September 27, 2007
A Lack of Clarity (A.B. Stoddard)
Thank you, Tim Russert, for dragging the truth from all the Democratic candidates about what "ending the war" actually means. We hear these words a lot, especially from Hillary Clinton, yet Russert's questioning at MSNBC's New Hampshire debate last night revealed that none of the top three Democratic contenders for president would commit to doing so by the end of their first term.
John Edwards wanted to distinguish himself from Clinton by remarking that she made clear in her talk-show blitz last Sunday she would leave combat troops in Iraq. "To me that is a continuation of the war," he said, adding he doesn't think we should leave combat troops there. She shot back quickly that those troops would be fighting al Qaeda. Obama said we must remove combat troops but leave a presence to protect our embassies, bases and civilians while engaging in "counterterrorism activities in Iraq."
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) made the promise Clinton, Edwards and Obama — with all their nuance — could not: to pull out all troops in his first term as president. But we know not what "counterterrorism activities" will consist of in six months, let alone six years. How do we define what is a continuation of this war? We simply cannot know what sectarian violence, al Qaeda-perpetrated violence or other Iranian-influenced violence will be consuming Iraq at that point, so none of the likely Democratic nominees can say for certain — not Clinton, not Obama, not Edwards — that they would have ended our war in Iraq by 2013.
I am not saying I disagree with anything Obama, Clinton and Edwards are saying. It's just been a bit tiring to hear them beat that "end the war" drum all across the country when even they don't know what that means.
***
WHAT DO YOU THINK ENDING THE WAR MEANS? Please send me your response and a question to askab@thehill.com to join AskAB, my weekly Q & A video. We want to talk politics and have a few laughs. Spare us the offensive, unGoogleable, unthinkable or otherwise useless. I look forward to hearing from all of you, often.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 17 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Yes, Tim Russert, who I personally never cared for because he comes off as a died in the wool liberal, did an excellent job interviewing the Democratic candidates. Tim Russert appeared more informed than the candidates and that's very revealing. The question of the night had to be the one about capturing the number 3 terrorist who knew of plans to set off a hydrogen bomb in a major American city, and would the candidates approve torture to get the information out of the terrorist? I was surprised to see that not one candidate would approve torture when a million America lives would be at stake. That fact alone indicates that not one was worthy of further consideration. The look of the night had to be Hillary's when she found out that her husband would have stated yes to that question and did so on Tim Russert's show. She made a lame joke about it but she looked ridiculous. The other candidates must have been encouraged to run because she looks better than the rest, only because she's not a stupid as the rest. The look she gave Joe Biden when he made a comment that promoting Hillary would bring back negative aspects from the past was priceless. He immediately realized how she interpreted it and stated, "I'm referring to policy." The whole group should resign from their current positions in government. Never has there been a more unqualified and more uninformed group to wants to head the greatest country in the world.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 27, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
What the Democrats are really and truly afraid of are a few simple questions: "What if we win in Iraq?" What would the Democrats do if we end up with a situation like Afghanistan, where the democracy isn't perfect, but at least it works? What would the Democrats do if there is only the random act of terrorism (as in Afghanistan), but no open urban warfare? Would they still demand that we pull out of the country?
All three leading Democratic contenders now openly admit that having troops in Iraq would be useful in the ongoing war on terror. No kidding, really? Wasn't that the biggest complaint going into the war in Afghanistan, that we didn't have any bases or intelligence gathering assets or facilities in the Middle East to fight Al Qaeda and other radical Muslim groups? So if the fighting goes down to a very minor level in Iraq, do we stay and maintain our important bases there to fight radical Muslim jihadist groups, or do we just pick up our toys and leave?
If American troops can get the fighting and the risk down to Afghanistan levels, I think bases in Iraq would be a lot more important than bases in other parts of the world where our troops are doing nothing, like in Germany. The dirty little secret is that all of the Democrats know this, they just don't want to be honest with the American public and admit it.
Comment by Libertyship46 — September 27, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Hillary the front runner changes her story on Iraq several times a week in some weeks. This pathetic lier cannot be elected to be the President of the United States. Those who criticize me for constantly attacking her, please summarize her consistent position on Iraq before venting your rage.
Comment by Igor R. — September 27, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
I appreciate the need for advertising to pay for blogs. Having ads that actually cover up the text of posts, however, is not only annoying but counterproductive. YMMV.
Comment by James Joyner — September 27, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Yes the Democrats are finally admitting there WILL BE troops left in Iraq for a PERIOD of time.
They ALSO admit - which you fail to mention - that their GOAL is to get OUT ASAP.
This is totally different goal then that of Mr Bush. He and his friends (you being one apparently) set out a plan years ago to go into the Middle East and take CONTROL of that area. If you have your way, we will stay there for ever - protecting Israel and getting a little more control of that OIL (as Greenspan tells us).
Tell the WHOLE story please.
Comment by Coonsey — September 27, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I too appreciated Russert’s questioning. I like that he pressed the issue when the candidates, particularly Hillary, tried to avoid answering his questions. But I think it's a fundamental mistake to call the democratic candidates uninformed just because you disagree with them. I think the analysis of Obama, Edwards and Clinton, that not all troops will leave, shows that they are informed. They understand the realities of the world we live in. We have troops protecting most if not all of our embassies; we have troops stationed at every base we operate around the globe and we have always provided protection for humanitarian workers in dangerous parts of the world. None of that constitutes continuing a war. It constitutes protecting out citizens and our interests but by drawing down our combat forces to have them out within a year, as Senator Obama is proposing. It is saving the lives of our troops by removing them from a dispute that has no military solution.
If you disagree with the candidates and myself this is a great forum for airing your opinion, for showing another side to the argument but calling them uninformed and unqualified because you disagree is the heart of our political problems in this country. There are serious issues confronting us, such as the war in Iraq, but now is the time for serious candidates on both sides to come together to discuss solutions not blindly hurl insults in an attempt to score cheap political points.
Comment by Nick Mueller — September 27, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
I heard the soundbites on Limbaugh today. It's amazing how Hillary was clamoring for troop withdrawal to begin "within 90 days" a few months ago then all of a sudden she can't commit to pulling troops out.
Basically, she's parroting the Bush administration's position that conditions on the ground will dictate when troops are brought home.
I wonder if those gullible anti-war liberals feel hoodwinked.
Comment by DFAL — September 27, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
A.B.
What outstanding posts by Robert and Libertyship. Having watched each night of "the War" on PBS, it is shocking to think that any of those GI's who gave thier lives so willingly for freedom, would have ever dreamed that 60 years later one of these Democratic traitors could be running for the same office as FDR. Hey…either you're in favor of America winning the Fourth World War or you're a traitor and should be shot. It's really that simple. I see no possibility that the "Silent Majority" will ever elect a Democrat to lead our nation at War.
Comment by David Erlichman — September 27, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Nick, your Kumbaya manifesto doesn't address the fact the frontrunner's opinion changes with how the wind blows, and quite often. You're spinning, and badly.
Comment by Igor R. — September 27, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Nick Mueller: You state they understand the realities of the world we live in. No, in fact they don't. Their answers were vacuous. I didn't say they were unqualified and uninformed because I don't agree with them. They didn't state anything that informed the public, only posturing and trying to be evasive. Tim Russert was the pro of the night, and for the most part didn't let them weasel out of giving an answer. Where was the courage in trying to weasel your way through a debate? Only the unqualified and uninformed would try that and if the shoe fits, you wear it.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 27, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
A.B. Like the rest of the world, I would like to know who is on the Clinton Library donor's list.
Doesn't it make you wonder why that information is not being released?
When an individual runs for the Presidency, the record up to that event matters. To surpress access to events leading to that point- is unacceptable and warrants further questions about reasons why.
Comment by Cheryl O — September 27, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
[…] A.B. Stoddard writing for The Hill's Pundit's Blog sums up the Dem dilemma nicely: […]
Pingback by Right Wing Nut House » GOP ALBATROSS IS DEM’S TAR BABY — September 28, 2007 @ 7:28 am
Response to David Erlichman:
It's simple! Either you believe in the right to hold a dissenting opinion, even regarding a war by Christo-fascists against their percieved enemies the Islamo-fascists, or you don't understand the true meaning of being an American patriot.
Take you drivel to Myanmar; you would fit in perfectly with their leaders.
Comment by Smilinjack — September 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Whoooo there… Now don’t go so quick as to put me in the same boat as Mrs. Clinton. I am not a fan. I do believe her to be intelligent and informed but I didn’t begin to call her courageous or defend her in the face of a political wind. Senator Clinton is a political hack of the worst kind. She will play the game to win and does not have the courage of conviction that it takes to stand for something even when it’s unpopular. That’s why she likes to avoid the question (as even the most noble politician does from time to time).
I am on the other hand a fan of Senator Obama who for the most part is very direct when answering questions, particular on the topic of Iraq. If you want to see courage of convictions, he spoke out against the war from the beginning, even when it was unpopular to do so. Again at the debate the other night speaking to a liberal crowd that would like to hear that everyone could be home in 3 months like Rep. Kucinich said (now that’s uninformed and logistically impossible), Senator Obama said the informed truth. There will be troops in Iraq at our embassy and the other place he mentioned.
Now if you want to call that not ending the war I guess you’re free to do so but I disagree. After all we still have troops in Berlin but I think we can agree that both WW II and the Cold War have ended. Like I said, disagree on the issues if you like but I will stand up for Senator Obama, courageous, informed and qualified.
Comment by Nick Mueller — September 28, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Smilinjack, if you know anything about how dissenting opinions should be treated you don't direct your "enemies" to Myanmar.
Comment by Igor R. — September 29, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Nick Mueller, Obama may be more inclined to say what he means, and Kucinich even more so, but the war was well worth fighting. The world has gotten rid of Saddam who was hell-bent on controlling the Middle East oil and acquiring nuclear weapons. There is nothing admirable in always being "for peace" no matter what. Sometimes you have to do what needs to be done.
Comment by Igor R. — September 29, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Smilinjack: In War there can be no dissent. Dissent in War is treason. Your Democrats authorized this War and are continuing to vote to fund it so why are they undermining the War effort? (Woodrow Wilson and FDR would not have tolerated any of the crap our President has allowed and Bush is villified for permitting a nation at War to be undermined by traitors from within.) If you're right and we ar enot at War, why are your Democratic leaders funding 30 billion to continue this non-war? Win or Lose in Iraq. McCain has it perfectly right…."No Surrender"
Comment by David Erlichman — October 1, 2007 @ 4:07 pm