Democratic debate: Hillary, Obama and Edwards refuse to pledge full withdrawal from Iraq by 2013

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I hear a heard of sheep, crying from afar. BAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAA!

Hillary had some little sheep, little sheep, little sheep. Hillary had some little sheep, Their fleece was white as snow. Everywhere that Hillary went, Hillary went, Hillary went. Everywhere that Hillary went, The sheep were sure to go.

Edited for your enjoyment!

Here we go...

The troll has returned.

Troll? It seems anybody that says something you dislike is a troll. Help, I am being attacked!

who, i agree..brother marc is no troll..and i have known him since he first posted on the nsc forum...i am glad, he is here and others..i am never so close minded not to learn something from those, that may not share my views...

Thanks Dean! Appreciate it. We do disagree politically but thats such a small factor. From what I know of you there is nothing but good thoughts.

[GaryC 7]

I feel sorry for those that thought the 2006 election would get us out of Iraq. They were clearly lied to. And now the candidates on the dem side are saying that they won't even pledge to get out of Iraq by the END of their first term. Why do you vote for these people? They don't keep their promises.

If you need to talk about it I am here for you.

Last I saw - none of these guys have kept their promises.

At least as far as the war is concerned, the reps have kept their promise. They said that we would stay until the job is done. It's those on the dem side that ran on a platform of getting us out of the war are the ones that lied. They have the power to end it today because they have the power of the purse strings. It seems all they did was lie to their supporters to get elected.

[no name 1]

I feel sorry for those that thought the 2006 election would get us out of Iraq. They were clearly lied to. And now the candidates on the dem side are saying that they won't even pledge to get out of Iraq by the END of their first term. Why do you vote for these people? They don't keep their promises.

If you need to talk about it I am here for you.

Last I saw - none of these guys have kept their promises.

At least as far as the war is concerned, the reps have kept their promise. They said that we would stay until the job is done. It's those on the dem side that ran on a platform of getting us out of the war are the ones that lied. They have the power to end it today because they have the power of the purse strings. It seems all they did was lie to their supporters to get elected.

And what about all the lies to justify the invasion to begin with??? WMD anyone?

[GaryC 7]

I feel sorry for those that thought the 2006 election would get us out of Iraq. They were clearly lied to. And now the candidates on the dem side are saying that they won't even pledge to get out of Iraq by the END of their first term. Why do you vote for these people? They don't keep their promises.

If you need to talk about it I am here for you.

Last I saw - none of these guys have kept their promises.

At least as far as the war is concerned, the reps have kept their promise. They said that we would stay until the job is done. It's those on the dem side that ran on a platform of getting us out of the war are the ones that lied. They have the power to end it today because they have the power of the purse strings. It seems all they did was lie to their supporters to get elected.

And what about all the lies to justify the invasion to begin with??? WMD anyone?

WRRR.... WRRRRR......WRRRR...... I see the spin is working!!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Without raking over the same burnt coals – the debate in Europe over this policy was somewhat different than that in the US. Big scandals in the UK, for example influenced a lot of opinion - regardless of what certain people allegedly believed beforehand; and none of that really changes the fact that we were subject to underhand propaganda. Claims were made which were either shown to be untrue after the fact or simply unverifiable with information available at the time. There’s a difference between:

1) believing something, being able to prove it and taking action based on that proof.

2) believing something, not being able to prove it, and then fudging the available facts to indicate proof so you can press ahead anyway.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Number 6

[no name 1]

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."

Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

---

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

---

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

---

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Edited September 27, 2007 by devilette

[GaryC 7]

Without raking over the same burnt coals – the debate in Europe over this policy was somewhat different than that in the US. Big scandals in the UK, for example influenced a lot of opinion - regardless of what certain people allegedly believed beforehand; and none of that really changes the fact that we were subject to underhand propaganda. Claims were made which were either shown to be untrue after the fact or simply unverifiable with information available at the time. There’s a difference between:

1) believing something, being able to prove it and taking action based on that proof.

2) believing something, not being able to prove it, and then fudging the available facts to indicate proof so you can press ahead anyway.

The point is this: All sides thought that there were WMD's in Iraq even before Bush took office. So the idea that Bush fooled the dems into voting for the war is just silly. Since the war started the reps have been steadfast in the idea of finishing what we started regardless of whether we were right to start it or not. The dems on the other hand supported the war in the beginning but then used the false claim that they were fooled into voting for the war as an excuse to begin opposing it. In reality their decision to oppose the war was only political expediency. If the American people were still all for the war you would not see the dems doing what they are doing. In 2006 the dems were given the congress on the idea of getting us out of the war. What have they done? Pizz and moan, badmouth our generals but in the end they do nothing. Why? Because they know staying is the right thing to do. They are trying to please the hard left and at the same time not shoot themselves in the foot by being responsible for the bloodbath that they know would happen if we pulled out now. What they wanted to happen was to force Bush to pull out and let him take the heat for the mass murder in Iraq that would follow. That didn't happen thank God. So the dems are in a box. They voted to start the war, they are not able to stop it but they must promise to do something they know they cannot do. Now the dem president candidates are forced to admit they cannot promise to get us out even in the next 5 years! The liberal blogs are having heart attacks right now.

[almaty 19]

I hear a heard of sheep, crying from afar. BAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAA!

Hillary had some little sheep, little sheep, little sheep. Hillary had some little sheep, Their fleece was white as snow. Everywhere that Hillary went, Hillary went, Hillary went. Everywhere that Hillary went, The sheep were sure to go.

Edited for your enjoyment!

Here we go...

The troll has returned.

Troll? It seems anybody that says something you dislike is a troll. Help, I am being attacked!

who, i agree..brother marc is no troll..and i have known him since he first posted on the nsc forum...i am glad, he is here and others..i am never so close minded not to learn something from those, that may not share my views...

Thanks Dean! Appreciate it. We do disagree politically but thats such a small factor. From what I know of you there is nothing but good thoughts.

same here friend...

[GaryC 7]

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."

Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

---

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

---

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

---

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

That still does not alter the fact that your girl voted for the war to begin with. So what will it be? Did she ignore the reservations on the intel and vote for it anyway or was she duped by someone you claim as an idiot? She was, after all married to the president for 8 years. It seems she would have had access to the intel that Bush had also.

[no name 1]

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."

Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

---

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

---

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

---

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Explanation:

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

That still does not alter the fact that your girl voted for the war to begin with. So what will it be? Did she ignore the reservations on the intel and vote for it anyway or was she duped by someone you claim as an idiot? She was, after all married to the president for 8 years. It seems she would have had access to the intel that Bush had also.

Hillary is not 'my girl'. I claim no allegiance to any candidate.

Now she should know all the dark secrets cuz she was married to the Pres? Gimme a break. A candidate can change their mind you know. He!!, 'your boy' Fred sure has, on several issues!

The point is:

Claims were made which were either shown to be untrue after the fact or simply unverifiable with information available at the time. There's a difference between:

1) believing something, being able to prove it and taking action based on that proof.

2) believing something, not being able to prove it, and then fudging the available facts to indicate proof so you can press ahead anyway.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point is this: All sides thought that there were WMD's in Iraq even before Bush took office.

That may be true. My issue has always been that those initial beliefs didn't appear to be based on anything substantive - that didn't have significant question marks over it.

I don't doubt that people are playing politics with this issue - but people did the same with 9/11 - all that reactionary rhetoric about people being "with us or against us" and labelling people as traitorous. I don't want to be represented by anyone like that - unfortunately I don't really have much choice.

[NavarreMan 10]

Russert turned to Obama first, asking if he would pledge to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term as president.

Obama said he could not make that promise. "It's hard to project four years from now" and would be "irresponsible" to make such a pledge, he said. He promised, though, to "dramatically reduce our presence there."

Clinton agreed that such a pledge can't be made, saying "it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term ... but it's difficult to know what we will find" when the next president takes office.

Edwards echoed the comments of Obama and Clinton, but then said he would draw down the size of the U.S. force in Iraq faster than his rivals would.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/...ll-be-live.html

IMHO this is a very sensible and pragmatic answer. Whoever is left holding the bag to get us out of Iraq has a HUGE job to do and there is much ambiguity about exactly what needs to be done to accomplish this. The next administration has much to learn about the lies and deceptions of the current administration in regards to the Iraq/terrorist fiasco. I think it would be foolish to give a drop dead date. But it sure would be nice for someone to start taking some action to end this rather than lie to us like we’re a bunch of morons.

[GaryC 7]

Russert turned to Obama first, asking if he would pledge to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term as president.

Obama said he could not make that promise. "It's hard to project four years from now" and would be "irresponsible" to make such a pledge, he said. He promised, though, to "dramatically reduce our presence there."

Clinton agreed that such a pledge can't be made, saying "it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term ... but it's difficult to know what we will find" when the next president takes office.

Edwards echoed the comments of Obama and Clinton, but then said he would draw down the size of the U.S. force in Iraq faster than his rivals would.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/...ll-be-live.html

IMHO this is a very sensible and pragmatic answer. Whoever is left holding the bag to get us out of Iraq has a HUGE job to do and there is much ambiguity about exactly what needs to be done to accomplish this. The next administration has much to learn about the lies and deceptions of the current administration in regards to the Iraq/terrorist fiasco. I think it would be foolish to give a drop dead date. But it sure would be nice for someone to start taking some action to end this rather than lie to us like we’re a bunch of morons.

I agree, for the first time we got a realistic and sensable answer from them. For that I give them props. It's just the Cindy Sheehans of the world are having fits right now because of it. It goes back to my original point. The dems have themselves painted into a corner here. They all ran on a platform of "get out of Iraq" and "set a date certain" in 2006 and now that they are forced to put up or shut up they must either lie or alienate the far left. At least they are telling the truth now.

Hillary is not 'my girl'. I claim no allegiance to any candidate.

What happend Dev? I thought you had made up your mind and were even stumping for her.

[no name 1]

I thought you had made up your mind

Never said that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I thought you had made up your mind

Never said that.

It was easy to believe that you did, though.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1075696 ("TEAM HILLARY!")

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1093914 (I love Hillary logo)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1123346 ("PS: I jut signed up & joined Team Hillary. laughing.gif laughing.gif Might do some campaiging this Saturday as a matter of fact.")

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1126801 ("My candidate is Hillary")