Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: "Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:22 PM
Original message
NYT: "Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years"

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years

By JEFF ZELENY And MARC SANTORA
Published: August 12, 2007

DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — 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 country 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.

<...>

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.

“We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq,” Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi’a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”

So while the senators’ views expressed on the campaign trail do not conflict with their votes in Congress, particularly to set a deadline for withdrawal, they are grappling as candidates with the possibility of a sustained military presence in Iraq, addressing questions about America’s responsibility to Iraqi civilians as well as guarding against the terrorism threat in the region.

more


The spin is in: The media is trying to portray all the candidates as having the same position on Iraq (which is no different from Bush and the Republicans).

Conservative Blogs, Newspapers Spin Durbin’s ‘Very Discouraging’ Iraq Assessment




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, None Of The Democrats Want To End The War
Except possibly Richardson.

Fuck, I'm certain Hillary will escalate it. She's the LBJ of 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. That's absurd, of course the Democrats want to end the war,
they may disagree on the method, but none of them want it to continue. I'm quite sure that Hillary would never escalate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. If They Wanted To End The War, They'd Have Done It Already
The Democrats voted to fund the war to continue. Like it or not, the Democrats bought this dog from W.

Hillary in particular is likely to escalate the Iraq War to "prove she has the stones" to govern.

The dynamic is simple: whichever party is in power will get blame for losing if they withdraw. Democratic strategists are much more afraid of this than of throwing 10,000 soldiers into the meatgrinder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. Bush is right! Bush says that if Dems wanted to end the war, they would defund it.
Boy, he sure has the Democratic Congress figured out. No wonder he shows such contempt for the Congress.

The only way to stop this tyrant is by holding him accountable. Bush has never been held accountable in his life. Impeachment is the way!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I think Kucinich and Gravel want to end it.
Is anyone else getting overwhelmingly depressed with all this bullsh*t, or is it just me?

What the hell has happened to this Party?

TC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I'm pissed as hell at the FISA vote
and I've been sending letters, emails and signing petitions to let them know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hit piece alert. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Those are their stated positions. Where's the hit piece angle? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. This is the "Democrats are the same as Republicans" meme.
Their positions are selectively reported, for one thing. I'm no fan of the DLC and a DK supporter myself. But this piece attempts to erase the difference between the parties as far as I can tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. On Foreign Policy, What Exactly Is The Difference?
Domestic policy, sure, there are substantial differences.

Foreign affairs - both parties are pro-Israel, pro-interventionist, act like the world's policeman, and support military solutions to everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. No. Dennis, Gravel, Edwards all don't take any of those positions.
Biden disagrees with some of them. Obama and HRC are so produced, we don't know what they think.

All I'm saying is, beware of any publication that tells you there is no difference between the parties. It's simply untrue. Interrogate the candidates -- that's our job as citizens.

But, I'll never buy anything the NYTs tries to sell me again, after Ohio, after Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Edwards Will Not End The War.
His position is that there will be US troops in Iraq for a substantial period if he is president. We can expect that Edwards will basically continue the interventionist agenda of the US in the middle east and elsewhere.

I'm excepting Gravel and Kucinich from this discussion, since they've been written off as no-hopers, perhaps unfairly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. So you name two Democrats that most other Democrats consider "wacked out lefties"...
as an example of a party position. As far as Edwards is concerned, I don't see a qualitative difference between him or any other candidate on foreign policy. Our various "interventions"(invasions) over the years have always been bi-partisan affairs, in fact, name a country we HAVEN'T invaded or bombed yet, I think the list of those is smaller than the list of those we did bomb or invade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. I got news for you, Senator Durbin is now saying that things are looking up in Iraq
I detect a slight shift by the Beltway Democratic Establishment. They don't want to get labeled as "having lost the war," which means that they want to win it, which is the same delusional nonsense that kept us in Vietnam those many years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
partylessinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. We are so screwed. The Dems went along with this illegal invasion/war
from the beginning. They have over funded it all the way. They want to keep it going and going and going.

If they didn't they wouldn't have voted again and again for whateverBushWants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here we go again, focusing on plans and positions.
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 01:35 PM by gulliver
The Dem plan for Iraq is in fact going to have a lot of commonality with the Republicans. It will be based on ideas like the ISG's.

But, folks, our Dems are missing the point. There must be serious, angry, righteous blame leveled at the Republicans. The plans are similar, but one party is to blame for the catastrophe. That party makes every plan fail. That party put us in this awful place. That party is Bush's Republican party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Say it with me: "WE ARE NEVER LEAVING."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. Democrats, republicans and the military-industrial complex
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 01:40 PM by welshTerrier2
it seems too many of the party faithful still believe that either major party is not owned lock, stock and barrel by the military-industrial complex. the idea of waging peace is not a money-maker. when will they ever learn?

here's the prologue from Chalmers Johnson's most recent book, Nemesis. Ask yourself whether Clinton, Obama or Edwards will lead us out of the darkness Johnson writes about:

Unfortunately, our political system may no longer be capable of saving the United States as we know it, since it is hard to imagine any president or Congress standing up to the powerful vested interests of the Pentagon, the secret intelligence agencies, and the military-industrial complex…

If our republican form of government is to be saved, only an upsurge of direct democracy might be capable of doing so… I remain hopeful that Americans can still rouse themselves to save our democracy. But the time in which to head off financial and moral bankruptcy is growing short. The present book is my attempt to explain how we got where we are, the manifold distortions we have imposed on the system we inherited from the Founding Fathers, and our appointment with Nemesis (the goddess of retribution and vengeance, and punisher of pride and hubris), now that she is in the neighborhood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. It may well be that the elites of both parties are owned.
But *they* are not the Democratic party unless YOU accept that. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. but they are the "leading" candidates
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I agree with that OP. And I agree that HRC has been crowned.
And I will never give up promoting progressive values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. There are differences
Those differences are encompassed in their over all approach to foreign policy. Some Democrats are of the old school of neo-liberal imperialism. Those are the people that Hillary has successfully courted. I'm not sure about Obama because I don't know enough about the views of Tony Lake. I'm uneasy about Samantha Powers because she may be holding to a type of humanitarian intervention that will no longer be part of the world's dialog after Iraq. However, she is not an imperialist or at least she's not overt.

All three of the above are calling for the same thing, a formula if you will: force protection, training, and contingent troops. This plan has plenty of wiggle room in numbers. It is also the plan that the Democrats projected and bush refused. He refused just to refuse it...tough guy bs.

With any of these candidates, it is better to study who they are listening to because to understand foreign policy is a life-time endeavor. It is how we get out that will be different, and the most important step we take. My best guess is that Hillary will try for permanent bases.

As you know I've long been a supporter of Wes Clark. Strange as it may seem, he understands what Johnson understands, and is calling for a new direction in America's approach to the world. And yes, I've read Nemesis. At this point I'm not very hopeful...just pissed.

All I'm reading is sis-boom-bah on the internet. Few people understand how serious this is...you are one of the exceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
16. More Hillary pander,“If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, I will."
A statement meant to win over the anti-war base--which, if polls are to believe, seems to be working. Wake up, Democrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Nevermind,
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 02:54 PM by seasonedblue
it was an honest question, but I don't want to hijack the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. Perhaps if ONE of these three would make it clear
THAT HE or SHE INTENDS TO

Get The Fuck Out Of Iraq Now



this sort of spin would be impossible. Instead, as always, the anointed candidates are advised to utter incomprehensible pablum-speak that avoids actual commitment to any specific policy at all on any issue of real importance. And thus their oatmeal-on-the-ceiling posturing is fair game for the spinmeisters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
26. This is why Democrats need to be asked directly about Iraqi OIL and Bush's Hydrocarbon Law
"Are you in favor of forcing Iraq to write an oil law that gives the bulk of their oil income to foreign corporations and using our troops to enforce the deal?"

"Is the 'War on Terror' real if we are pursuing policies like giving away Iraq's oil that INCREASE resentment against the US?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
27. It's called an EMBASSY
And the reason the DLC is getting away with this spin is because the left won't tell the truth about what the US forces would be protecting. We have military forces at every embassy in the world. No Democrat has ever said we would stop going after terrorist targets in the region, so that isn't staying in Iraq for decades either. Having forces in Kuwait and Turkey, to contribute to regional stability, is perfectly acceptable as well.

The Soviet Union collapsed because they didn't trade. Some people around here have some pretty damn simplistic ideas about how the world works, and it is politically destructive when they get a national platform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
28. Inaccurate headline.
It should read "SOME" democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC