A flip, a flop, and then surrender.

Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all run their campaigns based, in part, on the idea that the Iraq war is so unsuccessful that it must end right away.  They took a semi-hiatus from that stance on Sept 26th, 2007. 

When asked by Tim Russert if there would be troops in Iraq at the end of their potential first terms in office, none of the candidates would promise complete withdraw:

Obama:  “I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible.  We don’t know what contingency will be out there… believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.”

Clinton: “I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting.”

Edwards:  “I cannot make that commitment.  But I — well, I can tell you what i would do as president.  When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.”

At least Edwards admits to an immediate draw down, but still leaves troops in Iraq.

After last night’s debate in Nevada, the candidates flopped back to their original anti-war platforms as Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard points out:

 “The debate featured only a single serious question concerning foreign policy, during which the three Democrats tried to out-do one another in their commitment to speedily withdrawing from Iraq. Clinton said that she’ll start within 60 days of taking office; Obama said he would have complete withdrawal by 2009; Edwards said that he’d leave no combat troops whatsoever, would conduct no more combat missions, and that ‘the occupation must end.'”

Nothing like hanging an ally out to dry.  The last time the U.S. backed out on a Middle Eastern ally was when Jimmy Carter refused to support the Shah of Iran.  How has that worked out again? 

President Bill Clinton sent the troops into Kosovo to stop genocide, and sent the troops in to Somalia to combat war lards starting an era of using the U.S. military for goodwill missions.  Would any of these jesters send the troops back into Iraq after Al Qaeda starts to take revenge on the population that finally got brave enough to kick them out? 


15 Responses to “A flip, a flop, and then surrender.”

  1. 1 LLP
    January 16, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    You guys are the surrender monkeys. You’re not doing anything to help win. Every time you college Republicans walk past a recruiting station without signing up you’re giving hope to the terrorists.

  2. 2 Moonshiner
    January 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Look, Mr. Inflamatory Rhetoric,

    You’re an idiot. There. We sure did accomplish a lot on that exchange, didn’t we? Rhetoric is pointless, it’s just more sugar in the kooll-aid you’re feeding yourself.

    The U.S. Military is roughly 3 million people, active duty and reserve.

    The population of the United States is 300 million plus. Let’s take 300 million for easy math. 3 million divided by 300 million is 1%.

    You are chiding people for not joining and institution that comprises 1% of the total population.

    I support the military every year with my taxes, and support the 4% for Freedom effort to increase the amount of funding they get.

    Every day you don’t stop the war, you are a complete failure. Happy now?

  3. 3 LLP
    January 16, 2008 at 8:17 pm

    You’re missing the point, Moonshiner. You have to think about it in terms of winning. Don’t you guys want to win?

    When we go to war, we go to war as a country. Even if you don’t enlist, work at a munitions plant. Volunteer to load and unload trucks. Start a victory garden. Where’s the sacrifice?

    “Every day you don’t stop the war, you are a complete failure. Happy now?”

    This, I agree with. Moreover I’d say when we are stuck in an endless war we are all failing, and we are all losing.

  4. 4 Moonshiner
    January 17, 2008 at 12:28 am

    I have faith in our military, they seem to be doing well enough without the other 99% of the country.

    Do you really think the war is endless? Iraqi security forces are slowly being able to take over and patrol their own turf. Plus, the democrats are more than likely to win the presidency this year. With democrats everywhere dedicated to defeat and withdraw, why should I commit to making sacrifices when the democrats will end it all in the near future?

    You say we go to war as a country. What are you doing, if you are part of this country?

  5. 5 LLP
    January 17, 2008 at 9:19 am

    “With democrats everywhere dedicated to defeat and withdraw, why should I commit to making sacrifices when the democrats will end it all in the near future?”

    Spoken like a true college Republican. You aren’t doing anything yourself to help win, yet you think you’ve earned to right to call others defeatist. You are a COWARD and a WUSS. You have not enlisted because you are AFRAID.

    “You say we go to war as a country. What are you doing, if you are part of this country?”

    I think our soldiers would protect our country better by coming home and defending the borders, not dying needlessly in Iraq to defend the neo con’s stupid academic theory about spreading democracy in the third world.

  6. 6 Moonshiner
    January 17, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Glad to see you’re back to the inflammatory rhetoric and degrading your opponent. I would expect nothing less of a liberal like yourself.

    I think you’re a traitor for not really supporting the troops. Happy with the name calling now?

    Besides, the point of this entry was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the leading liberal candidates, something that clearly doesn’t bother you. That’s not surprising either.

    My mistake was even acknowledging you, because now you think someone cares about what you say. Have a nice life in your mom’s basement, loser.

  7. 7 LLP
    January 17, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Moonshiner: “Waaah! Waaah! Someone hurt my feelings! That’s so meeeean, how can you say that? I’m calling my therapist to come hold my hand because someone online called me names and hurt my feelings!”

  8. 9 LLP
    January 17, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Anybody who calls the anti war movement “hippie wusses” is using their pro war stance as a personal statement of courage and definitely deserves to be called a Chickenhawk, and teased and mocked as a fake macho wuss who is only brave in their own mind.

  9. January 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    “The surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system,”, spoken by Army Chief of Staff George Casey. LP does have a point, if you are of age, want to continue cheerleading a oil war, sign the F up! You speak of this war just like the few Republicans in the House that won’t criticize you “beloved President”. Back up your words! We have put our brothers and sisters in harms way, and for what? Where’s the accountability? Let me ask, if China invaded and occupied America, and I took up arms in defense, what would I be called? A Patriot? An insurgent? and would you be with me?

  10. 11 WB
    January 18, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Hey, somebody watched Queaf Olbermann last night and drank the kool aid down like a shot. Since he’s such an honest, unbiased person there’s no need for us to look into that quote or give it context. I’m with you, brother, let’s surrender! I’m sure they’ll leave us alone if we just make nice to them. And by that I mean convert to Islam and do exactly as they say.

  11. 12 LLP
    January 19, 2008 at 11:25 am

    WB, if you really believed what you’re saying, how can you not enlist? Nothing less than the fate of the world’s at stake, right?

  12. 13 WB
    January 19, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Being born in 1964 and having been a Marine for 8 years in 80’s kind of makes that impossible at this point. But that doesn’t matter. Go to this website and request a free pocket Constitution, read it, THINK about it, then get back to me. Try to find the part that requires participation in something in order to support it. Then go jump off a building.

  13. 14 LLP
    January 19, 2008 at 3:35 pm


    Thank you for your service. Why do you think it’s a bad idea to urge war supporters to enlist? Obviously you don’t need to participate in something in order to support it. However, we have a well documented shortage of troops, especially in the area of experienced officers and NCOs. Please consider:


    “For several years now, we’ve been hearing alarming warnings about the strain that the Iraq War has placed on the military. Since the conflict began, around 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps’ large-scale equipment has been used, worn out, or destroyed. Last year, the Army had to grant waivers to nearly one in five recruits because they had criminal records. There are no more combat-ready brigades left on standby should a new conflict flare.

    These problems are of vital concern, and are reasonably well understood in newsrooms and on Capitol Hill. But the top uniformed and civilian leaders at the Pentagon who think hardest about the future of the military have a more fundamental fear: young officers—people like Matt Kapinos—are leaving the Army at nearly their highest rates in decades. This is not a short-term problem, nor is it one that can simply be fixed with money. A private-sector company or another government agency can address a shortage of middle managers by hiring more middle managers. In the Army’s rigid hierarchy, all officers start out at the bottom, as second lieutenants. A decline in officer retention, in other words, threatens both the Army’s current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its long-term institutional future. And though many senior Pentagon leaders are quite aware of the problem, there’s only so much they can do to reverse the decline while the United States maintains large numbers of troops in Iraq.

    In the last four years, the exodus of junior officers from the Army has accelerated. In 2003, around 8 percent of junior officers with between four and nine years of experience left for other careers. Last year, the attrition rate leapt to 13 percent. “A five percent change could potentially be a serious problem,” said James Hosek, an expert in military retention at the RAND Corporation. Over the long term, this rate of attrition would halve the number of officers who reach their tenth year in uniform and intend to take senior leadership roles.

    But the problem isn’t one of numbers alone: the Army also appears to be losing its most gifted young officers. In 2005, internal Army memos started to warn of the “disproportionate loss of high-potential, high-performance junior leaders.” West Point graduates are leaving at their highest rates since the 1970s (except for a few years in the early 1990s when the Army’s goal was to reduce its size). Of the nearly 1,000 cadets from the class of 2002, 58 percent are no longer on active duty.”

    My comment: If college Republicans are serious about winning, why aren’t they doing anything to help win? It just makes no sense.

  14. 15 LLP
    January 19, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    This comment by Moonshiner sums it up perfectly:


    “With democrats everywhere dedicated to defeat and withdraw, why should I commit to making sacrifices when the democrats will end it all in the near future?”


    Frankly, I’m appalled he would express such a DEFEATIST attitude, especially while we’re at war. Sad and pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

January 2008
« Dec   Feb »

%d bloggers like this: