- ‹ previous
- 2594 of 7913
- next ›
Dem Candidates on Iraq: We're Pretty Much Committed to a Withdrawal
Informal Clinton adviser and retired four-star general Jack Keane on Hillary Clinton's Iraq plans:
"I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made."
Recently deposed Obama adviser and respected academic Samantha Power on Barack Obama's Iraq plans:
"You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan — an operational plan — that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president... [His stated plan is] a best-case scenario."
I actually don't have a problem with what these advisers are saying: Clinton and Obama will take the information they have available to them as president and reevaluate their plans for withdrawal. That makes sense to me. But for many Democrats, getting out of Iraq is the number one issue and the fact that the candidates have told them what they want to hear, while possibly holding more nuanced positions in secret, will raise some justifiable anger.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Wowser,
More crud.
What a waste of space, type and energy.
Like campaigns have never used rhetorical device - what an article.
Maybe you should try to do some actual reporting?
I could quote other articles?
Are you really getting paid for this swill?
For myself, I will be voting solely on The War. It's the most important issue by far. So both Clinton and Obama have committed to continuing Bush's policies. What's the point of voting Democrat? They have the same platform as the Republicans.
So JG you think a promise of 100 more years in Iraq is equal to a half truth "campaign promise" to get out ASAP? It's obvious after her votes on Iraq and Iran that Hillary is enough of a war monger and a snake that she can't be trusted to end the war, but given Obamas consistent anti war position isn't it obvious that he will at least try? It may be hard to end the war but its not that hard to figure out that there are three entirely different options on how to deal with it ranging from a hundred years of blood bath under McCain, to who knows what under Clinton, to what Obama has been describing all along as the need to be as careful getting out as we were reckless getting in. Given Obamas consistent position do you really think he is as bad as McCain? I don't trust either of the war pushing idiot Clintons as far as I could throw them, but I do trust them more than McCain on the war at least.
Come to think of it I don't trust the Clintons as much on the war as I do McCain. I definitely know what kinda mess McCain will make of it but the Clintons are shifty and will do what ever they want, not necessarily any thing remotely near what they say; however, that being said it would probably be better than what McCain would do.
["So JG you think a promise of 100 more years in Iraq is equal to a half truth "campaign promise" to get out ASAP?"]
Ever consider the fact that he/she MIGHT just be considering voting for someone who isn't running in the Democratic OR the Republican wing of the Nation's Omnibus Ruling Party?
Many of us who want to see REAL changes in government, and who have watched as Democrats, then Republicans, then Democrats again..., etc. etc. etc have held power have concluded that a vote for Either one is little different than a vote for the Other one.
It's the reason that fewer people each election bother to vote, and it's the reason that a steadily increasing percentage of those who DO are voting for third party candidates wherever possible.
And that'll be MY choice again this year.
When I first read this article, all I could do was shake my head and shut down my computer. I am literally exhausted after reading way too many political stories today. But the content in this article, and the events that occurred today, bugged me so much that I had to come back and comment.
At the end of the article, you say that you don't have a problem with what either campaign is saying about withdrawal in Iraq, but supporters may be angry about the candidates nuanced positions. To me, this statement right here, is EXACTLY what is wrong with our politics in this country, and the coverage by the news media.
I will speak from the perspective of the Obama campaign, since he is the candidate that I am supporting. I have heard him use on NUMEROUS occasions the sound bite line that he "wants to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." He then outlines his 16 month goal of withdrawing troops. Although I respect Obama's Iraq position, I seriously doubt that he is going to be able to withdraw the troops within this timeframe. BUT, I do appreciate the fact that he has at least talked to advisers about a feasible plan for withdrawal.
It should be noted that I am not angry by nuance, I absolutely expect it from individuals that want to lead our government. What fool, (except GWB) thinks in a vacuum? Of course Obama's plan might not go down the way he says it will. Of course there will be stalls, false starts, and delays. We don't know what is going to happen in Iraq in the next couple of weeks or months. Heck, we don't even know what is going to happen within the next couple of hours. So why would we expect the candidates to know either? The political landscape in the country could be completely different by next year.
What I do expect from my candidate is to have a position/vision/goal, but also seek the advice from people from the ground so that they can make a well-rounded decision.
Instead of encouraging this kind of critical thinking and common sense, the media jumps on these non-stories without getting at the real issues. We have had at least 20 (or 50, I have lost count) debates, but correct me if I'm wrong, no one has asked the question, "Well, when you become President and you get advice from the military and your foreign policy advisers about not withdrawing in Iraq, what will you do?" To me, this is the real issue. I want to know that even though my candidate has a position on an issue, he will at least be willing to listen to others (assuming he appoints knowledgeable and competent people around him) to make a sound decision.
But for some reason, voters aren't expected to think in these terms or in any real context. Haven't we had enough? I mean, if the last seven years have taught us anything, its that we need more accurate reporting and people with the balls to go after a real story, and ask hard, but fair questions. When will we finally say Uncle? When will we demand balanced coverage so we can make intelligent choices?
Sigh. My rant is over.
Hey Say What I am totally behind making third party options open, but don't tell me that there is absolutely no difference between any major party candidate, and if you can't see a difference find a primary candidate that will kick the bum out and fight for them. I don't trust the Clintons and am perfectly willing to vote for Nader if she steals the election, but I would far rather have a Kucinich, Edwards, or yes Obama on the ballet so that someone that I can believe in and has a good chance of winning. The idea of kicking out a bum that you can't trust is why republican lite candidates like Joe Liberman and Al Wynn have gotten kicked out in primaries in favor of truly progressive candidates, and I think it's also Hillarys down fall.
Read carefully and comprehensively.
["...have concluded that a vote for Either one is LITTLE DIFFERENT than a vote for the Other one."]
DOES NOT equal:
["..there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between any major party candidate"]
LITTLE Difference: And definitely NOT ENOUGH difference between anyone who stands to be a nominee from either of the One Party's two wings to make me get out and work for them.
Matter of fact, I plan to work AGAINST the offerings of BOTH wings, and for a REAL "Change" candidate in a party not best described as "Mobius".
As I said I would like to see viable third party candidates, and would like to see some sort of change that would make them viable like first, second, and third choice ballets. If fact I'd love to see a grass roots effort in every state in the nation for fundamental electoral reform and if you want to fight for that then I say more power to you say what; however, all that being said there are obvious and massive differences between Dems and Repubs, 1) ending the war ASAP instead of 100 years from now, 2) ending the idiotic Regonomic BS Bush tax cuts that are sending the whole nation into debt for the temporary betterment of a wealthy few, 3) moving toward universal health care instead of making idiotic claims that the mystical market forces that are causing all the healthcare problems will some how magically solve them, 4) increased scrutiny and openness in Washington that will limit the power of corrupt lobbyists and officials and catch those that are corrupt, not to mention a plethora of other things that I could go into but I won't because the difference should be obvious.