This bit of yours, Chris … (0.00 / 0)

…needs to be repeated over and over and over again. (I’ll see what I can do.)

The issue of residual forces is not simply a matter of whether or not leaving residual forces in Iraq is a good idea. Additionally, this is also a matter of honesty. For the leading Democratic candidates to repeatedly say that they will end the war, and not bother to inform people that they will keep troops in Iraq until 2013–and an indefinite number in the case of Clinton and Obama–is simply not being honest about what they will do in Iraq. That is not acceptable, no matter which political party you are from.

---

by: Meteor Blades @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:16:39 PM CDT

 

What Isn't Honest??? (0.00 / 0)

Both Obama and Clinton said they would not commit to having all troops out by 2013. Like that or not they said it in answer to a question on national TV when they could have skated around the question. An straight forward answer as they gave is honest in anyones book. If it isn’t maybe Chris or Meteor, who agrees with Chris, can explain why it isn’t honest.

Additionally both Obama and Clinton have said they will end the war. But they haven’t said when because there is no way for them to know. It isn’t as cut and dry as some editorialize it is plus they do not have to make the tough decisions.

I really like to see a clear explanation of what is dishonest about what both Obama and Clinton have said. An explanation is the least one can do if they are going to make the charge. Chris? How is saying you will end the war but you can’t guarantee all troops out by 2013 dishonest? Meteor?

---

by: talex @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 21:18:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Puhleez. Try a little harder, huh? (0.00 / 0)

“If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.”

Nine months ago, Senator Clinton directly implies (to great praise from her supporters) that maybe Congress can end the war BEFORE she is inaugurated, something that will take place 23 months from the time of her statement.

But last week she says that she can’t promise to end the war within 48 months of the time she is inaugurated.

So, she puts out the idea that the war can be quickly ended. And then she puts out the idea that it can’t.

She’s skating in one statement or the other. And that is why I – and, I suspect, Chris – object to the dishonesty.

She and Obama and Edwards owe it to all of us to quit playing around and say what they mean.

---

by: Meteor Blades @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 21:51:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Well Meteor (0.00 / 0)

It all depends on what you call ‘ending the war’. Every Dem bill to end the war included some troops left in Iraq for various purposes. But the main thing for most in ending the war was getting our troops put of the middle of a civil war and off the roads as much as possible to avoid their biggest killer, IED’s.

I have never heard you say that the above description didn’t meet the requirement of ending the war.

So Clinton and Obama are saying end the war. Neither has given an exact date because they can’t. Even Richardson would not end it on day one and in the end would still position troops in Kuwait which as we all know would quickly end up in Iraq again. Is he being honest, him being the latest darling of the Left? No he isn’t. Because he has no clue either what he would face on January 20, 2009. What it is you zealots don’t understand about that? You want to ignore every reality and every contingency, known or unknown, that doesn’t fit your mold.

But then you support Strategic Reset which isn’t ending the war either! You are conflicted my friend. And you don’t understand that it is easy for a Think Tank to throw out hard numbers that they will not be held responsible for while it isn’t so easy for a probable new president to do so 16 months before they ever take office!!! Hell you can’t even predict what it is you will be doing in 16 months and your life is not as complicated.

And of course you don’t take into account that what both Obama and Clinton are doing is positioning for the general by going to the middle. As if you haven’t seen that your entire life, right? Why is it you turn a blind eye to the obvious? Because you just have a need to agitate?

As I said HERE: “35% in the poll Chris cited are even willing to keep ‘large numbers’ of troops in Iraq for two years.”  And the majority of the 49% who only want to stay less that a year WOULD accept more than a year if they know that there is a plan to get out in a responsible way which will keep us out and not have to go back in again. But you don’t consider any of that. You are not concerned with a responsible withdrawal that will keep us out and you refuse to recognize that the two candidates – one of which will be the new President – are already moving to the middle. No you can’t reason like other intelligent Americans. You can only react like Pavlov’s dogs – red meat, then salivate. Give me what I want even though I only represent a small sliver of the population.

And that is why I – and, I suspect, Chris – object to the dishonesty.

Well it is too bad Chris can’t answer for himself. I see him in lengthy exchanges with people who attack him personally but he seems unwilling to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who is not attacking him personally but is just responding to what he said in his post. Go figure. Are my arguments that persuasive as to ignore? Because for damn sure they can’t be said not to be legitimate arguments.

---

by: talex @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:22:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

From Eugene Robinson of WaPo: Empty Promises (4.00 / 1)

on Iraq

What we need to hear now from Clinton, Obama and Edwards is “the vision thing,” heavy on specifics. How do they see the long-term U.S. role in the Middle East? (“Different from the way George Bush sees it” isn’t good enough.) Do they buy Bush’s distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” elements and regimes, as proxies for good and evil? Is U.S. involvement in the region about oil? Is it about religion? What do they intend to do with the permanent-looking bases the Bush administration is building in Iraq-including one just five miles from the Iranian border?

And please, no hiding behind “I don’t do hypotheticals.” The Republican candidates’ view of Iraq, Iran and the Middle East is dangerously apocalyptic, but at least it’s a vision. What’s yours?

http://www.truthdig….

---

by: Stephen Cassidy @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:37:30 PM CDT