Top Dem candidates: Cannot promise troop pull-out

[M14 Shooter]

None of the top three Dem candidates can promise they will pull the troops out before the end of their first term:

HANOVER, N.H. (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.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTOBOG0.html

Questions for their anti-war supporters:
-How is it they can then demand that Bush pull the troops out before HE leaves office?
-How is it that you will still support whichever of these candidates that gets the nomination?

 

[jillian]

None of the top three Dem candidates can promise they will pull the troops out before the end of their first term:


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTOBOG0.html

Questions for their anti-war supporters:
-How is it they can then demand that Bush pull the troops out before HE leaves office?
-How is it that you will still support whichever of these candidates that gets the nomination?

Actually, that was only a small part of the debate.. and there was far more said on the subject.

As for support...easy. It isn't their mess and they don't know what kind of mess they'll be left with before they get in.

Plus, the ultimate answer is every one of them WANTS us out. They aren't going to "stay the course" like the radical right.

And more than that, from a purely political perspective, none of them would want a sound bite that can be cited by a date certain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for support...easy. It isn't their mess and they don't know what kind of mess they'll be left with before they get in.

So... how can they demand that Bush pull them out before the election?

And... what of their promises -- especially Hillary's -- to pull them out "immeditely" if they aren't out before they get in office?

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, that was only a small part of the debate.. and there was far more said on the subject.

As for support...easy. It isn't their mess and they don't know what kind of mess they'll be left with before they get in.

Plus, the ultimate answer is every one of them WANTS us out. They aren't going to "stay the course" like the radical right.

And more than that, from a purely political perspective, none of them would want a sound bite that can be cited by a date certain.

Politics as usual--they weren't dumb enough to discuss the truth until the last election was over.

 

[jillian]

So... how can they demand that Bush pull them out before the election?

And... what of their promises -- especially Hillary's -- to pull them out "immeditely" if they aren't out before they get in office?

I told you that was only a small part of what was said. Each of them said they would start getting them out immediately. They just wouldn't guarantee a date or promise that there wouldn't be any residual troops left for one purpose or another.

I hate sound bites because they distort what was said. I watched the debates and no...none of them would give a date certain. And they aren't going to, nor should they. I would hope that they would get our troops out safely and leave the civilian population in the best position possible (although it's unlikely it will be a good one).

And the answer to your other question: because Bush doesn't WANT them out and neither does any of the republican candidates. (except maybe Ron Paul, but he isn't even on the radar).

Repubs are still the party of the Iraq war. Because of the debates that will occur when the two candidates are finally picked through the primary process, I suspect this will become glaringly clear.

Moreover, the problem is that Bush made such a mess that there are no good options. There will only be the best of a bad lot.

 

[dilloduck]

I told you that was only a small part of what was said. Each of them said they would start getting them out immediately. They just wouldn't guarantee a date or promise that there wouldn't be any residual troops left for one purpose or another.

I hate sound bites because they distort what was said. I watched the debates and no...none of them would give a date certain. And they aren't going to, nor should they. I would hope that they would get our troops out safely and leave the civilian population in the best position possible (although it's unlikely it will be a good one).

And the answer to your other question: because Bush doesn't WANT them out and neither does any of the republican candidates. (except maybe Ron Paul, but he isn't even on the radar).

Repubs are still the party of the Iraq war. Because of the debates that will occur when the two candidates are finally picked through the primary process, I suspect this will become glaringly clear.

Moreover, the problem is that Bush made such a mess that there are no good options. There will only be the best of a bad lot.

If I were a democrat I would vote for a candiate who didn't use pitiful excuses to explain why they can't fix anything when they are elected. Is the new Dem bumper sticker going to be DON'T EXPECT MUCH ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I told you that was only a small part of what was said. Each of them said they would start getting them out immediately. They just wouldn't guarantee a date or promise that there wouldn't be any residual troops left for one purpose or another.

And yet, they have pushed and pushed and pushed for guaranteed dates from Bush...?

And the answer to your other question: because Bush doesn't WANT them out and neither does any of the republican candidates. (except maybe Ron Paul, but he isn't even on the radar).

This doesnt answer how they can EXPECT Bush to pull them out before the election when they cannot say they will pull them out before 2012.

 

[jillian]

And yet, they have pushed and pushed and pushed for guaranteed dates from Bush...?

They've pushed for START dates for WITHDRAWING troops.

This doesnt answer how they can EXPECT Bush to pull them out before the election when they cannot say they will pull them out before 2012.

Easy... he created the mess. He shouldn't dump it on the next president. And, certainly, he could, minimally, start making inroads. But he likes "stay[ing] the course".

And just so you don't have to take my word for it, here's the transcript of the debate last night. It was pretty interesting, actually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/politics/26DEBATE-TRANSCRIPT.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[M14 Shooter]

They've pushed for START dates for WITHDRAWING troops.

Something they themselves say they cannot guarantee...

Easy... he created the mess. He shouldn't dump it on the next president. And, certainly, he could, minimally, start making inroads. But he likes "stay[ing] the course".

None of that makes it possible for Bush to do what the Dem candidates say THEY can't do.

The Dem candidates are trying to talk out of both sides of their mounts, just to placate everyone -- and the anti-war, "leave now!" left are giving them a pass.

 

[jillian]

Something they themselves say they cannot guarantee...


None of that makes it possible for Bush to do what the Dem candidates say THEY can't do.

The Dem candidates are trying to talk out of both sides of their mounts, just to placate everyone -- and the anti-war, "leave now!" left are giving them a pass.

Well, I'm not "anti-war, 'leave now'." I think some wars need to be fought... just not this one. I also wouldn't say that we should pull out without gradual reduction of forces, leaving behind the mess Bush made.

As for the people you're talking about, the Dems are the only game in town. And believe me, they've been yelling about the ineffectiveness of what's happened thus far.