Come on, DUers...words mean things, re: "all troops out of Iraq."

[Atman]

Edwards, Obama and Clinton are taking a lot of heat for their refusal to commit to removing all troops from Iraq if they're elected. In bashing them, many keep saying they refused to remove all combat troops from Iraq, but that wasn't Russert's question. He asked each candidate if they're commit to withdrawing ALL troops.

It can't be done. It won't be done. Ever.

The fact remains, we're in Iraq forever. We've spent billions and billions of dollars on military bases and the largest embassy on the planet. To believe or even expect that we'll abandon them is just silly. It will not happen, even if Dennis Kucinich is miraculously elected. It simply won't happen.

COMBAT troops are there for the purpose of FIGHTING, "smokin' out Al Qaida," battling the evil doers. But simply saying "troops" is an entirely different thing. There will always be "troops" there, to guard our new embassy, to man our new military bases, to escort Halliburton's oil field workers around. Face it, our "troops" are there, and will be there for decades to come.

What surprised me, I suppose, is that none of the three made this distinction, and essentially stepped right into Russert's bear trap. They could have easily offered an explanation such as I just did, along with a promise to immediately stop the COMBAT and start bringing home those men and women who are taking (and firing) the bullets. Why they didn't, I'm not sure. Hopefully they're asking themselves the same question today.

Either way, if you're going to cast your vote based upon who actually promised to bring all troops home, your only actual choices are Kucinich or Gravel.

But neither of them will be able to fulfill that promise, either.

.

[lonestarnot]

1. I'm tired.

Dennis is not.

[Fridays Child]

2. If "all troops out" is defined as having not even a single military adviser in the country...

...then we could probably say that we have troops in Israel. I think the correct and assumed connotation of "troops" in Russert's question is "combat troops." And I think that the overwhelming majority of Democrats, Independents, and even moderate Republicans wants all combat troops out long before 2013.

[Atman]

4. You THINK that, but Russert used distinct language at different times

in the debate. He was careful to say "Combat troops" through much of the debate. And remember, this is politics. Dancing around words is what they do. It was a different question to ask if ALL TROOPS should be out.

Don't ever assume anything with these people. You admitted in your reply that you "assumed a connotation" which you had no reason to assume.

.

[napi21]

6. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Parsing words is what all

talking heads & all politicians do, ALL THE TIME! To top that off, most of the politicians are lawyers who specialize in doing that!

After the debates, speeches, and comments are over, the talking heads pick each sentence apart, word by word, to do their "ANALYSIS"!

Remember Larry Craig and the "I expect to resign" instead of "I will", and of course the most popular of all..."It depends on what the meaning of IS is".

[bigtree]

19. Richardson has answered that by agreeing that there might be some token military

to protect diplomatic personnel.

But those candidates who argue for residual forces want something entirely different. They want troops there for a COMBAT role in attacking 'Iraqi al-Qaeda' and carrying out other military meddling under the presumption that there is some national security interest in maintaining that military force.

[yurbud]

24. yep, when you say "all troops out" most of us know having an attache or something is a

different than having thousands to guard oil company interests.

[xchrom]

3. it's very different when you are on stage and answering in

the first person -- than when you can step back and be more thoughtful.

i didn't think that any of them said we will have the same armed presense there when thy are prez that we do now.

i really do believe all of the dems will significantly reduce our footprint.

lastly, when a dem take soffice -- we are going to get some very, very different cost analysis regarding what we've spent and how much more all of this will cost.

expect to be reeling -- and expect the money to have a very dramatic effect of what we are able to do.

[MazeRat7]

5. Richardson has said he would get "ALL TROOPS" out since the beginning... here is the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEtRj2jDYns

MZr7

[Atman]

8. Then vote for him. But he's lying.

Even now as I watch MSNBC, and they're analyzing Hillary's brilliant performance last night :sarcasm:, they are pointing out that the major candidates refused to promise a complete withdrawal of our troops. Do you really see no difference when the word COMPLETE is added? What, exactly, does COMPLETE mean?

I forgot Richardson said the same thing as DK and Gravel, you're right. But it doesn't make it any more possible. Richardson's words, should every other candidate mysteriously disappear off the face of the earth and he gets elected, will come back to haunt him.

.

[bigtree]

17. He's lying? What possible way do you have of knowing what Richardson would do if elected

except to accept his word? You can't credibly use your own reservations about a complete withdrawal as proof that Richardson wouldn't follow through on his promise. You have absolutely NO proof that his promise is a lie and I'm just as disgusted with that characterization from you as I was with Edward's scolding of anyone else who believes we can completely remove our troops from Iraq.

[Atman]

21. Oh, puhleeze!

It was irresponsible of him to commit to something he knows full well he cannot do. He can't. Do you believe for one goddamn minute our congress, Democratic or Republican, will allow Richardson to simply throw away eleventy-gazillion dollars and ABANDON our military bases and the largest embassy on earth? If you do, you're nuttier than a fruit cake.

You can pass your own judgment as to whether promising something you KNOW you cannot deliver is a "lie" or just a little campaign shenanigans. I'm calling it a lie, and I'm not apologizing for it. Richardson knew better, and therefor should not have made the promise.

.

[bigtree]

28. I think he can, just as much as I press the republicans to do the same thing

I may ultimately be wrong about that ( I don't think I am at all) but that doesn't make me a 'liar' ( or anyone else who advocates a complete, immediate withdrawal.

[Kajsa]

30. Well then, using that reasoning,

why is this "responsible" ( and inaccurate)

"Either way, if you're going to cast your vote based upon who actually promised to bring all troops home, your only actual choices are Kucinich or Gravel."

and Richardson's statement not?

[Atman]

41. There isn't an argument there. DK and Gravel won't do it, either.

You're missing the point; Gravel actually thinks he can do it. He says he'd simply stop the war; stop the funding, stop the fighting, bring them home. He won't be able to do so any more than Richardson. DK has similar ideas, but no so drastic. If you'll read back through the post, I didn't exclude Richardson on purpose, I already stated that. So now that I've acknowledged he also said it, what the hell are you beating that dead horse for?

Likewise, I never claimed DK or Gravel were NOT lying, though I certainly think they're more sincere. I simply pointed out initially that they were the only ones who actually meant ALL THE TROOPS when they said ALL THE TROOPS.

.

[Kajsa]

43. I think Richardson means it, too.

n/t

[jsamuel]

34. Richardson has already said he would keep troops at the embassy. So yes, he is lying.

[bigtree]

37. there are marines at EVERY embassy, and he hasn't been evasive about that at all

The only ones who have a problem with that token presence are those whose candidates are promising residual forces to train Iraqis, or fight 'Iraqi al-Qaeda'. But, that type of parsing doesn't distract at all from those candidates' intention to remain militarily engaged in defending Bush's occupation.

Here's what Richardson said on this months ago. Folks will have to decide for themselves if he's saying something different from the others. He clearly is.


Talking Iraq With Bill Richardson

by Chris Bowers, Fri Apr 13, 2007

Today, I had a chance to talk for about ten minutes with Governor Bill Richardson. The entire conversation focused on Iraq. Here is what I learned:

* Apart from a contingent of marines to protect the American embassy, he does indeed mean "no residual force whatsoever." No American troops in Iraqi to serve as trainers, no American counter-terrorism units in Iraq, no American troops to protect humanitarian workers--no any of that. Also, since marines are part of every American embassy contingent, he did not consider that a residual force. He would keep American troops in the region, but not in Iraq itself.

* His rationale behind this plan is that no matter what residual American forces are doing in Iraq, they will both be targets and serve as one of the main justifications for continuing violence in the country. His solution is to convene a regional diplomatic conference, in which American withdrawal can be used as leverage, to bring in security forces from neighboring countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

* Governor Richardson agreed when I asked him if he felt other candidates were being disingenuous when they claimed they were in favor of total withdrawal, but still wanted residual American military forces in Iraq to accomplish x, y, and z. He promised that is a distinction he would draw, and an issue he would repeatedly raise in public during the campaign . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/13/145545/540

[MazeRat7]

49. There is absolutely no way you can back up that assertion...

Please explain "how" you know (ie proof) he is lying... I think you have great rhetoric but are slightly short on substance.

MZr7

[Jed Dilligan]

7. "Escorting" anyone anywhere in Iraq

will be a deadly duty for US soldiers.

[Atman]

10. But an ESCORT mission is not a COMBAT mission.

We could have 100,000 "escorts" in Iraq.

I'm not in the military, never have been. I encourage a military person to chime in. Am I off-base here? Aren't the candidates and the moderator in fact parsing words and playing games? Aren't there, in fact, COMBAT operations wholly separate from other, non-aggressive missions?

If Hillary or Edwards had even said "I'd bring home ALL COMBAT troops," I'd almost be prepared to give them that one. They didn't say that, because Russert didn't ask that. He specifically asked if they would withdrawal ALL TROOPS.

ALL COMBAT TROOPS are troops, but not ALL TROOPS ARE COMBAT TROOPS.

.

[Jed Dilligan]

16. I think that if combat happens, it doesn't matter

what the mission is called. People die.

[tabasco]

32. Security for a convoy is most definitely a combat mission.

Why would you think it is not? Whether the convoy is ambushed or not, it is still considered a combat mission. Convoy security is usually done by MP's and/or infantry but for the Iraq clusterfuck all kinds of troops have been "hey you'ed" for convoy security.

[Atman]

42. I didn't say it WASN'T! Jesus F Christ!

Stay focused. I didn't include security for convoys; I said the troops left to guard the embassy and the oil fields. That they MIGHT come under attack is NOT in question. But their primary mission, their official designation would not be as COMBAT TROOPS.

Remember, this entire thread is about the official parsing of words. I know, I started the thread.

.

[tabasco]

50. Let's review:

You said : " ..an escort mission is not a combat mission."

I CORRECTED YOU. Convoy security is a combat mission. I should know. I am an Army infantry combat vet and a former Army planner, familiar with Army operations doctrine.

LET'S STAY FOCUSED

[Amonester]

11. yes, and anyone who thinks they won't have to COMBAT

(and suffer or die to benefit CEOs & other war profiteers) is delusional.

[Atman]

15. You are talking reality, the way normal humans think...they are not.

They are deliberately playing word games to weasel out of any commitment which could come back to haunt them. Likewise, Russert changed his question in the hopes of tripping them up. All of that is fine, part of the game.

No one, me included, is trying to say that simply being there isn't "combat" enough. I know I'd be wetting my pants and quivering like a baby! But that is NOT the point. The point is, there is more than a conversational difference between simply support "troops" and "combat troops." There is an actual, tactical difference as well.

.

[Amonester]

27. Why anyone doing what we, normal humans, think is the right thing...

would be "scared" of eventually be "haunted" by their commitment (doing what is right) is beyond comprehension.

Public funding is off the radar... all the while, superficial bills "occupy" the floor.

Who cares what we think anyway?

[MrCoffee]

9. anyone who says they WILL get ALL troops out of Iraq in 4 years is a liar

the unfortunate fact, which very few here seem to understand or accept, is that the colossal failure of Chimpy and his cronies have doomed us to a long-term committment in Iraq. at some point we have to accept the obligation that our stupid fuckstick-in-chief forced on us, namely, that the shitstorm over there is entirely our fault, and we do have some moral obligation to do what we can to help.

now feel free to flame me, because i'm clearly declaring war on iran.

[Atman]

12. Why do you hate Ahmadinejad? Er, America? I mean...oh, I'm so confused!

You warmonger!

:)

.

[MrCoffee]

13. lol

fwiw, your post is one of the very few sane voices in here today. so you get a standing ovation from me :applause:

[KG]

14. the iraqis might have the final say on when all US troops leave.

the US can either have 100k troops or none. if the iraqis are not totally suppresed they will rise and chase us out.

it will looks something like this:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. Here's a letter I recently faxed...

to all the presidential candidates, plus the Congressional and Democratic party heads. I am dead serious about this:


During Mr. Bush's recent speech to the country regarding our future in Iraq, he made reference to something many of us suspected from the beginning of the Iraq invasion: he intends that US military forces never fully be removed from that country.

In light of those remarks, I want to make something perfectly clear to you:

I will not vote for any Democratic Presidential candidate -- in the primaries or in the general election -- who does not come out unequivocally and forcefully against a permanent military force on Iraq soil.

I will not vote for you. I will not donate to your election fund. I will not campaign locally on your behalf. I will actively work for your defeat. I say this as someone who has voted Democratic since I registered to vote for my first Presidential election in 1979.

I believe with 100% certainty that our illegal invasion of a sovereign Iraq has been one of the biggest foreign blunders in our country's history, one that has left US credibility and prestige in tatters and our Armed Forces on the brink of collapse. That I may have to vote for those of you who willing supported this obscenity with your "Yea" vote for the IWR is galling enough. That I could vote for a person who dared to continue such insanity beyond Bush's term is simply impossible.

During debates and in interviews I have witnessed several of the Democratic candidates carefully parsing their words when talking about our future role in Iraq and how we get our troops home. I'm sorry, but that is not good enough.

Other than a limited force required for any other American Embassy in any other foreign country, we have no business maintaining troops of any nature any longer than it takes us to get our men and women out of that country safely. You can give me any excuse you want. You can try to convince me of the necessity of a permanent military presence to control access to Iraq's oil reserves, or to preserve "regional stability", or for the ever enigmatic "national security interests", but it doesn't change one fact:

We have NO right to continue to occupy that country. Period.

So, you have fair warning. Refuse to denounce a permanent military force in Iraq and face this Democrat writing in her Presidential candidate of choice.

I hope you do the right thing.

Sincerely,

Hell

[MrCoffee]

26. it is not a right, it is a moral obligation

You stated that "We have NO right to continue to occupy that country. Period." You are absolutely correct. However, i believe that we do have a moral obligation to correct our errors (which is my nice way of saying "chimpy's colossal fuck-up").

i don't believe it's in the interest of Iraq to simplify the military, political and humantarian crisis WE created to the point of "we're outta here". as much as it galls us, the US occupation of Iraq will belong to the next president, and i believe that an unconditional promise to remove all US forces is irresponsible and dangerous.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. Our VERY PRESENCE ON IRAQI SOIL...

..and yes, I am yelling, is one of the main causes of violence in that country. To the Iraqis we are occupiers. Get it??? As long as we are there in force they will continue to fight to remove us from their country. And frankly, I can't blame them one damn bit.

Besides, saying that our continued military presence in that country is the primary way to rectify a moral obligation is rather paternalistic, IMO.

I agree 100% that we have a deep moral obligation to the Iraqi people. But I feel strongly that obligation is best met with the removal of American troops, the insertion of an international peace keeping force -- preferrable of Muslim countries, the canceling of the reconstruction contracts made by the Americans, massive reconstruction dollars for Iraqi firms to rebuild their country, reparations for familes who have suffered due to American forces and private contractors, helping the countries around Iraq that have been deluged with Iraqi refugees, and a strong immigration policy that would allow Iraqis to come to the US should they desire.

Please tell me how is that not better than a permanent American military force in Iraqi???

[Ganja Ninja]

20. Then I guess I'll have to vote green party in 2008.

Because unless I hear a promise to remove all troops from Iraq within the first 12 months of the next president's term I will not be voting for the Democratic nominee.

[Kajsa]

22. Richardson has a plan to remove all troops.

click on the video.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

[bigtree]

31. but, but, the op says Richardson's lying because the op doesn't think it can be done

All these years of my pressing for an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq has been a lie according to the op. I must make my apologies to the Bush administration.

The op apparently agrees with the WH on this. They want troops to remain engaged against their 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' invention.

Why parse the numbers of troops? If there's a need for 50,000 or so as Edwards suggests, there must be a need for 50,00 more. :sarcasm:

[yurbud]

23. if they were at least as honest about oil motive as you, I'd half-forgive them

[still_one]

25. Your premise is wrong, that we will be there for ever. Viet Nam should have taught us that

Most important, the Iraqiis really don't want us there. Iraq is THEIR COUNTRY, NOT OURS

We will be there until Americans have had enough of Americans coming back in body bags

In 5 or 10 years, when that time comes, I will be very curious how all these wonderful BASTARDS will justify what they have done by not getting us out of Iraq sooner. It WILL HAPPEN

[Atman]

29. What was the life-sustaining resource Viet Nam had? Pho?

Seriously...comparisons to Viet Nam only go so far. We're in a resource war now, under the guise of ideology; Viet Nam was a war of pure ideology.

.

[Virginia Dare]

33. There are no wars of ideology,

the causes of the Viet Nam war can be traced back to oil, as can the wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia.

[tabasco]

35. Wrong.

Naval bases in Vietnam was a very important strategic consideration during the cold war. Vietnam was hardly a war of pure ideology.

[Atman]

44. Not of PURE ideology, but much more so than Iraq, which actually has the oil

So we were forced to find another way around after Viet Nam. But Viet Nam didn't have the actual resources. Viet Nam was about the dominoes. Iraq is about the actual black gold. Securing it, and stealing it for our own use. Big difference.

.

[still_one]

46. We cannot occupy a country that does not want us, it is as simply as that

it is only a matter of how many more will die before we leave

[tabasco]

36. Why do you think we would not abandon the bases?

Compared to the future costs of a continued occupation, the price of the bases is peanuts.

[npincus]

38. time to call this "war" an "occupation"

ending the occupation of Iraq means we remove our footprint from that country.

[rucky]

39. Why didn't the candidates make that distinction?

if they're so astute to the subtlties of language, you'd think they'd take that opportunity to clarify their position - especially if they knew how bad they'd look by just answering Russer's question and moving on.

[donsu]

45. my words still stand - all military out of Iraq.

it is possible.

Iraq would breathe a sigh of relief when the last military person left.

refugees could come home.

I also say our military should get out of every country they are in.

climate change needs them to be home.

[Atman]

47. If anyone cares, I've expanded this rant on my new blog.

:blush:

There is very little there yet. It's still being fine tuned (and I'm still trying to figure out TypePad). But if you're willing to excuse me while I'm remodeling, you might be interested in the expanded version, with many of the comments in this thread taken into account.

http://rmcgcreative.typepad.com/not_banned_yet/">Not Blogged Yet

.

[robertpaulsen]

48. Then when will the will of the people in US & Iraq actually be fulfilled?

I'm sorry, I guess that's a rhetorical question unless you believe the spirit of the American Revolution can truly be revived in this country.