Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>HANOVER, N.H. — The leading Democratic presidential hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2013, the end of the next president's first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not. "I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.<< <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,298212,00.html Aye carumba. Who are these people, and why are they running for president? It's difficult to project 4 years from now? This is why we need a third party, and pronto. Revolting, isn't it?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I would say the leading candidates were being completely honest. And, for the sake of our soldiers, I'm glad they were being honest.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think it shows the ability of the Democratic front-runners to accept and deal with reality. It was an enormous mistake to invade Iraq, but there is no way to undo it now. If we were to leave too soon it would be a huge failure and very dangerous for the U.S. How can our allies ever count on our support if we "cut and run" when things get difficult? Do all the promises we've made to the people and the leaders of Iraq mean nothing? It would embolden terrorists throughout the world to take down governments, seeing that they were able to wear down and defeat the strongest nation on earth by sticking at it long enough. Would we even be talking about this now if the USSR hadn't turn tail and run, leaving Afghanistan to Osama and the Taliban? We've seen what a global disaster that retreat has resulted in. How can we look at that and make the same mistake. I hate that we got involved in Iraq. I hate that our intelligence wasn't better. I hate that the first year of occupation was tremendously bungled. If we had taken the proper strategy and backed it up with enough troops we could have been out of there two years ago. But none of that happened. We are there and we need to stay there until we can leave Iraq in the condition we promised. No phony "peace with honor" BS that results in the enemy chasing us with our tails between our legs on our way out the door like happened in Viet Nam. I’m encouraged by the statements. They show that the leading contenders for the nomination can look at a situation seriously and assess it without resorting to what would be the popular answer.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't think it can be considered "cut and run" after 4, 5, 6 years. I can't help it that this administration insisted on painting "victory" as Iraq looking like Main Street USA. The reality that wasn't ever dealt with is that there are at least three distinct factions in Iraq, so "our" vision of what Iraq could be makes not a bit of difference until it's what "they" want. How serious are they trying in Iraq to make it better? Well, the government there took a long summer vacation. So, things must be swell. And if someone is running for president, surely they have had ample time to assess the situation and come up with some fresh ideas. Instead, we have frontrunners wanting to play it safe, not say anything controversial. So, we get more weak stay the course, wait and see mumbo jumbo. >>We are there and we need to stay there until we can leave Iraq in the condition we promised.<< That's never going to happen. Remember that what we promised was concocted by the same bunch that gave us "greeted as liberators" and all that jazz. Sooner or later, we will have to call this war done. How many lives will have been lost, how much money spent? And how many new terrorists will we have helped create in the process? There's an old saying about what to do when you find yourself in a hole -- first, stop digging.
Originally Posted By jonvn Whoever gets in is going to have to sit down and figure out how to get us out, and then see what amount of time it takes to do such a thing. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to just say "We'll be out in six months." Probably a better thing to say is "We're going to do THIS." And when that's done, we'll have a certain level there that meets some sort of plan. This is as opposed to what we have now, where we basically have no apparent goals at all. The Senate just overwhelmingy voted to suggest that the country be cut into three parts. I think that's what is going to happen. But before that can happen, we have to have someone in office who isn't an idiot. So, to do that, it will take time. Aside from that, the people speaking said "We don't know what we're going to inherit." And it's true. Right now, there are more and more rumblings about bombing Iran. What if between now and election day, we get involved with Iran? So it's hard to really pin down exactly what is going to be the best course of action by the time we get in there. I would think, though, that after 4 years of whoever is next in office, they should have it figured out. On the other hand, I was just reading about Hitler's Eagle Nest. The US Army was occupying the site until 1996.
Originally Posted By alexbook For a little while, in 2006, I was optimistic that the Democratic Party might be a strong force for peace. Congress has disappointed me this year, and now the Presidential candidates are following suit.
Originally Posted By DAR <<But before that can happen, we have to have someone in office who isn't an idiot. >> So we might be looking at 2040 then?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I would agree that invading Iraq was an idea that lacked planning and any sort of exit strategy. But for a candidate running for President [no matter the party] to announce 'Okay, on January 20, 2008, we're going to pull our troops out of Iraq' seems equally ill-advised.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But the question asked wasn't for a specific date, other than sometime by the end of their 4 year term -- which would be 5 years from now. And the top three said they couldn't make that commitment. So basically, that means on teh issue of Iraq, there really isn't a whole lot of difference in either party. You get the same non-answers from each side which boil down to:STAY THE COURSE. Sure, they gripe about this administration all day long. But at the end of the day, they're saying the president is doing the right thing because they have no intention of doing much differently. So much for Iraq as a campaign issue. I wonder how they feel about gay marriage, or abortion, or gun control?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So basically, that means on teh issue of Iraq, there really isn't a whole lot of difference in either party. You get the same non-answers from each side which boil down to:STAY THE COURSE.<< I don't think that's entirely fair, 2oony. I've been plenty disappointed by the weak spine Democrats have shown since the November elections, too. I think Republican smear tactics have made them weary and weak. But I think there's a huge difference to how Bush approaches the war and how, say, Obama approaches it. Bush, with his refusal to hear bad news (see the new biography on him for more on this) and his being surrounded by yes-men, would keep us in Iraq until 2050 even if his approval rating was .02%, still fighting it to win it. I think if someone like Clinton or Obama were elected, they would actively do what they could to get us out of Iraq. I might not agree with the timeline or the way they do it, but the difference is there and it's huge. It also doesn't mean that some or even most troops wouldn't be home by 2012. It just means they can't guarantee all would be home. I think they remember the "read my lips" experience of Bush I. I'd rather have a realist than someone who tells me what I want to hear. Again, I get the frustration, and I share a lot of it. But what it comes down to is when we go to the polls in 2008, there's going to be two viable names on that ballot. Like it or not, one will have an "R" after their name, one will have a "D" after their name. For all their flaws, we'll be much, much better off as a country if good, moderate, thoughtful people like you punch the name with the "D" next to it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think Republican smear tactics have made them weary and weak.<< Then if that's all it takes to knock the wind out of their sails, I think they are weary and weak, and out to be replaced. >>I'd rather have a realist than someone who tells me what I want to hear.<< I would, too. But my goodness, these folks want to go into office by making absolutely no commitments of any sort. They don't want to make any promises at all. I'm not asking for an absolute date. But I can't vote for anyone unwilling to commit to getting us out of Iraq in the next 5 years, no matter which party they belong to. This isn't some small issue, it's costing lives and phoenominal dollars every day, and the longer it drags on, the more long term damage it potentially creates. It is issue #1 on the minds of most Americans. And other than knocking President Bush about it, it's time for them to indicate they they, indeed, have something fresh to offer in regards to it. Maybe it is unfair of me to expect anyone to be able to figure some way out of this mess. Maybe it's really that complex and bad that what we're down to is a series of bad, badder and baddest solutions and choosing between whatever might be the lesser of those. It is frustrating and disheartening that our government would get us entangled in a mess such as this.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << It is frustrating and disheartening that our government would get us entangled in a mess such as this.>> I agree. The decision to invade Iraq and the pathetic strategy (or lack of one) for the occupation has been the biggest military policy blunders in U.S. history. Unfortunately, they have been so bad that I think it will take a while to extricate ourselves, no matter how committed we are to doing so.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I think if someone like Clinton or Obama were elected, they would actively do what they could to get us out of Iraq.<< Has Hillary even made that much of a commitment?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <On the other hand, I was just reading about Hitler's Eagle Nest. The US Army was occupying the site until 1996<M why ? In case he returned ?
Originally Posted By jonvn I guess because they were afraid it would turn into a nazi shrine. And you know, I think we were just really really mad about that whole WWII episode. Berctesgarten is trying to recover from this whole thing. There was a lot of controversey about putting a hotel on top of hitler's house. It sits on top of a warren of bunkers that are still there. But they put in a museum and memorial to the people murdered by the nazis. The only grafitti found by the people who wrote the article was "never again." No pro nazi stuff anywhere. There are a few WWII vets who go up there. One was quoted as saying he was kind of angry that they put a resort hotel on top of hitlers home, but the site is so beautiful that he said it shouldn't be kept secret. We still have bases in Germany. It's only 60+ years later.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I saw some Republican congressman on 'Hardball' last night. Matthews was asking him, very directly, who do you want to win? The Sunnis or the Shia? He had talk-radio answers and garbage like "I want the ones on the side of FREEDOM to win". Matthews pressed him, and he never did answer. Because he knows that it will wind up being a theocracy there sooner or later, and all this will have been for nothing. Nothing. It was fascinating listening to this guy try the usual babble and getting called on it, with no substance nor understanding of what's going on over there. And this is the type of person we elect. All flash and buzzwords, no depth.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Here's a partial transcript from msnbc.com... >>FRANKS: I think it‘s a very good question. And it really speaks to even the broader question, and that is what will happen to all of our children in the future if we fail in Iraq? It will supercharge terrorist efforts all over the world. And I believe with all of our hearts that if we do not deal with jihadist ideology effectively in this generation, perhaps even in this generation, the children of this country will see nuclear IEDs in America. MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you—I want to ask Mr. Moran about this question. If we—I want to ask you the values question. If we stay in Iraq with our troops, supporting the Shia side of the fight—because that‘s what we‘re doing, we‘re arming the Shia majority—and the Sunni revert to their warrior past and they decide to take over the country, is that our position? Mr. Franks said we should take sides with the Shia against what he calls the... FRANKS: No, that‘s not... MATTHEWS: Well, the jihadists are the Sunnis, sir. FRANKS: The fact is—the fact is that our number one foe in Iraq is al Qaeda in Iraq. That is the fact. MATTHEWS: Well, they‘re Sunnis. They‘re the Sunni Iraqis. That‘s who they are. And you‘re saying we have to defeat them. FRANKS: They‘re the people trying to kill our soldiers, and yes, I did say we have to defeat them. MATTHEWS: Right. You‘re saying—well, that means someone has to defeat them. That means the Shia have to defeat them. Somebody has to win in Iraq, right? FRANKS: Yes. And it has to be the cause of freedom, and it has to be America... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What side do you want to win over there? FRANKS: I want the side of freedom to prevail. MATTHEWS: Well, who‘s that? FRANKS: I want to see Iraq be a freestanding government... MATTHEWS: OK, but which government... FRANKS: ... that can stop terrorism and completely... MATTHEWS: Sir... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK, I can‘t argue if you‘re going to... FRANKS: ... completely overrun by Iran... MATTHEWS: ... filibuster. Who do you want to win the war in Iraq over there? Which side of the fight? I mean, we can‘t—we‘re coming home eventually. Who do you want to be there when we leave? Who do you want running the show when we leave? FRANKS: I want to see a freestanding government in Iraq that can defeat terrorism and stave off the challenge that Iran faces to dominate that region entirely. MATTHEWS: OK, in other words, you want—but the Shia are identified with Iran. FRANKS: Well, there may be different factions that may have some different advantages, but if we see a free government in Iraq, where they have been having elections since they were called Babylon, we could see something happen here that could germinate peace and even an ideal of freedom in the Middle East that may turn the whole of humanity in a better direction.<<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Just because we both recognize a false dilemna when we see one doesn't make us the same guy.
