PLEASE EXPLAIN : How could the dem candidates say pullout by 2013?

Have I lost my mind? Did I miss something? WTF is going on?...2013?..Thats 6 more years of occupying Iraq...Please tell me that I misunderstood that exchange....

not yet anyway. We have to get a little closer, take this one step at a time.

that the troops would be out by 2013, because "they didn't know where we would be then". Just another way to stay as close to the center as possible IMHO.

Well it took Nixon a six years after the 68 election to get the last troops out of Nam. Don't want to set that bar too high.

:puke:

Plus we need those Iraqi bases for action against Iran. :nuke:

war machine. Don't forget they gave the Impostor war powers - the power that belonged to them in our Constitution. Then they have continued to fund the BushWar into the trillions.

As our ward leader, Louis Russo, always said, "Do NOT be misled."

They just said they couldn't pledge zero troops by 2013. No one knows what bunnypants will do in the next 2 years or what twists and turns may happen before and after that. Maybe the UN will take over with the US contributing. We'll still have an embassy there presumably and there are troops at embassies.

It was an horribly framed question, IMHO. It should have been, 'will you make every attempt to pull the troops out by the end of your first term?' Hell, I can't pledge I'll wake up tomorrow.

difficult to understand, is it? They didn't say we'll have troops occupying or fighting until 2013, they said they couldn't guarantee there will be no troops in 2013 because of the embassies, wherever else smatterings of troops could be. We have troops sprinkled all over the world. So we have an example of Democrats who understand reality, and the media who have framed it in this message of troops and war until 2013 under a Democratic President. Even my hero Keith Olbermann started his show with the same message the other day, must right him a letter.

Dems only allowed to call, I was screaming at the TV & tried to call. Dem callers saying they're not gonna vote because the candidates want to continue the war.... Grrrrrrr, the "librul" media at work....

there would be the complete destabilization of iran,syria,turkey, and kuwait. withdrawing all the reserves and national guard troops by the spring/summer is a realist goal. reducing our troop levels down 20-30 thousand by the summer of 2009 and then reducing gradually until the iraqi government is stable.if there were a un or multi national arab force we could reduce our troops even faster..
unless bush decides to bring in the un and all the surrounding countries into the solution of stabilizing iraq with in the next year it will be up to the next president in 2009 to start the process of winding down the war..all the wishfull thinking is`t going to alter reality....bush destroyed the balance of power in the middle east and it`s going to take time to shape a new balance. this will be the problem that the next president faces...how long will it take to restore the creditability of the united states? only time can tell us the answer.

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo

Lizette Alvarez, New York Times

Friday, January 2, 2004
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

"The British warned in their assessment that any occupation of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi might have to last as long as 10 years. The use of force would also anger and alienate Arab countries and irritate the Soviet Union, although a military confrontation with the country would be unlikely, the document stipulated."

Since things have changed re oil field seizures since '73 and things were tweaked to Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, we now need to publicly discuss this document from the '70s in full.

At least we at DU can have the conversation since the M$M won't. Don't you think ?

Also, Sen McCain has been saying all along that our stay in Iraq would be almost permanent:

"When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator John McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said, adding, "We've been in Korea for 50 years. We've been in West Germany for 50 years.""

http://www.spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/09_04.html

That's no so bad ? Are they outta their minds ? Have you read the latest cost estimates on war spending and how the military is at 'break point' ? Their heads truly are buried in the sand.

Let's hope they meant a small reaction force of some type based in Kuwait or Abu Dhabi maybe and THAT until 2013 maybe.

I'll have the answer in then next 3-4 days, promise.

In the meantime, think it through as a citizen policy maker...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1926674&mesg_id=1926674

I thought I'd become sufficiently jaded, but when I saw the "2013" snips randomly appear on my
tee vee, I said out loud, "Give me a f'ing break!" (it went on). I was stunned, as you were, but there
is a good explanation. The days of bullshit are rapidly coming to an end. There are soooooo many people out there who get that this whole war is nothing more than a huge profit generator...they're everywhere, not just here and there on the internet and traditional 'left.' I think that we're in for a staged public response but when the full brutality of this war, the revolting war profiteering, and the delay in resolving it come forward - and that will happen - there are going to be a lot of perpetrators having a mind bending effort...as they look out the windows of their cell.

One more point - "2013" is actually an extension of the finish line. Previously, the word had been, "Even if we wanted out now, it would take 12-24 months."

Here's great Demo candidate Richardson on getting out (he has more foreign policy experience than the rest combined):

http://tinyurl.com/25z6a5

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; Page A15

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal -- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process -- would be the most responsible and effective course of action

at this point I just think we dont belong in the middle east...actually, I've always felt that way...since I was a kid..a long time ago...I never remember a time when there was not major conflict in that part of the world..for reasons that are so old they have become genetic...we cant fix it...and the pretext of fixing it socially, albeit for purely economic reasons, has us embroiled in somebody elses business while major cities are going bankrupt and, and, and, and...no healthcare for millions...and on and on and on....

Do we STILL not get it that IMAGE MATTERS??

"IT ALL DEPENDS" IS NOT A GOOD SLOGAN.

They can't speak beyond that date, i suppose, and who knows how difficult it will be to extract ourselves (assuming we even get the chance...)

I think most of the candidates expressed a real honest belief that is the fact no one truly knows what * and the like are doing in Iraq. It's unclear if the military has invested enough resources to any realistic withdrawal plan, or any real plan to actually target real terrorist threats to the area. Basically there is the reality of fighting terrorism, withdrawing troops, and trying to leave Iraq with some resemblance of stability. It's not clear the * and Co. will have done any of the work to allow any of these things to occur immediately. I will not vote for a candidate that will not end the war and end it quickly, but do expect some small combat force will remain in the area as a peace keeper/ antiterrorism task force well through the term of the next president.