Meet the Democrats, same as the Republicans

... at least when it comes to Iraq

from JoeUser Forums

Liberal types (I'm talkin' to you Clueless Old Liberal, or you Cindy Sheehan, or you Michael Moore and you MoveOn.org types) are going to be surprised to read -- if they actually read this news -- that the Democrats that are running for President are really no more inclined to completely exit Iraq than the current administration is.

I suppose that the liberal types might, just might, read this news as it shows up in their own national rag:

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years

Some choice words from that original article:

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”

On the other side of the spectrum is Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who has proposed setting up separate regions for the three major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central government is established before removing most American troops.

Still, many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a war can be as complicated as starting one.

Paying attention to these words liberals?  You folks that keep talking about the fact that our current President got us into this mess and it will take Democrats to get us out of it get the real picture here??  The real picture being that if we meet the new boss, it may be the same as the old boss.* (*partial lyric borrowed from Mr. Townshend and his friends in the Who)

It doesn't surprise me that the Democratic candidates are having to admit that they too will have to proceed slowly in Iraq.  It doesn't take a genius to see that leaving in a hurry (as Bill Richardson is talking about doing) will cause many more problems than would be solved by exiting Iraq in a huff.  Besides issues of just how we can leave that quickly (besides taking the Richardson approach of leaving everything behind) there's the idea that leaving too quickly just puts a black eye on the U.S.A. for years to come when it comes to our relationships with other countries and other potential allies.

We've already seen that many of the problems in Iraq relate back to the impression we left the Iraqi people with following Gulf War I.  Back then we encouraged the Iraqi people to overthrow Sadam and then when some tried to rise up against him we abandoned them and let them suffer at his hands.  Many of those people will, rightfully, never forgive the U.S. for that, and most certainly will never forget it.

In anycase, I hope this article comes back again and again to remind voters that the Democrats really won't be any different than the Republicans will be when it comes to Iraq.  If voters vote on the other issues, then perhaps the Democrats will watch themselves lose again as the voters realize that putting the liberals in charge of the purse strings won't be doing anyone any favors when it comes to their own personal wallets.  (Try checking the article here: Liberal until it's inconvenient or costs the liberal money for clues on what happens when liberals start worrying about their own pocketbooks.)

politics
5,370 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course all of these 'frank statements' will be denied in the next news cycle as the Democrats that are trying to get their party nomination run quickly away from any potential issues with the loonies in their base.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You folks that keep talking about the fact that our current President got us into this mess and it will take Democrats to get us out of it


nothing you've posted contradicts this point of view. bush foolishly involved us in iraq; there's only one potential republican candidate who seems serious about ending it. if paul is nominated (highly unlikely because i don't see a true goldwater conservative being annointed nominee by the evangelicals who seem to control the party), he's gonna get my vote.

We've already seen that many of the problems in Iraq relate back to the impression we left the Iraqi people with following Gulf War I.


really? when did we see this? your claim would most accurately apply to the northern kurds--the very group which seems to have the least problems with us.

the idea that leaving too quickly just puts a black eye on the U.S.A. for years to come when it comes to our relationships with other countries and other potential allies


i thought yall didn't put any stock in the rest of the world's opinions regarding our foriegn policy. this keeps up and i'll have to seriously consider settin up a crepe and quiche bar outside the 2008 convention venue.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

i'll have to seriously consider settin up a crepe and quiche bar outside the 2008 convention venue.
Reply By: kingbeePosted: Sunday, August 12, 2007

I like pie.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The democrats are going to have a hard time appeasing their kook base, while still trying to appear "centrist" for the rest.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most responsible people understand it will take as much as a year to remove 160,000 troops from Iraq. The truth is we will most likely keep some forces either in or near Iraq to deal with al-Qaeda and provide logistical support. The issue is starting. Bush refuses to begin and like the Chinese saying “a Journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step", Congress needs to force the first step with a time table that is responsible. If we choose to provide some of the equipment the Iraqi PM said he needs that will help simplify the withdrawal. The issue is that it is time to establish a plan for redeployment that provides for a safe and orderly removal of our forces and gives the Iraqi Military the lead time to take over the security of Iraq.

This is what Congress should do with the 2008 defense appropriation.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Congress needs to force the first step with a time table that is responsible.

So you believe that Congress should offer a time table to the terrorists on when they can begin taking over Iraq?

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

First, Cindy Sheehan has decided she is not a democrat after all (got to give her credit for at least being consistent - pyschosis usually is).

Second, my prediction will not be proven wrong for at least 5 years.  But here it is.  The democrats will not do anything substantially different than the current president.  The troops will be drawn down regarldless of who is elected. But in 2012, this debate will still be going on.  The only possible difference is - will we have a Nixon (dem) or another republican getting the heat?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)terpfan1980August 12, 2007 16:05:24Reply #6
Congress needs to force the first step with a time table that is responsible.


So you believe that Congress should offer a time table to the terrorists on when they can begin taking over Iraq?


We need to give Maliki a timetable so that he and the Iraqi Military and police can take over the job of dealing with the violence in Iraq.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dear Terpfan1980,

So, you think more of the same we have had over the last six years is a good idea?

Just curious.

Be well.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
It isn't 'liberal's' who want to get out of Iraq, it's the majority of the American Public.

Look around. Look it up. Talk to military families, check out some polls, why is President Bush's approval rating in the toilet? Why is the House and Senate approval rating even lower? The anchor is the Iraq War and our execution of it.

The fact the American Majority wishes will continue to be ignored in favor of those with the most currency to fund presidential campaigns and tailor policy will only serve as another example to further condemn and, expose, how broken and corrupt and inept our electoral / political system has become.

We'll have a Democratic President this next round. Don't think for a second much will change. It's out of the hands of the voters now.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

We'll have a Democratic President this next round. Don't think for a second much will change. It's out of the hands of the voters now.

I see we are in agreement (except the democrat president - it is their to lose and they may yet do so).