Dems can't make guarantee on Iraq troops

Source: By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

8 minutes ago

HANOVER, N.H. - The three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they could not guarantee that all U.S. combat troops would be gone from Iraq by 2013.


"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.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate_11

---

no comments

its pretty obvious

what will Americans tell them 4 years from now...

If this is so important an issue, why are you not supporting
Dodd or Biden.
Could it be we vote our hearts and not our heads.

Bush/War/Oil ended. The choice is clear - do not put a BushII in charge.

No one knows what the next President will inherit, and to say that you will remove all troops by 2013, is pandering. The idiot in chief could get us in so much trouble that it will be impossible to take the quick road out.

zalinda

you are ALREADY in so much trouble that it might be wiser to pull out before it gets really worse

anyway I think it is too late

some experts have said that he US won't attack Iran before they can pull out their troops out of Iraq. But it's not likely it happens. It is very probable that Israel will strike Iran (with US support) in the end of this year or the beginning of next.

This will unleash a massive Iranian retaliation in Iraq among other places, with of course more US involvement as a result.

Therefore the honest answer would be "we want an immediate pull out". The long way out will be like the Napoleonic retreat from Russia : long, painful and a destroyed army as a result.

try 2053.

how long have we been in Korea?

What good would it do to elect them then?

That they are better than the Republicans? Just how?

WTF??!!

and bang, your the new POTUS

If Bush can order them in, the next President can order them out.

Fucking cowards.

Dishonest, yes, but anyone can see what they do.

Interesting that AP characterized it this way, while all(?) but Clinton and (maybe) Obama were for withdrawing essentially everyone within first year. If I heard correctly, Obama would _start_.

a war criminal for continuing the brutal occupation of Iraq. That's what is going to happen if one of the top tier candidates gets elected.

And Freepers will "join" us from day 1, and they will scream for Impeachment for breaking all laws and betraying the Constitution and We The People.

Strange times, R they nut?

if I was only a fly on that wall.

Source: Associated Press

Dems can't make guarantee on Iraq troops
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

HANOVER, N.H. - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"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.

Foreign policy blended with domestic issues at the debate on a Dartmouth College stage, and several of the contenders endorsed payroll tax increases to assure a stable Social Security system.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate

"Dems Won't Make Guarantee on Iraq Troops"

Too much bullshitting on that question from some of the candidates.

Dear Sens. Clinton/Obama and former Sen. Edwards:

Iraq is a deal killer. Support complete and immediate withdrawal, or I will not support ANY of you.

Sincerely,

____________



It IS a deal killer too, and I think it's time for ALL supporters of those 3 candidates to start making a tough choice: hold your candidate accountable or jump ship.

the person in office then assumes all responsibility for Iraq

Once you become the "most powerful person in the world", as US presidents are called, then it's ALL on you.

Continually blaming Bush for 4 years while you're the one now in office will cause the person in office to look bad - and cowardly.

What's fair or what's right has got nothing to do with it.

If it did, we wouldn't even be in Iraq now.

Just look how the blame shifted during Vietnam...

So all this pre-packaged, years in advance, pre-emptive defense building won't do you any good...the American people will see you as the President - as the one with all the power....and it will be YOU (and your party) they blame.

But hey, you live like you want to live...

but don't think for a minute that the blood of those dying won't be on YOUR hands....because it will.

YOU will be blamed for not cleaning up the mess..like it or not...fair or not...it will happen.

But, as a public service for our public servants, here's the correct answer, for free:

"Mr. gratuitous, if elected, will you pull the troops out of Iraq by the end of your term?"

"Thank you for that question, Mr. Russert. You damn betcha I'd try like hell to do just that and bring these volunteers home at the earliest possible opportunity. This government has broken its trust with our men and women in uniform, and unlike past wars, the burden has fallen disproportionately heavily -- almost exclusively -- on the poor and disadvantaged in our society. But the truth of the matter is that the current administration has so fogged the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan that it's impossible to tell what's going on in those two theaters, and it would be reckless to make any guarantees without knowing the full extent of the damage that has been done to our nation and its prestige these last six years. Certainly we haven't gotten the story from this administration, and we haven't gotten it from the major media, including your employer, which I might add has profited quite handsomely from its military contracts."

If any candidates need more answers, study this one; the seeds of any responses to current issues are pretty much there.

oh yeah, this really excites me about the democratic "hopefuls".

brav-fucking-o

way to play to your pissed off base, candidates.

:banghead:

and trying to convince the Chamber of Commerce they will ignore any constituent, break any law, incinerate any baby, and do whatever they have to to increase corporate profits a few points.

It's not that they COULD not. It's that they WOULD not.

Repubbas have been trying to pin down the Dems on the Dems plan to get the troops home. All of the candidates, and most Dems, can see through that ploy. So....

No guarantee is a realistic guarantee that when the time comes the matter will be resolved pursuant to whatever is going on then - in the future.