appears to have all been a crass form of politics, which some members on this site correctly recognized and attempted to point out as it occurred.

And the above is largely a partisan effort to confuse the issue with the usual chum of personal attacks and the obligatory attempt at shifting the blame or focus back to the other side of the aisle. The rest of us are talking about the Democrats here. It would be nice if you would to.

 

Here's a fun question:

• How long after the election was settled would it take for the UN to agree on a plan to put baby blues across Iraq?​

And another one:

• How long would it take to actually implement the plan?​

I mean, some of it seems a necessary consideration, but in the end it's that their expressions aren't reassuring. Dodd can say what he wants, and he probably would come through on that, even if it was a disastrously-incompetent withdrawal. Richardson's not being realistic. A year would be disastrously incompetent, unless the United Nations is going to set a new speed record for figuring something out. And come on ....

There's a long way to go. We'll see what they come up with next. Somewhere along the line, I keep hoping one of them will actually distinguish themselves by having an idea. Obviously, we all have our own ideas, but isn't part of the point of being president to have good ideas about what to do in tough situations? And to be able to figure out what needs to be done?

To say we need to get out of there as fast as possible is one thing. But what does it mean? If it means getting out as fast as we can without making the situation even worse, great. Now, isn't that what I want to hear ideas about?

I suppose that's what I'd rather hear them talk about: what they'd do and how it's actually going to work. It's what they need to be talking about. This is, on the one hand, disappointing. To the other, it's early, and politicians still need to figure out that good ideas about things like wars should not be played close to the vest. It would be best if they figured this out as quickly as oh, say ... uh ... can you ... see?

 

According to Gates we're never leaving.

Gates: US will keep at least 35,000 troops in Iraq forever

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

We won't leave until every single drop of Oil has been extracted.

 

Don't confuse having some military personnel in Iraq in 5 years with a "stay the course" strategy. It seems that even a passing resemblance to Bush's imperialism is considered a gross insult these days. Is it wrong to enjoy watching the GOP implode? It's certainly will be an ugly thing to witness, especially with all these misogynists rising up to impugn Hillary.:blbl:

 

That's not a fun question. It's slightly sinister. The UN can help secure Iraq now and they've chosen not to. If the they have chosen this because of who is president and because of what that president has endorsed, then the organization or more morally bankrupt than I thought. People are dying here. It shouldn't matter to the UN, who is supposed to be neutral, why that is.

I don't know. Nobody seems to have actually asked that question. But time tables and realistic withdrawals didn't seem to matter to the Dems when they were pushing their resolutions and bills in the Congress did they? And realistic considerations does not alleviate them from the fact that they dangled something to the electorate, withdrawal, then patently failed to deliver it. Now they have gone further. They're walking away from the entire idea as a concept. Go back and read what was being said in January or February. Heck, go back to the earlier debates. The difference is startling.

I do agree with you on one thing, though. The lack of ideas from the presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, is appalling...

 

I think you're the one who is confused. The issue here is withdrawal. Having troops in Iraq five years from now is not withdrawal. Nor is it anywhere close to what the Democrats flapped their lips about in Congress for the past six months.

This isn't about Bush, no matter how much you would like for it to be. Again, you react like a partisan and flail against your embodiment of evil. That might make you feel better, but it doesn't change what your leaders are saying and how they have failed your ideology.

Yes, labeling people also helps you overlook your failed leaders. Fine. But I think you should consider that this is about a whole lot more than your own personal illusions and your self-induced catharsis. People like myself don't dislike Hillary because she is a woman, people like myself dislike her because she is the consummate, soulless political hack. She has had what? A dozen positions on the war? Again: Wake up! You can do better than this. Your party can do better than this...

 

Our party is diverse and nuanced, you wouldn't understand. In your black and white world it's all or nothing, either you're with the terrorists or against them. Either there are no Americans in Iraq or you are for Bush's war strategy. Relax, the adults are here, we will figure it out.

 

The Biden Plan

President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans understandably want a rapid withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives.

There is a third way that can achieve the two objectives most Americans share: to bring our troops home without leaving chaos behind. The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis control over their daily lives in their own regions.