What I don't get - Debate reply to Russert's Troop removal question..

[HardWorkingDem]

This is what baffles me about Democrats - Here Russert tossed up the "gotcha" question dealing with troop redeployment in Iraq. He asked several candidates if they would pledge to remove all American troops by the end of their first term (2013). From what I recall, the top tier Democrats all gave vacillatingly, safe answers in a manner to try and leave all doors open so later they couldn't be force fed their words.

Instead, I would have liked to have heard one of them say, "If things in Iraq are like they are right NOW, then this war WILL end the day I take office."

And then, if things are in such a mess where this could not be done, they would always have the back door of this is what Bush left them.

Instead, they had to offer ridiculous pat answers that only make them look indecisive.

[TomInTib]

1. One word...

Contributions.

The Big Boys are going to throw down hard behind the perceived "Winner".

And every one of the candidates are crack-whore streetwalkers when it comes down to the real nitty-gritty - campaign cash.

[DURHAM D]

2. The word Tim used was "guarantee".

Not "pledge".
Not "promise" (as the Washington Post reported today).
Not "try to".
Not "work toward".

The word was GUARANTEE.

No one should have answered the question in the affirmative. Repeat - no on. It was a trick question. Everyone should have "left the door open" for whatever the circumstances are in 2013 or beyond.

And, if the President (whoever) tries to blame the Bush administration beyond 2011 that person doesn't deserve to be President of the United States of America.

[HardWorkingDem]

3. Nah, I think he did use the word "pledge"....

I seem to recall him using the word "pledge" when he asked the first time.

Also, if we want this war stopped and stopped as quickly as possible, then more Democratic congress people are needed and the only way to do that is to make sure the American people will know this war will end in January of 2009. Sadly, it will not end before then with what we have now. With that, my point is (and maybe I didn't make it clear enough) is that for the most craven of politician, like HRC, anyone of them could have made a definitive answer while still leaving a door open for any sort of unseen contingency. And later, such a craven politician could always inoculate him or herself in the re-election campaign by stating he or she was only dealing with the situation they received from the Bushies.

[HardWorkingDem]

5. Transcript....

Yes, Russert used the word "pledge"...

Here's the transcript..

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14313/democratic_debate_transcript_new_hampshire.html

[jmp]

4. What is wrong with a simple "yes!"

If we really do intend to end the "war" and bring the troops home?

[dajoki]

6. Politicians must be very careful...

what they say to these type of loaded questions. Here is one example of a remark that I'll bet she wished could be taken back:

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

Click for more:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html