Well, I certainly can't say it is being ignored anymore. Even Tim Russert is asking Democrats about residual forces now, in the first question of tonight's debate no less. And the answers are even worse than I feared:
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.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.
"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
2013? 2013?! This is so utterly disappointing. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all can't pledge to pull even all combat troops out of Iraq after four year in office? And yet Edwards still attacked Clinton over this:
With the Democratic left-wing demanding a hasty U.S. timetable out of Iraq, Edwards criticized the New York senator for not ruling out that U.S. troops might engage in some combat missions in Iraq if she were to win the 2008 election.
"To me that's a continuation of the war," Edwards said. "Combat missions mean that the war is continuing. I believe the war needs to be brought to an end."
Edwards' broadside put Clinton on the defensive at a time when she is enjoying a comfortable lead in opinion polls and trying to appear above the fray. But there was no sign that the debate would prompt a major shake-up in the Democratic field.
I am glad that Edwards made this attack, but if he can't commit to having American troops out in 2013, then the final quoted sentence actually makes sense. This is passing up on a major point of differentiation. Edwards is showing potential here, but not being able to promise to have all troops out by the end of his first term severely undermines his position. Very, very disappointing. I honestly don't understand it.
It is a broadly held position in the blogosphere that the Democratic Congress is not doing enough to try and end the war in Iraq. However, after tonight's debate, I wonder if the blogopsphere needs to look in the mirror. If the top three candidates in the blogosphere, who currently receiving a combined 71% in the Dailykos straw poll, not to mention receiving by far the most online buzz, small donors, and volunteers too, all just said on national television that they can't promise to bring all American troops out of Iraq over five years from now, then what exactly are we doing to end the war by supporting those three candidates in the Democratic primary? Seriously. How can we complain about others not doing enough to end the war, when the majority of our community is openly offering support to candidates who just said they won't end the war? There are other candidates who just said will end the war--basically, every other candidate Biden and one of the top three. Maybe we should support one of them, or at least not take any sides in the primary at all, before we talk about the failure of others to end the war.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
