If nearly all the democrats say the war will continue to 2013...

I feel like I am one of the very few who think this is total BS. I'm going to vote for Kucinich. He may NOT win the election, But my heart wont allow me to do anything else. I can't take anymore of this - antagonizing other countries, the health care system, war, Iran, education, responses to global warming, our national security, infrastructure, and on and on and on..

Biden, specifically, said that if there's no political solution then the troops need to be pulled out, he won't have them be fodder.

If things calm down as troops are removed, then we might keep trainers and troops to protect the Embassy. We have Embassies everywhere. Do you Kucinich supporters propose closing all our Embassies? This is why I can't take any of you seriously.

End the illegal occupation is not the same as leave our ambassador naked and unprotected.

Leaving troops to protect the Embassy, and continue training if requested. Counter-terrorism forces might be in Iraq, might be in Kuwait. It all depends on there being a political solution after the combat troops are pulled out.

It seems like some posters fall for the Reich Wing nutz spin/frame every time.

Kucinich has said every single solitary troop out, close the embassy, just leave.

Richardson has said every troop out, I don't know what his plan is from there.

Kerry has said, set a deadline to get all the troops out, no bases; but has left room for Embassies, training, and terrorist operations in conjunction with regional support.

Edwards and Obama have their plans.

Hillary has been brought kicking and screaming all along the way, I'm still not sure she supports setting a deadline, closing bases, etc.

Then there's the internal refugees, the reconstruction, etc.

Everybody has a slightly different approach - the details matter.

just to maintain the embassy, it's a small city in itself, I really dunno, if we just maintain troop levels to "protect" our
interests will we have a long bloody war, longer than Vietnam, and since they had the chance for a bloodless coup and
went to Iraq anyway, this may have been the plan all along. I think we should go, mainly for the huge footprint of mercenaries
that we are paying 70,000 to 90,000 for each one that we have no oversight of at all. What they are doing in Iraq, I shudder
to think.

If they can't be AT the Embassy without engaging in daily fighting, then that's a different scenario. People keep wanting them to say ALL troops will be out. They say if we pull the troops out, the people will stop fighting. If calm returns, then we ought to be able to have an Embassy there. Regardless, the point is that no one knows how this is going to be resolved, the preference is to have an Embassy in Iraq. They can't lie and say there won't be any troops in Iraq under those circumstances.

then I think Iraq will be calmer, I think that we should try and get neighboring countries in there even Iran
to help restore order and provide security.

What right do we have to put embassies everywhere? This is what started 9-11 to begin with because Bin Laden was pissed that we had a base in Saudi Arabia. The first thing Bush did after 9-11 was close it. That stupid embassy built in Iraq is ENORMOUS. It contains a health club, movie theater, etc etc. This is nonsense, we have NO business there, and it pisses them off.

If a criminal in Canada throws a fit and wants our Embassy out, should we comply?

You both have to agree before you build.
This thing in Iraq is clearly out of control.

You're insane.

IMO an embassy that requires constant fighting to protect is not worth it. But hopefully we could continue diplomatic relations with Iraq.

there would be a continuing mission of counter-terrorism. Clinton specifically mentioned al Qaeda and presence of Special Forces may be needed after the other combat troops are withdrawn.

not working by the time he becomes president, he'd remove the remaining troops as they would just be fodder if they stayed.

That would be January 20, 2009. That's a far cry from 2013, and I don't see why nobody acknowledges him for that stance.

beyond 2013 to engage in counter-terrorism activities. Edwards pointed out in the debate that his position was different in that he would not keep troops for that mission.

I suppose we can't really say what may happen at this point, but I certainly do not feel comfortable with the likelihood of having a military force still present for counter-terroism activity.

I hope this helps:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3565652&mesg_id=3565652

and, let's say, 30,000 (which is what we have in Afghanistan, I think).

wants them out now.

who went to the street and protested for YEARS until *finally* both parties knew that "the jig is up." Then BOTH parties worked together to extract our troops from Vietnam (1975).

Because The Military Industrial Complex CONTROLS our entire main stream media, they think that they can continue this war into oblivion. I think they're wrong ... the cracks in the armor of this horrific occupation have already started to show (Blackwater, War Profiteering, Statistics manipulated, Stop Loss, etc.).

No matter how many stories the M$M focuses on OJ and/or Paris Hilton, the people will continue to demand an end to these occupations. :(

is still going on when he is elected President, that he would get the troops outta there ASAP because they will be nothing
but canon fodder.

======================

All the media talks about is what the frontrunners said. 3 Dems does not equal all or most.

The question russert asked was deliberately phrased so as to create controversy like this. They were asked if they could commit to having all troops out by 2013. Several said no. Of these, the only plan I'm familiar with is Edwards's, which has all COMBAT troops removed in 6-9 months, leaving a small amount as embassy protection and training for the iraqi army. Anyone who replied in the affirmative is therefore either not considering those requirements, or just saying what people want to hear. If russert really wanted to get an answer, he should have asked when they planned to have all combat troops out, and if they could committ to this happening before 2013.

This is republican framing at it's best, folks. We need to not buy in to it.

by Russert, a dirty rat, were styled to trap them.

tossed to the candidates? "Trapping them", more accurately, finding out what the candidates REALLY think was Russert's JOB...