Clinton, Edwards & Obama Won't Guarantee That by 2013 We'll Be Out Of Iraq?

[orleans]

oh really?

i guess i missed that when first stated--but i'm hearing it now.

"HANOVER, New Hampshire (AP) -- 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."

(sept. 27, 2007) http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/

on the other hand, dennis kucinich says he'll get the troops out of iraq within THREE WEEKS!

download randi's wednesday december 5th show for the interview
(it's 1 hour and 35 minutes into the show; about 17 minutes long)

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Rhodes.html

i am so sick of this bullshitting around that these politicians seem to be doing all the goddamn time--i want someone who will actually do right by us--someone who has the courage and the social conscience to DO THE RIGHT THING. if they can't bring themselves to do the right thing for the people of this country then they should get the fuck out of the way.

we've already had to put up with quite enough, thank you very much. i just don't want to have to figure out who the lesser of two evils would be.

no guarantees by 2013 from the top 3? fuck that.

[JohnLocke]

1. It's a BS questions by Russert to entrap our candidates

Obviously no serious candidate will completely rule out anything, given there may be unforeseen circumstances (i.e., after we leave there is a genocide, or there is an identifible terrorist group that attacks U.S. nationals outside Iraq from a base inside Iraq, or there is some sort of Turkish/Saudi/Iranian invasion in which U.S. combat troops can mitigate the conflict, etc.) None of these is terribly likely to happen, but to rule out absolutely any situation is both politically and practically unwise.

BUT Edwards (and I believe Obama) have firmly stated that they will end the failed occupation of Iraq immediately upon taking office. Edwards has stated over and over that there should be complete withdrawal of combat troops within nine to ten months.

We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

[951-Riverside]

3. Do you think we should stay until "the job is done"?

Personally I think we should apologize, leave and let them sort it out.

[JohnLocke]

8. Neither I nor Edwards has suggested that. It's an absurd suggestion (nt).

[951-Riverside]

11. Its a very simple question NOT a suggestion in any way.

[JohnLocke]

12. The answer is "no."

To wit: Mainly because there is no "job to be done" that has been articulated by the administration to any reasonable degree, only a nebulous set of ideas and vague goals. Continuing the occupation is not in the national interest, as you, I, and Edwards all agree.

[orleans]

4. so why, if kucinich can end this occupation in three weeks, will

it take edwards so long to only end part of it?

[JohnLocke]

7. Kucinich can't end the occupation in three weeks.

You can start ending the occupation in three weeks. Indeed, Edwards has proposed just that with the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months.

Obviously you cannot finish the withdrawal (redeployment) in three weeks. Kucinich's and Edwards' plans have similiar effects (they both would end the occupation and have no permanent bases in Iraq) but Edwards is honest and realistic about how he will go about doing it.

The 20 ground combat brigades deployed here will fill 10,000 flatbed trucks and will take a year to move, logistics experts say. A full withdrawal, shipping home some 200,000 Americans and thousands of tons of equipment, dismantling dozens of American bases and disposing of tons of accumulated toxic waste, will take 20 months or longer, they estimate.
(...)
Extricating combat forces during an active war is a tricky military maneuver under the best of circumstances, according to interviews with senior military officers and dozens of tactical and strategic military planners and logistics experts in Iraq and at U.S. military facilities across the region.

The end of America's last big war, in Vietnam, was planned in detail. Despite the popular image of a helicopter plucking the last Americans from a Saigon rooftop, the withdrawal of 365,000 soldiers took place in increments between 1969 and 1973. The planning took two years.

*Wood, David. "The long, hard haul from Iraq." Baltimore Sun 15 July 2007.

See also:
*Baldor, Lolita C. "Gens.: Iraq withdrawal will be long process." Associated Press 16 July 2007.
*Woolsey, Lynn. "A Fully Funded 6-Month Withdrawal Plan." San Francisco Chronicle 17 Jan. 2006.

[orleans]

9. ok--sorry--i read your first post wrong. but why then, when asked,

couldn't he guarantee it?
edit: never mind, you already answered that.

[JohnLocke]

10. Because of what I wrote about in post #1.

From Edwards's Iraq policy paper:

Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months
Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

(1) Support for continuing the occupation and (2) refusing to blindly commit that there will be no combat troops in Iraq in 2013 are two very, very different things. (1) is something that only an idiot would accept, and both Kucinich and Edwards continue to oppose the occupation; (2) is a trap by Russert to get our candidates to unequivocally commit to a specific policy five years in the future. As Edwards has stated, he will end the occupation and withdraw all combat troops. But I think most reasonable people would believe that if after a future redeployment the situation changes in Iraq, and there is some sort of humanitarian crisis or identifiable terrorist base in Iraq attacking Americans outside Iraq a Democratic president would be right to send American forces (obviously not to continue the occupation, but to achieve some specific objective) to Iraq.

Russert is trying to play 'gotcha.' I ain't buying it.

Good thread. :)

[KharmaTrain]

14. It Was A Trap

It was an attempt to frame the candidates as being "weak on security" by trying to get them to admit they'd "cut and run".

No person can make that determination...especially without the proper knowledge and plan. While people want a withdrawl, they don't want a retreat. They don't want to pack 'em all up at once...it's all but impossible...instead to have a coherent plan, in conjunction with diplomacy, that gets our troops out safe.

I strongly doubt we'll have troops in Iraq by 2013...and I sure hope I'm not wrong...but it won't happen overnight.

[ingac70]

2. I expect as much from Clinton and Edwards...

Since these assholes voted for this bullshit.

[upi402]

5. Kucinich will stop them from spying on us too, and clean our election process

and is the ONLY one who would!!!

[orleans]

6. i believe that. i'm sure he is the only one who would do a lot of things

for all of us.

[Horse with no Name]

13. I honestly think ALL of them should take a pass on answering this

and instead state that since so much of the intelligence has been cooked, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make an informed opinion about this until they have access to REAL information from people who aren't making billions of dollars for their croneys by continuing the war.