WOULD Obama or Hillary get us out of Iraq?

[mundame]

Someone was saying here recently that even if Obama is elected, he won't get us out of Iraq.

This poster didn't explain why he thought that, so I thought I'd ask --- Do people think they would get us out, and if not, why not?

Certainly after Pelosi's complete abdication of responsibility I don't believe in Dem promises enough to bother voting for them to end the war --- I'll believe it when I see it at this point.

But it seems to me it would make sense politically to end the war: it has eaten all of George Bush's presidency and it's sure to eat up a Dem presidency as well. Wouldn't they want to end the war so they can focus on raising taxes and redistributing whitey's income to blacks and whatever else Dems like to do?

So what do you think, and why?

[red states rule]

Someone was saying here recently that even if Obama is elected, he won't get us out of Iraq.

This poster didn't explain why he thought that, so I thought I'd ask --- Do people think they would get us out, and if not, why not?

Certainly after Pelosi's complete abdication of responsibility I don't believe in Dem promises enough to bother voting for them to end the war --- I'll believe it when I see it at this point.

But it seems to me it would make sense politically to end the war: it has eaten all of George Bush's presidency and it's sure to eat up a Dem presidency as well. Wouldn't they want to end the war so they can focus on raising taxes and redistributing whitey's income to blacks and whatever else Dems like to do?

So what do you think, and why?

Neither will surrender irhgt away. The reason - the US is winning

When was the last time a Dem came out and said we are losing? Or how no political progress is being made?

I have a thread where the Washington Compost (on the front page) is asking why the progress is not being reported

What a laugh? The liberal media, like Dems, have tried to ignore the progress and the successes of the surge

[theHawk]

Obama will not get us out of Iraq for the same reasons Congress hasn't forced it. They are only using the Iraq war to win votes, not because they actually want to end it. Just last week or so there was a Democrat Congressman that admitted that.
They know damned well if we pull out it will lead to mass chaos and maybe even genocide in Iraq. You think Obama is going to want that to happen while on his watch, he would take the blame and wouldn't stand a chance of being re-elected. The far left liberals that run the Democratic party could care less about soldiers being killed or Iraqis being killed, they care about one thing and thats getting into power so they can push their socialist agenda through Congress and the White House regardless of how much its protested.

[theHawk]

A Barack quote -


But having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

[red states rule]

and we have this........


Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War

Submitted by Jeff Emanuel on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 8:18pm.

Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district."

Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason.

You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem.

More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq.

http://www.jeffemanuel.net/paul-kanjorski-pa-11-admits-democrats-lied-about-being-able-to-end-war-in-iraq

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

There is not a chance that any one of the candidates for President could get us out of Iraq, at any time in the near future.

Geopolitics will not allow it. As much as I would like to follow isolationism and advocate it as a national option, the US cannot operate in a vaccuum.

WOrld events led us to where we are, and we have made a commitment to be being there, for the long haul.

Geopolitics will define the presidency for whomever is elected in the next national election. It is not determined so much by what a candidate wants to do, but rather what happens internationally that he/she will react and create policy based on those actions. President Bush was not elected based on how he would respond to a terror attack on the US, or more than likely, there would have been a better candidate from the Republican party (although his big government connections didn't hurt).

If you believe that voting for Obama, Clinton or McCain based on what they say they will do, will define thier presidency, you are sadly mistaken, and undoubtably will be disillusioned the next election cycle.

[mundame]

From the Rep. Kanjorski link:

That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."


The truth in Mr. Kanjorski's statement is both evident and obvious, and has been (to any who have been paying attention) since the Democrat out-of-Iraq-now campaigns began in early 2006. It has become more obvious with every bill the Democrat-led Congress passed that, rather than ending the war, simply gave the President nearly every single thing he asked for (http://www.redstate.com/stories/congress/oh_yeah_its_official_they_funded_the_troops_withou t_restrictions), without putting up any real fight


Nice.

Total betrayal of the people.

[red states rule]

From the Rep. Kanjorski link:



Nice.

Total betrayal of the people.

and yet Dems swallow the same crap election after election.

Dems will not end the war - the troops are winning and spoiling the Dems desire for surrender

Look at blacks. Every election Dems tell them how they are being kept down by racism, and only they can save them

Dems have told blacks this BS for 40 years, and yet, according to Dems (and the so called balck leaders) things have not changed in the last 40 years

[mundame]

Look at blacks. Every election Dems tell them how they are being kept down by racism, and only they can save them

Dems have told blacks this BS for 40 years, and yet, according to Dems (and the so called balck leaders) things have not changed in the last 40 years


Oh, don't be so pessimistic. Looks like things are changing big-time to me: blacks are preaching hate against whites right from the pulpit and one of those is about to be elected president of the United States ------- so they'll be in the catbird seat, let all the blacks out of prison that they complain about, expand drug sales, put corrupt blacks in all the Cabinet departments instead of just the Dept. of Urban Affairs, they'll have a big ol' time.

[red states rule]

Oh, don't be so pessimistic. Looks like things are changing big-time to me: blacks are preaching hate against whites right from the pulpit and one of those is about to be elected president of the United States ------- so they'll be in the catbird seat, let all the blacks out of prison that they complain about, expand drug sales, put corrupt blacks in all the Cabinet departments instead of just the Dept. of Urban Affairs, they'll have a big ol' time.

I know it has Mundame (we agree again)

But listen to what your elected Dems say. Listen to what clowns like Wright, Moss, Obama, Jeese, and Al says

and most blacks lap it up I am sorry to say

[midcan5]

Just like Nixon left Nam, and Reagan left Beirut, and Bush Sr left the Kurds and the Russians left Afghanistan, we will leave Iraq, the sooner the better as enough children have no father, and enough young men no life.

Whenever one thinks of the accusation that Bush lied, you have to go back and consider his debates with Gore. He was no nation builder, what did he mean by that one wonders. It is curious how nations don't like a foreign power on their territory, wars of insurgency are never won.

[red states rule]

Just like Nixon left Nam, and Reagan left Beirut, and Bush Sr left the Kurds and the Russians left Afghanistan, we will leave Iraq, the sooner the better as enough children have no father, and enough young men no life.

Whenever one thinks of the accusation that Bush lied, you have to go back and consider his debates with Gore. He was no nation builder, what did he mean by that one wonders. It is curious how nations don't like a foreign power on their territory, wars of insurgency are never won.

9-11 was a game changer on how we need to deal with terrorists

Al would still be looking for a controlling legal authority on what to do with terrorists

Keep ignoring the progress midcan. The last thing libs want to hear about any good news on Iraq - it is such bad news for them

[Hagbard Celine]

A Barack quote -

That quote is spot-on. I don't understand why you'd use it unless you were trying to support the "lib" side of this argument. Iraq was stable before we invaded and invited AQ in to breed. We need to get the hell out of there because we never should've gone there to begin with, but if we leave precipitously it will create a vacuum. It's a wonderful, Bushy conundrum.
Obama demonstrates a pretty strong understanding of the situation if you ask me.

[red states rule]

That quote is spot-on. I don't understand why you'd use it unless you were trying to support the "lib" side of this argument. Iraq was stable before we invaded and invited AQ in to breed. We need to get the hell out of there because we never should've gone there to begin with, but if we leave precipitously it will create a vacuum. It's a wonderful, Bushy conundrum.
Obama demonstrates a pretty strong understanding of the situation if you ask me.

So now Iraq was stable before the evil US invaded.

Hag, you suffer from selective memory loss and are attempting to rewrite history

Here is what your beloved Dems said about Iraq


“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Al Gore, 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.”—Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

http://johnwlillpop.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-democrats/

[Hagbard Celine]

So now Iraq was stable before the evil US invaded.

Hag, you suffer from selective memory loss and are attempting to rewrite history

Here is what your beloved Dems said about Iraq

The Dems are not "beloved" to me mo-mo. Get your head out of your ass. Iraq WAS stable before we invaded it. Saddam dictated over Iraq for right at 24 years (since 1979). His Sunni regime balanced the Shia power of Iran. What we've effectively done in Iraq is completely disenfranchise Sunnis (the more secular and moderate type of Muslims) and have instead set-up Maleki, a Shia government, that is loyal to Iran. Nevermind the fact that we provided the perfect petri dish for AQ scum to breed when we dispelled with law and order in Iraq and gave it up to armed militias for over four years following the invasion.
The Iraq war is the most dismal failure in US history.

[red states rule]

The Dems are not "beloved" to me mo-mo. Get your head out of your ass. Iraq WAS stable before we invaded it. Saddam dictated over Iraq for right at 24 years (since 1979). His Sunni regime balanced the Shia power of Iran. What we've effectively done in Iraq is completely disenfranchise Sunnis (the more secular and moderate type of Muslims) and have instead set-up Maleki, a Shia government, that is loyal to Iran. Nevermind the fact that we provided the perfect petri dish for AQ scum to breed when we dispelled with law and order in Iraq and gave it up to armed militias for over four years following the invasion.
The Iraq war is the most dismal failure in US history.

Spoken like a true appeaser. Saddam was OK, he was no problem, so what if he was funding terrorism and slaughtering his people

and you show the same "support" for the troops like your fellow Dems

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MqIlXfkylD4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MqIlXfkylD4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sYZEGot-xU4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sYZEGot-xU4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[glockmail]

...Iraq WAS stable before we invaded it. .... Wow. A dictator supporting terrorism against Israel is stable but a democray is not.

[Hagbard Celine]

Spoken like a true appeaser. Saddam was OK, he was no problem, so what if he was funding terrorism and slaughtering his people

and you show the same "support" for the troops like your fellow Dems

He wasn't funding terrorism. Saddam was a secularist. He viewed AQ as a threat genius. That myth you've bought into was concocted by "patriotic" Neo-cons to scare voters like you into voting for them.

And you have no idea how much I "support the troops" you ignorant little hillbilly sh*t. You can shove that sh*t back up your ass. You are a d-bag and I have all the evidence I need for that. How dare you question my patriotism when all you do is leech off the system like a parasite?

[red states rule]

He wasn't funding terrorism. Saddam was a secularist. He viewed AQ as a threat genius. That myth you've bought into was concocted by "patriotic" Neo-cons to scare voters like you into voting for them.

And you have no idea how much I "support the troops" you ignorant little hillbilly sh*t. You can shove that sh*t back up your ass. You are a d-bag and I have all the evidence I need for that. How dare you question my patriotism when all you do is leech off the system like a parasite?

Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups: Pentagon Update: What it meansposted at 8:15 am on March 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that an investigation into over 600,000 documents captured at the end of the invasion of Iraq showed no operational links to al-Qaeda — or at least, that’s how the media reported it. After a strange few days in which the Pentagon delayed the report, it finally hit the internet last night — and it’s clear that the analysis done by the media was superficial at best. If no operational “smoking gun” could be found, the report still shows that Saddam Hussein had plenty of ties to all sorts of terrorist groups, including radical Islamist jihadis.

For instance, how about their support for The Army of Muhammad, a known al-Qaeda subsidiary operating in Bahrain? On pages 34-35 of the report, we find communications between their Bahrain agent and IIS headquarters confirming Army of Mohammad’s loyalty to Osama bin Laden. What is the response from Baghdad?
The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. …

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/saddam-supported-at-least-two-al-qaeda-groups-pentagon/


Yep, when you call libs what they are they get upset and start the profanity laced responses to show they do "support" the troops

How typical

[glockmail]

He wasn't funding terrorism. .. Denial is no longer just a river....

[red states rule]

Denial is no longer just a river....

Like others, when boxed into a corner they whine how you are questioning their patriotism

[Hagbard Celine]

Denial is no longer just a river....

Circumstantial leaps made by a ludicrously biased conservative rag called "Hot Air?" That's ya'll's proof that Saddam supported terrorism? It's laughable and I stick by my statement.

[Hagbard Celine]

Like others, when boxed into a corner they whine how you are questioning their patriotism

FUCK YOU. You accused me of not "supporting the troops." If you throw a turd at me then I'll throw one right back at your parasitic face.

[red states rule]

FUCK YOU. You accused me of not "supporting the troops." If you throw a turd at me then I'll throw one right back at your parasitic face.

You are showing their support by wanting to surrender to terrorists, and saying they are losing?

Great support there Hag

Sorry if the truth hurts you

[gabosaurus]

Neither will surrender irhgt away. The reason - the US is winning


:laugh2: :laugh2:

[red states rule]

:laugh2: :laugh2:

If the modern breed of Dems would have been around in 1941.......

[glockmail]

Circumstantial leaps made by a ludicrously biased conservative rag called "Hot Air?" That's ya'll's proof that Saddam supported terrorism? It's laughable and I stick by my statement. I've never read Hot Air. I've seen many articles about it though. There's tons of proof out there, but I've been through it before with you Libs.

[Hagbard Celine]

You are showing their support by wanting to surrender to terrorists, and saying they are losing?

Great support there Hag

Sorry if the truth hurts you

I've never said they were losing moron. There's nothing to lose in an occupation. They're policing the streets and directing traffic. They're not fighting any cohesive force so where would "loss" come in to play if they were to leave?

[Hagbard Celine]

If the modern breed of Dems would have been around in 1941.......

WWII isn't even comparable to the Iraq conflict.

[mundame]

I've never said they were losing moron. There's nothing to lose in an occupation. They're policing the streets and directing traffic. They're not fighting any cohesive force so where would "loss" come in to play if they were to leave?


Well, they lose their legs. They lose all the skin on their heads; they lose their faces. They kill themselves. It's true the Iraqis don't stand and fight, they just blow up our troops day after day from a distance.........

I can't see the point of our soldiers hanging around waiting to be blown up.

[red states rule]

WWII isn't even comparable to the Iraq conflict.

Appeasers like you are stil pushing John Kerry's anti terror plan

[Psychoblues]

Yes

[red states rule]

If the Washington Compost wants to know why the good news from Iraq is not being reported - they can start with NBC (the official network for the Obama 08 campaign)


NBC Nightly News Spikes News About Fewest Troop Deaths of War
By Brent Baker | June 2, 2008 - 22:28 ET

As lead-ins to short reports on the posthumous presentation of a Medal of Honor, ABC and CBS on Monday night managed to squeeze in -- more than 20 minutes into their evening newscasts -- brief mentions of how in May the fewest number U.S. servicemen were killed in Iraq in any month since the war began five years ago. But not NBC Nightly News. (And Sunday's Today and Nightly News, as well as Monday's Today, also skipped the good news.) NBC anchor Brian Williams on Monday led with worries that “because it's been underfunded for decades, mass transit may not be ready for all the Americans leaving their cars behind,” and ran his short update, on the Medal of Honor going to Army Private First Class Ross McGinnis, without anything about the decline in troops killed.

Fill-in ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos set up his report on the White House ceremony presenting the honor to the parents of McGinnis by dampening the positive news with the total death number:

The Pentagon reported 19 American troops were killed in May. That's the lowest monthly toll since the war began. The total number of Americans killed in the war is now approaching 4,100.

On the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric also noted the total, but CBS didn't display it on screen, as she painted the fewest killed as “perhaps” a sign violence is going down:

In Iraq, a sign perhaps that violence is decreasing. In the lowest monthly death U.S. toll since the war began, 19 Americans were killed in May. The total U.S. toll for the war is now 4,086.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/06/02/nbc-nightly-news-spikes-news-about-fewest-troop-deaths-war