Why Don't the Democrats "Get It"? Candidates Won't Commit to Troop Withdrawal

[Mr. Ected]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate;_ylt=Av5cEEMVGILb_bZaBiUmm92s0NUE

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.


Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson seem to be the only candidates who were LISTENING to the American people last November. Too bad neither one of them has a snowball's chance in hell in 2008.

[Virginia Dare]

1. Why would they commit to something they very likely can't deliver?

they can certainly try, but what if they CAN'T make it happen? Don't you think the Repubs would slam us on that?

[Mr. Ected]

3. As Commander in Chief, They Can MAKE It Happen

Stand for something or duck everything. Looks like they choose the latter.

[Virginia Dare]

4. It would be pure stupidity for any candidate..

to commit to something four years down the road. You have no idea what's going to happen between now and then. That's not taking a stand, that's political suicide.

[Mr. Ected]

7. Sorry, I Want My Candidate to Be Resolute About This Debacle in Iraq

Any turn of events in the next 5 years would provide political cover for them to change their course of action.

Kind of like "9/11 changed everything".

What you're witnessing now with the Dem presidential candidates is what we've been watching - in utter contempt - from our Congress since January.

I'm sickened by their lack of fortitude, vision, and principle...not to mention their absolute disconnect from their constituency.

[ljm2002]

16. So, they shouldn't commit to troop withdrawal...

...because they might not be able to deliver.

So obviously they shouldn't commit to universal health care because they might not be able to deliver. They should not promise to fund the reconstruction of New Orleans because they might not be able to deliver.

In other words, commit to nothing at all, because to do anything else would be risky -- those darn Republics might say mean things about us next time around.

Now there's a winning message.

[Virginia Dare]

19. Think about what you just said..

The Clintons committed themselves to universal health care and they didn't deliver, and they're STILL being beaten up over it, by the repubs, by the press, and even by some in their own party. It's easy to make promises you know you will never have to deliver on like some candidates do, then sit back and say you're the only one willing to take a stand.

The way Russert phrased the question, they were correct NOT to take the bait.

[ljm2002]

24. The Clintons botched the health care issue...

...'way back then, and we have all suffered the consequences. They fed the attack machine red meat and then were set upon by a snarling lion. Who could have foreseen that? :sarcasm:

You say it's easy to "make promises you can't keep". Well, sure. It's also easy to avoid commiting yourself one way or the other. I want neither empty promises nor waffling. What I want is a clear definition of the goals that a candidate is committed to, and they need to convince me they will work sincerely to further those goals. I'm a grownup, I get that they won't be able to deliver 100%. But I expect them to fight for what they believe is right.

Stand for something, for heaven's sake. Saying Well, we don't know what will happen so I don't want to commit -- that is not a message, that is avoidance of an issue. And that is not a winning message.

[Virginia Dare]

27. So you're telling me that if Hillary committed..

to getting our troops home by a certain date and then couldn't get it done you'd be okay with that? Or would you say, she "botched it", or she sold out, or she didn't try hard enough? I think lots of people here would probably say she just said that to get elected. I don't know, maybe I'm too cynical.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Perhaps they do not want to commit to something which they may feel is a bad idea 15 months for now

[katmondoo]

2. If Chris Dodd is still in I am voting for him

[OzarkDem]

5. Here's a little coaching for them

They're obviously afraid of the Reeps and media parsing and distorting their answers and repeating them ad nauseum.

Perhaps they need to reject the old frame of the debate and try another:


"If I'm elected president, and we're still in Iraq 4 years from now, there had better be a very good reason for staying there, much greater than the reasons now being offered. Forcing the US to carry the entire financial burden of this war is ruining our economy and our future. Any rationale for continuing it would have to be very strong and I'm not seeing anything today that justifies it."

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

8. the daft democratic plebejans aren't getting

that the upper echeleons have their own agenda and the opinion of the "base" matters about as much as the opinion of a cow if she likes to get milked. Nada.

Draw your own conclusions, if you don't like them or they are to stressful: go watch sports or american idol and embrace the alternative.

[Mr. Ected]

10. Sorry, I'd Rather Raise My Voice An Octave

And hope that others will join me.

I can handle the stress.

Sounds like you've given up, though.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

26. No i haven't

i'm just wary of people shouting impeach,(i)call/write my rep/sen, as would it accomplish ANYTHING.

[hisownpetard]

9. I think it was a ridiculous question and a waste of debate time. Russert wanted so badly to

pin them down so that, 4 years from now, he can come back at them if there's even one soldier
still in Iraq. The only purpose of asking that question was for self-aggrandizement, IMO.

Who in his/her right mind can guarantee anything, four years from now?
So, instead of saying something like, "How do you foresee the situation in Iraq under your administration, 4 years from now?,"
he can imply today that none of the 'top-tier' Dem candidates can guarantee that troops will be gone from Iraq, even in 4 years times.

Really sneaky. Not an honest thing to do, at all.

[ljm2002]

18. There have always been gotcha questions...

...in politics. Any Democratic candidate who was not ready for that particular gotcha question, is not ready to be president of this country.

And sliding around and evading answering does not cut it.

They could say, My intent is to have all troops out of Iraq by 2010 and that is the goal I will work towards. Something like that. But saying Gosh, I don't know, no one knows the future -- useless. Of course we don't know the future, but we have that human ability to plan for it, and to press forward in a direction that actually affects how that future turns out.

And people wonder why our side comes off as weak kneed and lily livered.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Not only do we have to deal with MSM ignoring him but here at DU too. Hello? Dennis Kucinich???

He said he'd have the troops out in 3 months.

[Mr. Ected]

13. You're So Right, and I'm So Wrong

DK should have been on the top of my list.

The only man with balls enough to have made a stand, from pre-war times through today.

[Virginia Dare]

20. I'd love to see him try...

what's he going to do, wave his magic wand? He can certainly say that, because he KNOWS he'll never get the chance.

[MrCoffee]

23. then he's either lying or he's morally bankrupt

at some point, we have to accept the responsibility for Chimpy's actions, because for good or ill, they were the actions of the United States. do you really think we can just walk away from Iraq in April 2009? we have an obligation to fix our fuck-up, don't we?

there's no way we could pull every US soldier out of iraq by April 2009. it would condemn virtually every iraqi citizen to unspeakable horror. and if you think our international "street cred" is shot now, just wait and see what happens if we wash our hands of our mess.

now feel free to flame me for declaring war on iran.

[againes654]

12. I don't see any good reason to keep troops over there

Although my candidate says he would pull them out, and has voted that way for years. ;)

[leftofthedial]

14. they "get it"

they just happen to be pro-war, or more accurately, pro-war-industry

it's US who don't seem to "get it"

[Tyler Durden]

15. I don't want us out of Iraq in 4 years....

I WANT US OUT OF IRAQ IN 4 MINUTES. NOW. YESTERDAY. NEVER HAVE GONE THERE AT ALL.

People have asked me in the past...who would I support and why.

The first guy who gets us OUT of Iraq and will COMMIT to this gets the prize.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. They're terrified that the people won't vote for them if they're told the war is lost.

They'd much rather play the "peace with honor" song to pacify them...and get they're votes.

[riverdeep]

21. Short answer, it's political.

They know as well as anyone this situation is unwinnable. However, they feel Fox news and it's attendants would eat them alive if they do anything that would appear 'soft' on defense.

As much as I hate it, they can make a case. Last week, a General gave a demonstrably false picture of the surge, and Republicans voted down giving troops rest. Both of these things are real, putting us in real danger, and a PR machine could easily show a weakness on defense and lack of military support for the pubs. But we don't have one as strong as their side does. It's that simple. Instead, the national conversation was about a newspaper ad. The 1996 Telecommunications Act coming back to bite us, among other things.

The dems also know, once the pub primaries are over, that's when the pub bastards will stop siding with Dear Leader. IOW, most pubs even know this is unwinnable. Both sides are being cold, unethical and showing utter disregard for the troops and US safety, not to mention the treasury.

Who's to blame? Ultimately Joe and Jane six-pack whose eyes glaze over on details and need sound bites to tell them what to think. Until we get to them, we'll be spinning our wheels.

[Bitwit1234]

22. Even for those of you against Hillary she said one thing

she agreed with Obama about withdrawing the troops AND SHE SAID they don't know what they would inherit which is 100% correct.

With the cover up, the secrecy and the underhandedness of this administration how would any of the candidates know exactly what a mess bush had got in Iraq and Afghan til that person takes office and finds out.

[KG]

25. the dem party leadership isn't anti-war. they happily support the occupation

expect no help from them on the issue and you won't be dissapointed.

[rucky]

28. I suppose Iraq isn't as important of an issue as the polls suggest.

People say they want it to end, but they don't put their money where their mouth is (unless their mouth is in the war chest).