Dodd stunned, angered that leading Dems would not commit to having troops out of Iraq by 2013

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: September 30, 2007
Dodd: So-called leading Dems have 'stunning' view on Iraq

STORM LAKE, Iowa (CNN) – At a campaign stop in rural Iowa Saturday Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, said he was stunned by the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, would not commit to having all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by 2013.

In an interview with CNN Dodd said, "The idea that the so-called leading candidates for the Democratic nomination would not say categorically that six or seven years from today–four years after the presidency–we would not be out of Iraq I found rather stunning."

Dodd was referring to comments the three made at Wednesday's Democratic debate broadcast on MSNBC. Dodd said when he heard their responses on that stage he could "hardly breathe" because he was "so angry."

When asked if he were to become president and combat troops were still in Iraq, how long it would be until they were out Dodd said, "I want to effectuate that now. I don't want to wait until 2009."

He continued, "But if I'm unable to achieve that–which we ought to be able to do–then I would begin that redeployment process immediately. I'd depend upon my military planners on the timing of it, but they tell me they can move a brigade and a half out each month. So my goal would be, depending upon the level of troops there at that time, to begin that redeployment immediately."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/30/dodd-so-called-leading-dems-have-stunning-view-on-iraq/

[wtmusic]

1. OK I'm starting to like this guy. nt

[Tellurian]

Dodd can say anything he wants because he's not running for re-election..

So, why is he caving in now? Dodd also want to kiss and make-up with Lieberman to have an in... after retirement!

Theres NO 'POT O'GOLD' at the end of that rainbow, Mr. Dodd!

[wtmusic]

6. Whether they face reelection should not matter one bit

AFAIC they're all pathetic.

[Tellurian]

9. It shouldn't, but it does..

They all probably know more than what they're telling us because of National Security reasons.

[wtmusic]

15. I've heard that, "they know more than they're telling us" crap before...

I think it was around October of 2002. And it turned out they didn't know more than they were telling us. That was the problem.

[Tellurian]

46. It's nothing new..

and Bush knew more than he was telling us. That was the problem. He never said he was going directly to war instead of letting inspections continue.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Only if they sit on certain committees or hold leadership positions

Because of closed door committee meetings all senators will have access to some sort of classified information (classified doesn't mean it inherently pertains to national security), but whether they get access to information regarding the Middle East.

[blm]

51. He's on my very short list right now. Dodd and Biden have made gains

and now join Gore and Obama so far.

[monmouth]

2. I seriously think it's time for us to start giving a good hard look at the

so-called "second tier." I've seen and heard the first tier, I'm not overly impressed with the top three, but then I might be burned out already. In the last debate the only two I found refreshing and interesting were Biden and Dodd.

[Benhurst]

3. I was stunned by the "big three's" response, as well.

The troops should never have been there in the first place.

Stop the killing now! The killing of our troops and the killing of Iraqi citizens. George W. Bush is a war criminal. Anyone who supports his illegal and immoral invasion and occupation is one as well.

Recommended :kick:

[undeterred]

4. I feel the same way. Are they courting the wishy-washy vote?

[maximusveritas]

5. That's how I felt when Dodd and the others voted to authorize the war

As far as Dodd's being so angry he couldn't breathe, I just find it amusing. It would be irresponsible to give a committment about what'll happen more than 5 years from now. You never know what will happen in that time period and it would be very stupid to commit to something and have your hands tied. That's why the candidates who actually have a good chance of becoming President refused to make the committment, while those who don't have much of a chance, were all too willing to do so. That's all this is about.

[wtmusic]

8. There is no legit reason why we should be occupying

a sovereign state, which we illegally invaded, 5 years from now. None.

[Tellurian]

10. True, enough..

But we're not privy to everything happening in the ME. There seems to be other reasons than Iraq keeping our troops in the ME. I have to commend them for telling the Truth. They could have LIED and told us the words we're dying to hear and all would have been well.

[Benhurst]

38. Yeah, I'm sure they have all sorts of " inside information" -- just like they

did when they empowered Bush to start the immoral, illegal, and wrong invasion of Iraq.

[maximusveritas]

11. The question wasn't about occupying. It was about having ANY troops in Iraq

which also includes troops for protecting the embassy and other essential goals that have nothing to do with an occupation.

[wtmusic]

14. No one is expecting that extreme of an interpretation

except you. And it would be easy enough to specify, no? "Essential, minimum personnel necessary to maintain the safety of diplomatic staff."

They won't do it.

[slick8790]

17. No?

Then why didn't they ask if they would pledge to have all combat troops out of Iraq by 2013? It's just another bullshit entrapment question. Anyone who claimed 100% certainty is being irresponsible.

[wtmusic]

20. Seems it should be up to the candidates to clarify their positions

Right now not one of them is clear on the issue. Maybe this provocation from Dodd will make that happen.

[slick8790]

22. They have clarified their positions in the past.

This question wasn't "will there be any troops in iraq in 2013, and if so, clarify your position." This is making an absolute pledge about something 6 years in the future. Edwards, Obama, and clinton all have withdrawal plans that get our troops out as safe as possible in the quickest possible way. anyone who pledges to get all our troops out "now" clearly does not understand the logistics of moving 139,000 people across half the world.

[wtmusic]

24. How is "now" comparable to six years from "now"?

There is no possible logistical reason why we couldn't have all combat troops out of Iraq by 2013.

You're engaging in semantics to cover yourself, as they are. I'll be voting for the candidate who is willing to make a commitment and as CIC make it happen.

[slick8790]

29. I don't know about Obama or Hillary, but

I know Edwards has committed to having all combat troops out in 9 months. What they are being asked to commit to is the withdrawal of ALL troops, even those in training operations or embassy protection, which is an irresponsible committment.

[goodgd_yall]

48. Clinton and Obama support leaving troops in to fight terrrorist groups

They both would go beyond the troops to guard the embassy. But I agree, Edwards' answer was the most definitive about getting the troops out in 9 months while leaving a force behind for training ops and embassy security. He made a point at Dartmouth College to point out that he differed from Clinton and Obama in that he would not have any combat troops in Iraq by the end of his first term. Richardson and Dodd promised complete withdrawal by 2013 which I interpreted as ALL troops, so that sounded reckless to me. If he meant he would keep a small force for guarding the embassy, Dodd should have said so, but he didn't.

[high density]

31. Logistics??

Come on, the logistical apparatus for redeploying the troops is already there. You let the troops come home as they otherwise would have, and you just don't send the replacements for them. Leave a couple thousand behind to keep the green zone secure or whatever.

Bush has made it crystal clear that the only reason why we are currently in Iraq is because his term isn't up until 2009. There is simply no other reason for the war at this point. The oil isn't flowing, the reconstruction is not happening, and now all we have are people dying and huge, seemingly infinite outlays of money being spent.

[slick8790]

33. I understand what you're saying.

About letting them come home when their deployment is up, and I agree with that. What I'm saying is I think anyone who pledges to get troops out right now doesn't understand how difficult it would be to move that many troops that quickly. At the minimum, the way you suggest would probably take 6-9 months, and that's what at least Edwards is offering for combat troop withdrawals. I'm not entirely familiar with Obama or Clinton's plans.

[Benhurst]

42. If the problem is the logistics of moving 139,000 people across half the world,

then we have an easy standard to live up to.

How long did it take us to move them over there in the first place. Several months? Then we should be able to bring them back -- if we wanted to end our immoral occupation and give up all that lovely oil and expensive permanent military bases -- in a comparable amount of time.

Oil and our military domination of the area, not logistics, keep us there.

[slick8790]

50. Absolutely.

I don't know exactly how much time it took us to move all of them over there, but we should be bringing them home in around that time. There's no excuse for leaving combat troops there indefinitely...however, there's also no excuse for railing about "Getting out now" when it's impossible to do it in less than 6-9 months.

[high density]

30. Well I for one want them out by 2013, even if the sky turns purple

Heck, out by the end of 2008 would be even better. It was not a bullshit entrapment question. It was to see who is unlike Bush and not for perpetual warfare, especially this war, which has no legitimate purpose to begin with.

[slick8790]

34. It is entrapment.

If they want to ask the question we want to hear, they should ask "Can you commit to having COMBAT troops out by 2013?" I'm sure most, if not all, would commit to that. Stating all troops out means an abandonment of any embassy support or iraqi training operations.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Joined the stunned disbelief wing of the democratic party.

Clinton Obama Edwards - each of them pledged four more years of war.

[Benhurst]

12. Four more years of occupation -- it's no longer an invasion, but an occupation --

and the Dollar will be in the toilet.

At least we won't have to worry about building a society in Iraq, since we'll be preoccupied trying to shore up this one to keep it from joining the late Soviet Union in the trash-bin of history.

[rosesaylavee]

13. There is no reason to have our troops there

after 2009. No reason to establish permanent bases there now. WE need to continue to demand of our congress and our candidates that the Iraq War STOPS now.

We just simply can't afford to continue this - anyone look at the deficit lately? What are they thinking?

Go Dodd! You tell em buddy.

[Raster]

16. Out by 2013 and leave all that lovely oil???

You must be kidding.

[Faux pas]

18. Politics is an ass. n/t

[whistle]

19. The U.S. still has troops in Korea correct?

[wtmusic]

21. The circumstances are completely different nt

[Benhurst]

36. Yes, they are. It's interesting, though, that South Korea's president's

suggestion to The Leader that it was time to sign a peace treaty, elicited nothing but shock from "our" war criminal "president."

[saltpoint]

23. Dodd's an interesting man. He appears to have a pretty competitive campaign

purse, but hasn't evidently spent much of it yet.

Does he get in the thick of this, or do you think he's running for a Cabinet post or the vice presidency?

[wtmusic]

26. At this point IMO he's still considering himself a dark horse

but I would like to see more challenges like this on the front runners.

Time to get off the fence.

[saltpoint]

27. Dodd's worth keeping an eye on, especially knowing that he has

raised some serious money.

If I'm a Hollywood director, I'd assume central casting sent Dodd over for the part of the president. He looks the part, anyway.

[lonestarnot]

25. I too am stunned.

It is pretty obvious who is placating the continuance of the war, quite obvious.

[whistle]

32. Who?

[lonestarnot]

35. I knew someone would ask. LOL. And I'm so glad it was you!

whistle whistle whistle

[whistle]

37. Evasion rather than information... tisk tisk tisk

:eyes:

[lonestarnot]

39. I said it was FUCKING OBVIOUS.

[whistle]

41. Will no one here in this post state the obvious -- Hillary, Obama and Edwards

...all admitted they would not make a commitment to have the troops out of the war in Iraq even by 2013, but Dennis Kucinich has continuously said throughout his campaign that he will end the war as his first order of business following his taking the oath of the office of the Presidency in January 2009. Dennis gets my October contribution the entire amount, as meager as it is!:hide: :yoiks:

[lonestarnot]

54. Why are you hiding. He has my vote too.

[Gregorian]

28. Isn't it interesting how the candidates who want to stop the war are lowest in the "polls".

I'm voting for whomever will stop the war, now.

This is a test on how they stand with respect to listening to their party, and corporatism.

I have said I'll vote for the candidate who is nominated. I'm rethinking that again. America might deserve the shit that it has for brains.

[Benhurst]

40. Those lowest in the polls get little coverage and have less name

recognition. It's still too damned early. It wasn't long ago that what was then a much shorter primary period was considered disgracefully long.

Hillary's vote for the Lieberman amendment was a disgrace, as was Obama's going AWOL on it. It's time for less campaigning, less charisma, and more action.

Our "leaders" are letting us and what's left of the Republic down. Maybe it's time for some new ones.

[Gregorian]

44. Those who get little coverage are lowest in the polls.

That's how I see it. It's a concerted effort.

They didn't kill JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. for nothing. I'm serious. Anthrax. We're up against a deadly serious enemy. They're suppressing candidates who won't further their agenda. I'm not saying Hillary is an authoritarian. But she's no Kucinich, as far as they're concerned.

I'm pretty saddened today. I'm looking out my window at all of the Americans driving their cars. Just driving along. Every drop of oil is a vote. These are not unrelated topics.

We have no leadership. No media. Just lies. And I apologize for posting this here. I am not replying to you as much as just making a statement I don't want to make in a separate and new post.

As long as the people are sleeping, the neocons win.

[Benhurst]

45. No appology is needed, Gregorian. I agree with you fully.

:kick:

[Imagevision]

43. But I thought we were occupying Iraq to gain control of the OIL flow

you can call it freedom or democracy or whatver you want, but bottomline...?

[goodgd_yall]

49. You are mistaken

Read the transcript here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14313/

[AtomicKitten]

52. The top-3 contenders didn't have the luxury of falling into the trap --

set by Russert. No future president in their right mind can promise ANYTHING years in advance. And I don't begrudge Kucinich, Dodd, or Biden pouncing on this because all is fair in politics (or so they say).

Obama's Iraq policy re: this question:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3565652&mesg_id=3565652

[MalloyLiberal]

53. Oh puhhlease

If you weren't at 2% you'd be doing the same thing. What an opportunist