Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years

DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us...cs/12dems.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

As I've always said...

If Bush had a "D" behind his name, there would be a lot more support for the war.

So, what's the point?

Are you guys stll of the opinion that we're fighting this war to "promote Democracy"?

Point obvious+highlighted in red.

Or to be more blunt that the anti-war types enjoy sidestepping and avoiding obvious hyocricy in themselves by talkig about other things.....

__________________
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Yep....Boogie is right. IF Bush were a Democrat and held the exact same views, the Dems would be all on-board. Which will be the case if a Democrat gets the presidency in 2009 and decides it's best to stay in Iraq.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Maybe they aren't challenged because they are intelligent positions? I would say that very few on the left want all our troops to just get on planes one day and leave.

I think the phrase "Bring the troops home" is just a slogan. I don't know exactly how everybody else thinks about this, but I've always assumed if we are successful in Iraq, then some troops will stay there permanently. I've never had a thought that the democrats didn't agree. In fact, no troops in Iraq would be a good indicator that we lost the war.

I've always assumed that "Bring the troops home" was just a more sentimental way of saying "End the war." Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

__________________
PF cru 4 life

The Dems know that the favorable outcome promised by President Bush will come to pass, eventually, and if our next president is a Democrat they will claim all the credit, saying they cleaned up "Bush's mess", when in actuality they will have merely finished what he started.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

HA! I don't think there's ever been a more truthful statement made on this board. Of COURSE the Commucrats will take all the credit for this.

Well, they will try. However, I don't think THAT many people are stupid enough to fall for it. Most of us KNOW they don't deserve ANY of the credit.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007