http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200804/POL20080411a.html I thought it was they hate us because we are there. Get out...Now! What are you waiting for? If we get out the world will suddenly fall in love with us again....It costs money! Ethanol is really fuel efficient and does not raise food prices...O.K. I've been listening to Glen Beck, but it confuses me that it seems that the 2 Democratic Presidential Nominees cannot commit. Is this a problem?...For one Liberal activist...Guess what?...It's a problem. No Pledge on Troop Exit -- No Problem, Democratic Congressman Says By Josiah Ryan CNSNews.com Staff Writer April 11, 2008 (CNSNews.com) - While Democratic Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) have refused to pledge that they would withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2013 - if one of them is elected president - that lack of commitment to withdraw the troops is not something voters should concern themselves with, said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) in an April 9 conference call. Courtney made the call to reporters to discuss the congressional testimony Monday and Tuesday of Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, and his comment about the no-troop-withdrawal pledge by Clinton and Obama was in response to a question posed by Cybercast News Service. "People should not read too much into it because clearly they are both proposing a much better path than the one we heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker," said Courtney. "At this point, I think the voters in this country are going to have a pretty clear choice whether it's Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama or Sen. [John] McCain," said Courtney. "I think McCain has introduced a pretty open-ended commitment strategy, and Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have made it clear they're going in a much different direction." Obama and Clinton were asked by NBC's Tim Russert, during the Sept. 26, 2007, Democratic presidential debate, if they would pledge to withdraw U.S. combat troops by 2013 should one of them be elected president. Neither Obama nor Clinton would make the pledge, saying there were too many variables involved to make such a commitment at that time. "I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Obama. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," Clinton said. Former Sen. John Edwards also said at the debate, "I cannot make that commitment." Liberal activist David Swanson, however, told Cybercast News Service that the failure to pledge to remove U.S. combat troops by 2013 revealed the candidates' underlying lack of commitment to end the Iraq war. Swanson is a co-founder of "After Downing Street.org," a coalition that opposes the Iraq war and supports the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. "They are pretending to be opponents of the war," Swanson said of Clinton and Obama. "I am far beyond disturbed that they won't commit to ending the war in five years, and I am far more disturbed that they refuse to end the war now by cutting the funding." Despite the lack of commitment by Obama and Clinton to a U.S. troop withdrawal by 2013, Courtney told reporters on the conference call that a concrete deadline for withdrawal is important. "I think after five long years we are in a position to tell the Iraqi government that the training wheels are coming off," said Courtney. "I don't think anyone is talking about just walking away, but we want something tangible, and that is the plan we are laying out." Swanson was not optimistic, however, telling Cybercast News Service he did not expect Congress to take any major steps on the issue soon. "Clinton wants to keep mercenaries over there, and Obama wants to keep non-combat troops over there," said Swanson. "They both have made it really clear, and they have never wavered that they intend to keep the thing going. ... They are afraid the media will accuse them of being weak on terror." Does this Liberal activist have a point???...Or is this another example of a far-lefter in outer space?
Well, the Iraqis don't want us to be there. So we should just get out to comply with their view. I think the Iraqis fully understand the consequences of our withdrawal. Despite that, they want us go. Why can't we grant their wish?
I think the problem is that our current system is too costly, so it is inevitable it is going to be controlled by people with money. We are now in the internet age. I think we have the technology to make elections really simple. We can now ban all campaign activities and force candidates to write standardized web pages for their political platform and then schedule some televised debates and speeches. This might favor people who already had name recognition but I think it is the same for the current system. Another plus of this is that we can save a lot of time and money that can be devoted to more fruitful ventures.
In the near future, is there really such a thing as a non-combat US troop in Iraq? I believe that any American military personnel in Iraq in the foreseeable future will be, de facto, combat troops.
Well, either that or they have to make strategic decisions based on circumstances on the ground a year from now. It's dumb to make promises you can't keep. Any candidate who pledges to get out of any war in advance is lying to you. What they can do is reset the strategic objectives to help facilitate getting out - but too many circumstances can change in a year to prevent that.
The way we withdraw is just as important as withdrawing. Both Obama and Hillary (not so much John Edwards) stopped the over-the-top demagoguery on pulling out last year. We can't just pull out of Iraq immediately. It has to be thoughtful and planned.
Pulling out the troops now is worse than sending them in in the first place. By invading Iraq the U.S. has made a commitment to stay there until a stable democracy is established and oil starts to flow this way. So far niether has been accomplished.
Franchiseblade, Do you think Petraeus is the right General to keep for the forseeable future? You goota admit he has been much better than Sanchez or the other he replaced...He has super-high intelligence, and from what I understand a lot of respect from the troops because of his life experience (taking a .223 round in the chest, being more visible on the frontlines, etc.)...He literally wrote a book on urban warfare. what is your feeling on his utility?...
quoted for diagnosis. the cure is easy! nice thread though overall. (As a side-rant, why is Glen Beck on TV, and why does he get to have that damned little Green Bay Packers symbol floating on screen all the time? Why is his fat face especially well-informed about anything? How can he admit he's "just for entertainment" but end up with time on major news channels? I hate hate hate the state of media in the US. I may have to go on a Lehrer, CSM only diet.)
