|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Democrats Stuck in Iraq?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Democrats Stuck in Iraq?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
September 27, 2007
Democratic candidates are pinned down on how quickly they would bring troops home from Iraq. The front-runners said it could take them years.
The latest Democratic presidential debate brought into sharp focus the candidates' disagreements on how quickly the U.S. can disentangle itself from Iraq.
Long-shot candidate Dennis Kucinich stood by his promise to bring all troops home within three months, and Bill Richardson said he could do it in a year – even at the cost of leaving some military equipment behind. But Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said they might have to keep some combat troops there in a counterterrorism role for more than four years, and John Edwards said he'd likely have thousands of non-combat troops there in a protective role.
We offer no judgments about whether any of the differing positions are practical or foolish, good or bad. We note only that the candidates, under questioning by an expert moderator, spelled out their positions in fairly specific terms.
Analysis
When making promises, candidates tend to use murky terms that sound good but could mean anything, letting the listener believe what they will. At the Sept. 26 debate among Democratic presidential candidates at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois once again used the term "phased redeployment," which many Democrats use to describe what they favor for U.S. troops in Iraq.
The term was popularized in Democratic circles in 2005 shortly after the release of a paper titled “Strategic Redeployment,” written by Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis of the liberal Center for American Progress. But it's not an official military term, and its precise meaning is unclear. Republicans should know that: In 1984, the National Council of Teachers of English bestowed third place in its annual Doublespeak Award to Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger for claiming that the removal of American soldiers from Lebanon was a redeployment and not a withdrawal. Nevertheless, Republicans have been quick to characterize the phrase as a euphemism for “retreat.”
But what exactly would each of the Democratic candidates do if elected president? Now, thanks to insistent questioning by NBC News' Tim Russert, the debate moderator, we know what the candidates say they would do, at least, with a fair amount of precision. Some Democrats would take years longer than others to bring home all the troops. Here's what each of them said when Russert asked if they could promise to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq within four years of taking office:
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said he'd get all troops out within three months of taking office:
Russert: You'll pledge to have all troops out by January of 2013?
Kucinich: By – by April of 2007, and you can mark that on your calendars if you want, to take a new direction.
Russert: Well, it's September of '07 now, so we're going to have a problem. (Laughter.)
Kucinich: Well, make that – make that 2009.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would get all troops out within one year, by January 2010, even at the expense of abandoning some military equipment:
Russert: How can you do it in one year?...
Richardson: This is what I would do. I would bring them out through roads through Kuwait and through Turkey. It would take persuading Turkey. The issue is light equipment. I would leave some of the light equipment behind.
Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut promised all troops out sometime during the four-year term:
Russert: Will you pledge as commander in chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?
Dodd: I will get that done.
Russert: You'll get it done.
Dodd: Yes, I will, sir.
Former Sen. John Edwards said he couldn't promise to get all U.S. troops out in four years, but he said he'd leave behind only a few thousand and none in a combat role:
Russert: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?
Edwards: I cannot make that commitment.... I will immediately draw down 40 [thousand] to 50,000 troops and, over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are in fact out of Iraq. [But we] will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that – 3,500 to 5,000 troops.
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said that her "goal" is to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 but that she can't promise that would happen. And some combat troops might remain.
Clinton: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting.... I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated.... [But there] may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.
Sen. Barack Obama took a very similar position, saying some U.S. troops would remain for an indefinite period for "counterterrorism activities," which we presume means combat troops.
Russert: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?
Obama: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office [and] if there's no timetable [for withdrawal], then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said U.S. troops would remain if a political settlement is reached to end civil violence, but otherwise he would bring them back.
Biden: If in fact there is no political solution by the time I am president, then I would bring them out because all they are is fodder. But ... [if] you have a stable Iraq like we have in Bosnia – we've had 20,000 Western troops in Bosnia for 10 years. Not one has been killed – not one. The genocide has ended. [But] I would make a commitment to have them all out if there is not a political reconciliation, because they're just fodder.
Former Sen. Mike Gravel didn't say directly how quickly he could get troops home if he is elected, but he said Clinton, Obama and Biden should filibuster until President Bush agrees to bring home troops now:
Russert: Senator, are you suggesting that these candidates suspend their campaigns, go back to Washington and for 40 consecutive days vote on the war?
Gravel: If it stops the killing, my God, yes, do it! |
|
|
| jtheweirdo |
| The dems don't want out of Iraq. Atleast the republicans are honest about wanting to stay. The dems say they want out, say they will end the war. But they do nothing to end the war. And they only want to bring back "combat" troops. We need thousands to stay to maintain our bases there. Its all bullshit. Anyone that still thinks the dems want out of Iraq is a damn fool. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Edwards is a blithering idiot.
"Edwards: I cannot make that commitment.... I will immediately draw down 40 [thousand] to 50,000 troops and, over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are in fact out of Iraq . [But we] will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that – 3,500 to 5,000 troops."
This man wants to be Commander in Chief...
:rolleyes:
Hilary has more balls than this fucking Nancy. |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
| Whoever is in office will gain from the war regardless of what they say. Dem Rep |
|
|
| Rike |
| Liberals don't care about the war either. They have just used it to gain political points with the mainstream voters. They will happily vote for any democrat that wins the nomination regardless of that candidates views on the war. :( |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Apparently, some believe that cutting off funding will end the war and force the President to capitulate. Constitutionally, I agree that Congress has the power to end funding. However it doesn’t have the votes to override the President’s veto.
Without a funding bill, the President could and would in my opinion continue the war and shift money from other programs.
You guys believed all the lies that got us into Iraq and now you're being duped into blaming the democrats for a war that belongs to solely to the GOP...
If it doesn't belong to the GOP why do they keep blocking any bills that would start a withdrawl?
and by the way NC Mark... it's pretty sad you had to go start a whole new thread since you were getting your ass handed to you on the other one.
pathetic. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
Liberals don't care about the war either. They have just used it to gain political points with the mainstream voters. They will happily vote for any democrat that wins the nomination regardless of that candidates views on the war. :( |
party line bullshit
rike's trademark :D |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
Apparently, some believe that cutting off funding will end the war and force the President to capitulate. Constitutionally, I agree that Congress has the power to end funding. However it doesn’t have the votes to override the President’s veto.
Without a funding bill, the President could and would in my opinion continue the war and shift money from other programs.
You guys believed all the lies that got us into Iraq and now you're being duped into blaming the democrats for a war that belongs to solely to the GOP...
If it doesn't belong to the GOP why do they keep blocking any bills that would start a withdrawl?
and by the way NC Mark... it's pretty sad you had to go start a whole new thread since you were getting your ass handed to you on the other one.
pathetic. |
This thread isn't even about congress. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
This thread isn't even about congress. |
are we jumping ahead to the dem president? :jj: |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
party line bullshit
rike's trademark :D |
will you vote for a democrat in 2008 even if they wont say when they will end the war? |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
are we jumping ahead to the dem president? :jj: |
Yes Ming. We are looking at the democrat candidates and their views on Iraq. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
will you vote for a democrat in 2008 even if they wont say when they will end the war? |
this war is never-ending
if a candidate says that they can withdraw our troops - then I know they are lying
I would vote for any dem if the race is close enough for my vote to matter (not likely in CA). otherwise I would vote green or peace and freedom, etc. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
Yes Ming. We are looking at the democrat candidates and their views on Iraq. |
and the multitude of options in Cheney's Iraq? :burst: |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
this war is never-ending
if a candidate says that they can withdraw our troops - then I know they are lying
I would vote for any dem if the race is close enough for my vote to matter (not likely in CA). otherwise I would vote green or peace and freedom, etc. |
Well this is a lot like I said earlier. You liberals will vote for any democrat regardless of their views on the war in Iraq. As long as they have (D) next to their name, all of your screaming about the war doesn't matter. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
will you vote for a democrat in 2008 even if they wont say when they will end the war? |
More than a Republican who doesnt want to think about withdrawal for the next ten years? Yes |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
More than a Republican who doesnt want to think about withdrawal for the next ten years? Yes |
lol so all a democrat has to do is promise to "think" about withdrawing? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
Well this is a lot like I said earlier. You liberals will vote for any democrat regardless of their views on the war in Iraq. As long as they have (D) next to their name, all of your screaming about the war doesn't matter. |
non sequitur |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
lol so all a democrat has to do is promise to "think" about withdrawing? |
lip service is better than any babylonian repuke |
|
|
|
|
|
