In NYT article on Democrats say leaving Iraq may take years, guess who isn't mentioned?

[n2doc]

Come on, without reading it, guess....


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


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.



Hint: it ain't Sen. Dodd.....

[unhappycamper]

1. I noticed that DK was not mentioned at all.

It jumped out at me as I was reading the story.

[n2doc]

2. Ding Ding Ding!

Amazing how the meme is spread " Democrats don't want to end the war either!" Same old war mongering NYT.

[MadHound]

3. And this is why I'll be voting Kucinich

He is the only Democratic candidate out there who has definitive plans to get us the hell out of Iraq ASAP.

[lynnertic]

4. an actual democrat saying so?

you said not to read.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Dennis Kucinich, of course

he has made it clear we will be OUT of Iraq. He's my choice for President.

[lazer47]

8. Be realistic, if he said we were pulling out today,

Just how long do you think it would take??, not being delusional,, but it would take at least a year if not longer, Realistically it would take that long or longer to move that many troops and that much equipment,, so when someone tells you he can do it right now, he is as delusional as George Bush, I am not flaming, I just speak the truth, and so should DK.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. did you hear him on This Week?

He addressed these issues. Getting out now means stopping funding for the war, using the money only to bring troops home. He knows that can't be done immediately--but it won't take years, either.

[lazer47]

10. I did not see it, however I have heard his arguement, and I don't

have an axe to grind with DK, I like the man and his Ideas, but if you think we are loosing people now, you won't believe how many we will lose if we don't do an orderly withdrawl, This same thing happened in 'Nam in the later days of '72, It will take time.

[ljm2002]

11. I know I'm jumping in here, but...

...regardless of how long it will take to get the troops out of Iraq, it stands to reason that the sooner we start, the sooner they will all be out. Also, in what way does starting sooner imply a disorderly withdrawal? I'm not getting it... :shrug:

[lazer47]

13. It takes a plan,, ie: who leaves first, who guards who's back,

what do we take with us, where do we put the gas trucks, who rides and who flys, I think you get the picture, believe me I have been there ('Nam 73 pullout)and it takes serious planning, AND WE SHOULD HAVE STARTED 2YRS AGO,

[ljm2002]

15. Yes it takes a plan...

...and again, regardless of what stage we are at: the sooner we get started, the sooner we will complete the mission.

Anyway: May we not assume that the military has made contingency plans for troop withdrawals? Not to do so would be quite foolhardy from a military planning point of view. So have Senator Clinton and other members of the committee seen those plans yet?

In any case: I want a candidate who will press for withdrawal, which is quite independent from recognizing there are logistical issues to be dealt with. Who's arguing with needing a plan?

[lazer47]

16. No one is argueing about needing a plan,

It is the preception that some candidates are useing that the day they get elected we are out of Iraq, nothing could be futher from the truth, wheather it be DK or whomever, tell the truth about pullout, and right now none of them have offered a plan or anything else that is logical. God knows I want them out, but I want them safe while doing it.

[rodeodance]

12. He is saying ----being now to safely withdraw----Use the $$ to extend the

war to get them out now. Now meaning a safe withdrawal. He has said it will take time.

[davhill]

6. Richardson

Is mentioned as the only exception to those who want to keep the troops in Iraq for years.

[iamjoy]

7. Well, I Agree With Them

Iraq is a mess, but it's like having a wolf by the ears. Our being there is horrible for reasons already enumerated. However, we have to acknowledge the *possibility* that if we leave aburptly the inter-faction fighting will get worse. It may not, the so called experts have been wrong on everything else about Iraq, they might be wrong about all the gloom and doom scenarios if we withdraw before Iraq is "stable." However, would we really be content to stand passively by if these scenarios played out? And I don't believe that even Richardson would - he cares too much about what's going in Darfur to allow it to happen in Iraq.

The article should have mentioned Kucinich. And Kucinich needs to be pressed on what he would do if out and out genocide/ethnic cleansing did erupt in Iraq in our absence. Kucinich needs to be given serious attention. He is portrayed as the true candidate of peace, but it's done to make him look sort of goofy. He needs to be pressed on when military intervention is appropriate and asked about historical conflicts and what he would have done.

But nobody really pushes him, because the MSM doesn't take him seriously. If he were truly given the same scrutiny as other candidates, we could decide for ourselves whether he was really the best candidate for us.

[The Magistrate]

14. These 'Plans', Sir, Are Meaningless

They would quickly be over-taken by events once U.S. combat operations cease and any substantial portion of U.S. troops are withdrawn. "Training" missions are dead letters particularly: any training will be simply taking sides in a civil war that will hugely intensify, and make vulnerable targets of U.S. service members engaged in it. Talk about "al Queda" is purely posturing for domestic consumption: foreign militants in Iraq will be hunted to extinction by all native factions within weeks of a U.S. combat forces withdrawl; any foreign jihadis will necessarily be aligned with the Sunni, and the Sunni are going to lose the civil war, and lose it badly and bloodily.