Anyone remember what Kerry said about withdrawing from Iraq in 2004?

[cynatnite]

The three conditions, Mr. Kerry said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, are "to measure the level of stability" in Iraq, "to measure the outlook for the stability to hold" and "to measure the ability ... of their security forces" to defend Iraq. Until each condition is satisfied, he added, "I will provide for the world's need not to have a failed state in Iraq."

snip:
Looking weary from the campaign sprint since he named North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as his running mate last week, Mr. Kerry said he doesn't contemplate "an open-ended commitment" of U.S. troops. But nor would he pledge to end the U.S. presence in Iraq, even by the end of his first term.

"At the end of my first term I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven't reduced the number significantly," Mr. Kerry said. But "I certainly can't tell you numbers. ... The key at this point is to have a stable, nonfailed state that is moving toward democracy and has security sufficient for the government to stand on its own."

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/SB108994509460465669.htm

Given how much support her got in 2004 here at DU few had issues with his position in the Iraq war. There was some resentment over his Iraq War vote which is understandable, but it's clear that he was making no guarantees or promises to end the war even by the end of his first term.

I don't expect the war to end when a new president takes office no matter who it is. I expect it to continue on at least halfway through the first term no matter which dem is in. To expect it sooner than that, IMO, is unrealistic. I want the war to end right now as much as the next DUer, but in reality it just ain't gonna happen any time soon. Another 2-4 years is what I'm expecting.

The way I see it...with a dem president, no matter who it might be, we have a better shot at ending this damn war in the next 2-4 years. All the repukes, except for Ron Paul, want war without end.

[mike_c]

1. only cowardice keeps it going-- nothing else....

Only lack of will to do the right thing and end the madness. Anything else is cowardice, plain and simple.

[NoodleBoy]

2. problem is, you're talking to an audience who expects getting everything

they believe to be implemented now, or preferably before now.

Stretch out bringing the troops home over a few months instead of clapping your hands and making them magically appear in their homes? Preposterous, you must be a DINO or freeper for not demanding Nancy Pelosi exercise the duty we gave her and clap her hands.

[Tom Joad]

4. few months? Several years is what we heard tonight.

I know my nephew, now in grade school, may be drafted by Hillary to fight in Iraq or Iran.
Not unlikely at all.

[cynatnite]

5. Hillary's going to reinstate the draft?

I didn't know that. How do you know she'll do that?

[Tom Joad]

7. She may not. But if she is elected, she will continue the war for many years.

Left to her own devices.

We must stop this war by any means necessary.

[cynatnite]

8. I agree the war must be stopped...

but I seriously don't expect any of the candidates to stop it as soon as we'd like. I missed tonight's debate, but did any of them pledge an immediate pullout if they win?

[Tom Joad]

9. I didn't see it either, but Kucinich has pledged a very swift and *complete* withdrawal

emphasis on the complete.

I think Edwards has promised to keep 10,000 there.
Hillary seems like she will easily be pressured to expand the war to Iran.

[Tom Joad]

3. I am nearly certain he would have kept troops in Iraq. kerry was not really an anti-war candidate.

He is a democrat who supported the IWR. anyone at that level would not be expected to support a withdrawal.

I think he would have in fact, increased the number of troops, at least in the beginning. the result being .... The US would be losing, just as it is today. (thank god)

[LittleClarkie]

10. I, on the other hand, think that if the war had continued in the same way

he'd have come to the same conclusion he has not, which is that we need to get out.

But the problem with speculating like this is that we'd have had 6 years of Kerry trying diplomacy and other things like increasing the UN's presence to take our face off the war. Certainly he would not have been conducting the Iraq War in the same way Bush has been.

Kerry was just being honest in 2004. He would have no way of knowing what might happen in the first four years of his presidency, and so didn't want to make promises he couldn't keep.

I don't think we'd be at the same point in the war that we are now.

Something else occur to me. We still have troops in Germany, and WWII ended how long ago? Perhaps when he said we might still have troops there, it was that sort of involvement that he was talking about.

[sandnsea]

12. He had a withdrawal plan

His plan was to remove the face of the US on the entire operation. He knew we had to promise complete withdrawal, bring in international support and internationalize reconstruction, let regional countries train troops, etc. He also never support the invasion and said so repeatedly.

And if you think what is happening today is preferable to a peaceful country, then you've got more than a few screws loose.

[eagler]

6. To keep fighting this war the way we are fighting it now only

guarantees that it will be an endless war - I believe the way that it was designed to be. We have caused and are sustaining a civil war.

[sandnsea]

11. He promised to start pulling troops in 2005

His entire Iraq strategy was based on the premise that the troops were a target attracting terrorists and insurgent attacks. His plan was an international presence, with American support if necessary. Sadly, the media wanted everybody to believe his plan was the same as Bush's, and people are still falling for it.