Come on, DUers...words mean things, re: "all troops out of Iraq." [View All]

Edwards, Obama and Clinton are taking a lot of heat for their refusal to commit to removing all troops from Iraq if they're elected. In bashing them, many keep saying they refused to remove all combat troops from Iraq, but that wasn't Russert's question. He asked each candidate if they're commit to withdrawing ALL troops.

It can't be done. It won't be done. Ever.

The fact remains, we're in Iraq forever. We've spent billions and billions of dollars on military bases and the largest embassy on the planet. To believe or even expect that we'll abandon them is just silly. It will not happen, even if Dennis Kucinich is miraculously elected. It simply won't happen.

COMBAT troops are there for the purpose of FIGHTING, "smokin' out Al Qaida," battling the evil doers. But simply saying "troops" is an entirely different thing. There will always be "troops" there, to guard our new embassy, to man our new military bases, to escort Halliburton's oil field workers around. Face it, our "troops" are there, and will be there for decades to come.

What surprised me, I suppose, is that none of the three made this distinction, and essentially stepped right into Russert's bear trap. They could have easily offered an explanation such as I just did, along with a promise to immediately stop the COMBAT and start bringing home those men and women who are taking (and firing) the bullets. Why they didn't, I'm not sure. Hopefully they're asking themselves the same question today.

Either way, if you're going to cast your vote based upon who actually promised to bring all troops home, your only actual choices are Kucinich or Gravel.

But neither of them will be able to fulfill that promise, either.

.