9/27 After last night's debates, it looks like the leading candidates
are all in favor of keeping the war going until the end of their
first term. I don't know who to vote for anymore.
\_ Romney!
\_ the reality is that Republicans are going to loose the election
in 2008. They are doing everything they can to drag the war until
end of Bush's 2nd term. When Democrat pull the troops, Republicans
can righteously accusing Democrats "cut and run."
\_ Oh please, do you have any idea what the Democrats are all
saying? They will *not* pull the troops. That is the whole
point. There is no one to vote for!
\_ I'm still throwing support to Biden, even though he has
no chance of being nominated.
\_ As long as a majority of people support the crummy media
created candidates because the better ones "don't stand
a chance" we'll get what we deserve. I always vote for
who I want, not who I'm told I should be. If more people
were like us we'd have better government.
\_ If elected, "I would have combat troops out of Iraq in
about nine months," Edwards said. That seems pretty
unambiguous to me.
\_ Nope. Go check his response in the most recent debate.
Here it is and I'll grant it is close but no cigar, esp.
the way he starts off in answer to "2013" as a target
date. He gets an "A" for effort though as the one
closest to saying he'll actually end the war for real.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at
the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops
will be out of Iraq?
MR. EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. I -- well,
I can tell you what I would do as president. If I --
when I'm sworn into office come January of 2009, if
there are in fact, as General Petraeus suggests,
100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will
immediately draw down 40 (thousand) to 50,000 troops
and, over the course of the next several months,
continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until
all of our combat troops are in fact out of Iraq.
I think the problem is, and it's what you've just
heard discussed, is, we will maintain an embassy in
Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will
probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those
humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think
somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops
will be necessary to accomplish that -- 3,500 to 5,000
troops.
But I do say -- I want to add to things I just heard.
I think that it's true that everyone up here wants to
take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq.
There are, however, differences between us, and those
differences need to be made aware. Good people have
differences about this issue. For example, I heard
Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to
continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a
continuation of the war. I do not think we should
continue combat missions in Iraq, and when I'm on a
stage with the Republican nominee come the fall of
2008, I'm going to make it clear that I'm for ending
the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who
wants to bring the war to an end, get all American
combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants
to continue the war.
\_ Just like he said then, the choice will be between
a Republican who intends to continue the war and
a Democrat who intends to end it. I guess at that
point you can make your choice who to vote for.
That is assuming that he wins the nomination (a
big big unlikely assumption, I admit, but one
big unlikely assumption, I admit, but one
that should make you want to support his campaign
if you want to actually end the war).
\_ No, the choice will be between one party that
says they will stay there to continue the war
and the other party that kinda sorta say they'll
be there but like if maybe uhm eventually ya
know it is sorta hard and I don't like your tone
asking me all these hard theoretical questions
so please don't ask me anything until I'm
President party that will also continue the war.
\_ That will be true if Hillary wins the
nomination, as is likely. I disagree with
your interpretation of what Edwards said.
\_ He was asked directly if he'd pledge to
have them all out by 2013. He said no.
What is there to interpret? I could have
been a motd jerk and just gave you the
first line but I gave the full quote.
He won't promise to have them all out
by *2013* which is *4* full years after
he would take office.
\_ He said he would pull 98% of them,
which is good enough to me. I don't
see why you want to leave the embassy
unguarded. Do you think he should promise
to pull the Marines from the Embassy
walls as well?
\_ Oh goodie then we can have another
reenactment of the Iranian embassy
take over because we left too small
a contingent for the role they have
been assigned protecting the embassy
and the humanitarian workers all over
the country in the middle of a huge
civil war. Brilliant. More half-
assed measures for the cameras.
\_ The Iranian Embassy takeover was
supported by the Islamic Rev. AQ
in Iraq is not supported by
Iraqis or the govt. Your example
does not work.
\_ Are you on the right thread?
WTH are you talking about?
This thread at this point was
about how many troops Edwards
would leave in Iraq and what
mission they would have, such
as protecting the US Emb from
*any* hostiles.
\_ Do you hold your breath
until you pass out and then
type randomly on the key-
board? You invoked the Iran
Embassy as though something
of that nature could take
place in a country that did
not explicity support such
actions. No matter how bad
Iraq gets, it will not be
that country. Stop fear-
mongering. |
http://csua.com/feed/