SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (15836)9/27/2007 8:17:12 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224744
 
Clinton, Obama, Edwards Cannot Guarantee a Complete Pullout By 2013

Kucinich and Ron Paul will make the commitment.

The Democratic presidential candidates debated in New Hampshire last night, and despite challenging General David Petraeus' veracity in his recent Congressional testimony two weeks ago, it looks like not only Hillary, but the other major Democratic candidates as well, have "willingly suspended disbelief":

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama
of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Imagine how this is going to play with the nutroots who want an immediate end to the war yesterday. Not one of the top Democratic candidates was willing to commit to having all U.S. troops out of Iraq five and a half years from now! As Ed Morrissey notes, this is an indicator of just how far General Petraeus' testimony moved the mood on Iraq against the Democrats' surrender line. Clinton, who has a vested interest in looking tough, has, at times taken the same realist approach, understanding the need to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2008, even though she's also at various times supported pulling funding for the troops (even voting for it) when she's sensed she's moved too far to the right. But Obama and Edwards are two darlings of the nutroots who have practically argued that an end to the war cannot come soon enough; the shift the current Iraq situation has forced will, I think, hurt them among the far-left anti-war faction. Edwards tried to qualify his position by saying that he wants to immediately withdraw 40-50,000 troops, but I sense that the thought of having even one U.S. soldier in Iraq five years from now makes the anti-war left positively ill. We saw how wildly unhinged the far-left got when Mrs. Edwards suggested that hey, maybe General Petraeus - a man who has devoted his life to the honest service of his country - didn't deserve to be called a traitor. Imagine how the far-left will be after it appears that Edwards et al actually bought into Petraeus' message.

The fact is the surge is working - we are making enough progress in Iraq for most sensible people to justify continuing and, not only are Democrats powerless to force a surrender, even the Democratic presidential front-runners realize the new reality.

In related news, LGF has a poll up asking which Democratic candidate gave the least pathetic performance at last night's debate.

POSTED BY ANGEVIN13
oxfordmedievalist.blogspot.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (15836)9/27/2007 9:38:59 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224744
 
Another law-breaking Dem:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298315,00.html