Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Between Clinton and Obama, did anyone actually say they would get out of Iraq?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 09:49 AM
Original message
Between Clinton and Obama, did anyone actually say they would get out of Iraq?
I heard words to the effect that they would draw down, slowly turnover, but I don't believe I heard either Clinton or Obama say exactly when we would leave Iraq if they are elected

I also find it quite amazing that the press fails to ask either the administration or the candidates about the "new Iraq oil law" that they are trying to push on them:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

Most Americans do not even know that the multinational oil companies will reap most of the benefit from oil that is the Iraqiis

I will vote for Democrat in 2008 mosting to try and hold onto what is left of the Supreme Court, but I have no illusion, Democrat or republican who gets into the white house, our presence in Iraq will be for years to come, and the expense will be at American and Iraqii lives and American tax dollars all to benefit the oil companies

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hilary has said that if Bush doesn't pull out
she will. With the remaining "Emergency" presence of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. What does "emergency" presence mean? It is hard to extract anything definite
I am not trying to be negative, and I appreciate your information

For example bush keeps talking that we need to stay there until the job is done, but what does "getting the job done" mean?

His answer is nebulous terms that until the country is able to sustain itself, and maintain order, but what that says to me is indefinite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. At least Biden explained the logistical challenges of immediate withdrawl.
Edited on Sat Jul-28-07 10:04 AM by rucky
Nobody can explain why we need to be there for security reasons. We ARE the "Security Risk"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. It means she wants permanent bases with quick strike capabilities
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19825

Clinton advocates leaving behind "a small contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities" - in other words, the 14 "enduring bases" Bush is building in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. Obama has talked repeatedly about "responsible withdrawal"
When he's elaborated I have always taken it as meaning the most responsible way to get out all our troops with getting the least number of American troops slaughtered as possible. -- and everyone I hear from Clark to Schwartzkoff to Keith Olbermann's pundits is saying pulling out is going to be awfully bloody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. When both speak of a "security force" (of 40-50,000) and mention "training and education" ...
... of American workers when speaking of unemployment and off-shoring of jobs, I have to wonder how much clearer the infestation of corporatist/neofeudalist 'interests' has to be. It's appalling to me that ANYONE would blame American workers for the off-shoring of jobs to countries where the "training and education" is the lowest on the planet. When college graduates in the U.S. are asking "do you want fries with that," I want to see politicians in the bread line. When the "undocumented worker" problems involve people without a high school education, I want to off-shore those politicians. When the sole objective in Iraq is to manufacture an Oz where Iraqi oil is owned by global corporations and the people of Iraq are tossed some shekels from the passing limousines, I want to hand those politicians an M-16 and tell 'em to go to the front lines for their corporate masters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. no
both qualify, hem and haw and use euphemisms for not quite advocating pulling out.

given their financial supporters, withdrawal in Hillary's case will never happen; in Osama's case it's unlikely for years and years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. That is the impression I get, with double speak /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
7. Obama Yes; Clinton Sorta
Obama has said that he'd pull out the troops - he'd leave some there IF they were invited by the Iraqi government AND they weren't getting attacked by the locals.

Mrs. Clinton has said that she'd pull some out, but would definitely leave an unspecified number there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Interesting. I assume the invite by the Iraqi government doesn't involve arm twisting on our part
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I Hope Not - But The Troops Getting Attacked Part Is Pretty Clear n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Agreed /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC