Clinton, Obama Warn in Debate Iraq Withdrawal Will Take Time
By Heidi Przybyla
Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Hillary Clinton warned Democrats not to ``oversell'' plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, setting a cautious tone on the war that was echoed by the party's two other leading presidential candidates.
Clinton and her main competitors for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, agreed in a debate this morning that pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq can't be accomplished in just a few months and that any withdrawal must be balanced by security concerns.
``It is so important that we not oversell this,'' Clinton said at the ABC News-sponsored forum in Des Moines, Iowa. Edwards concurred, saying it ``would be hard'' to move troops out within six months, as suggested by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, while Obama said U.S. options are limited.
``George Bush drove the bus into the ditch and there are only so many ways you can pull that bus out of the ditch,'' the Illinois Democrat said.
The debate was the first among the Democrats running for president held in the state that traditionally kicks off the official nomination contests with its party caucuses in January.
The candidates continued a discussion about whether Obama has enough experience to be president, and Clinton, of New York, was questioned about whether polls showing more than 40 percent of the public views her unfavorably suggest she is too polarizing a figure to lead the party to victory in 2008.
In a previous debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet unconditionally with hostile foreign leaders during his first year in office.
Debate on Experience
In today's forum, Clinton said no president ``should give away the bargaining chip of a personal meeting with any leader,'' and Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware said he stood by an earlier statement that Obama isn't ready for the job.
``To prepare for this debate I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair,'' Obama, 46, said, drawing laughter from the audience. Critics aren't arguing with ``the substance of my positions,'' the first-term senator said. ``I think that there's been some political maneuvering taking place over the last couple of weeks.''
Clinton, 59, took her turn on defense when the candidates were asked whether Democrats should be worried that nominating the former first lady will hurt the party.
Lobbyist Donations
The nation needs someone who ``can break out of the political patterns that we've been in over the last 20 years,'' Obama said. Edwards, 54, a former senator from North Carolina who is trailing Clinton and Obama in national polls and in raising money, suggested her ties to lobbyists will prevent her from being able to change Washington.
``These people will never give away power voluntarily,'' he said, renewing his call for Clinton to foreswear lobbyist contributions. ``We have to take their power away from them.''
Clinton said her critics are making an ``artificial distinction,'' because while Edwards and Obama don't take money directly from lobbyists they accept donations from law firms that hire lobbyists. ``It's the people who employ the lobbyists who are behind all the money in American politics,'' she said.
She said comments made last week by Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's political adviser, that Clinton enters the primary season with higher negative poll ratings than any previous frontrunner show she is the best candidate to beat the Republicans next year.
Nuclear Weapons
Clinton also defended comments she made in a Bloomberg News interview in 2006 that she would rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran. She criticized Obama for a recent comment that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons against terrorists.
``This was a brush back against this administration which has been reckless and provocative,'' she said of her earlier statement, whereas Obama's remark was on ``hypotheticals'' that shouldn't be addressed by a presidential candidate.
On the war, Richardson was alone in saying U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq in six to eight months, leaving no residual forces behind to protect civilian personnel.
Biden led the other Democrats in disagreeing. ``It's time to start to level with the American people,'' Biden said. ``If we leave Iraq and we leave it in chaos, there'll be regional war. The regional war will engulf us for a generation.''
Clinton said Biden is ``absolutely right,'' cautioning that ``this is going to be very dangerous and very difficult'' and ``a lot of people don't like to hear that.''
Edwards said a timetable of nine or 10 months is more reasonable. Obama said Biden is right and that ``this is not going to be a simple operation.''
When the eight candidates were asked whether there was a major issue where they didn't tell the whole truth, Clinton and Edwards cited their votes to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq.
Clinton said while she thought at the time that her vote was an ``appropriate approach.'' Looking back on it ``I wouldn't have voted that way again,'' she said. ``Obviously for me that is a great regret.''
Edwards said that he had a ``huge internal conflict'' about the war authorization that he didn't express at the time.
To contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: August 19, 2007 13:41 EDT
23 comments:
Honestly i dont think anyone can fix the mess in Iraq. The war on terror has been going on for 5 years now... and if a democrat says they can pull all of our troops or most of them out of iraq well then we just put up all that fight for nothing.
The Left knows that this war,(in large part thanks to their efforts) is an unpopular one.
They're attempting to take advantage of this fact and sieze the opportunity for votes.
it looks good on paper.
Pulling out (and openly giving "dates") will only hurt us and the fledgling Iraqi government that much more.
Retreat and faltering when in armed conflict will only have the enemy press their advantage.
If nothing else history has taught us this. Through battles ranging from Thermoplyae to the beach heads of Normandy. through the books from Warriors like Sun Tzu.
Appeasement. Pacifism. Isolationism.
All who embrace these are condemned to failure.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"Britain chose peace, and now she will have war." ~ Winston Churchill.
But this, as vile and base as it seems is purely about power. Not about glorious ideals.
Humanity, as always, will descend to any depth, and go to any length to obtain POWER.
The corrupter of man.
What sticks out to me the most about the Democratic debate is the argument that Barack Obama doesn't have enough experience. He's a senator. He knows how things work. What they're really arguing is that they're afraid of the change that Obama with bring.
Obama may be relatively new to the scene, but I think he's been around long enough to know that something needs to change. Experience, as proven by some of our more Recent presidents, means about as much as shoe size. i.e. not much.
This war is turning into a current day Vietnam. We're there, trying to restore order, once we leave, the Iraqis are going to have to duke it out. My best suggestion is to slowly pull out the troops, and try to finish the war in Afghanistan. THat is if we still are at war with them. As far as I know we are, because I haven't heard anything about it in two years or so. My only question is this, Why did the war in Iraq start? All of a sudden we went from Afghanistan to Iraq, and Iraq hadn't done anything to us since the 90's. but that is just my opinion.
For the past few years the Dems have had the luxury of critizing the president on the war in Iraq because apparently their against the war even though Dem frontrunner Clinton voted for it. She regrets it of course. Too bad, we elected you to make the right choices and it doesn't cut it to say "Oops, my bad." Now their in the position of having to figure out how to get out of Iraq. Not so easy is it. (Not defending Bush at all.) I think it's extremely ignorant for them to say it will take this long because they're probably wrong. I think we will be in Iraq a lot longer than they think and they won't keep their word just like in the 06' election.
As far as the Lobbyist donations issue Edwards has got to find something more than that for ammunition against the other candidates.
I highly doubt that we will have all the troops out of iraq in nine to 12 months. They already stated how careful they are going to have to be to pull the troops out...and after sending them in their for 5 years now nine to 12 months is just not going to cut it!
I think that the removal of troops in Iraq could be done in six months, but the parties make it seem inpossible and that our only option is to take longer, we must always remember that we have options, there's always a better way of doing something. And as for the remarks saying that Obama is not expierienced enough to be president is a little harsh, I think. Just because Hilary was the presidents First Lady doesn't mean she knows how to run a country, does it? And I think many Americans assume that.
soaring eagle... first of all this is not even close to vietnam. We don;t have a draft, which means no one is burning draft cards, there is no huge protests even! so don't even compare the iraq war to vietnam. And even if you say you finish the war in afghanistan, which by the way is named the war on terror. think about it, if you finish in afghanistan, remember that there is still Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia. Do you think that all the radicals and insurgents are coming just from Afghanistan? Although i totally agree with apollyon where he says we cannot back out of this. We are in way to deep to just back out! If we do that we spent billions of dollars, thousands of soldiers, and giving once again the enemy the knowledge that they can do wahtever in the world they like because they experienced first hand that the U.S., a superpower, just gave in. Im sorry but until i see mass riots and protests over Iraq i will not change my mind. And one more thing to think about. These soldiers volunteered to fight over in the middle east, knowing when they signed up that there is a possibility of dying for freedom... as for the democrast they are thinking on paper, there is no way soldiers could be pulled out
Well first off, I don't think pulling troops out of Iraq is even an option anymore. Not until the job is done. We're Americans. We don't stop until the job is done. Why spend the last 5 years shooting and killing and losing life to just throw in the white towel and be done? If we did that, all the life and money that's been sucked up by that Middle East area will go right through their system and come out the other end leaving the middle east skinny when they should have gotten fat from all the resources they've now ate up. Fat equaling well governed and peaceful.
"Giving once again the enemy the knowledge that they can do whatever in the world they like because they experienced first hand that the U.S., a superpower, just gave in." Poncho really knows what he (or she) is talking about. I totally agree. We are a superpower and giving up just isn't an option. We're Americans and we stay 'til the end. It's what we do!
I know they all want to pull out of Iraq, but why? Even though its lasted this long it still hasn't had a heaping amount of casualties. Today at school I heard an army soldier who was recruiting say he asked to be put back in Iraq instead of have recruiting duty.
Also I think these candidates are only saying these things, because support for the war is down. If people were still supporting the war like at the beginning they would say something entirely different.
I totally agree with Apollyon about soaring eagles comment- this war is not Vietnam, yet. If we suddenly pull out, or, even worse, give a timeline to pull out, then it could indeed become a modern-day Vietnam. I understand why many Americans would want a timeline, they want their family home, they don't believe we can do any good, etc.
But truthfully, a timeline seems like one of the worst possible things that we could do. All of the insergents, terrorists, and other threats to peace are willing to wait. Giving a timeline would be like giving them a calander of when they can regroup safely and launch terrorist attcks on our country and our allies.
And also, to kayla powells comment:
"Just because Hilary was the presidents First Lady doesn't mean she knows how to run a country, does it? And I think many Americans assume that."
If the tables were turned and Hilary had already been president with Bill now wanting to take his turn, would we take a second glance? Not that I'm necessarily for Hilary, but are we really that nieve as to think think that just because Hilary was a first lady it means that she can't be president? She has just as much experience as many of the other candidates. The saying "all men are created equal" applies to women, too.
The democrats have little petty fights between them.
Clinton and Edwards voted for the approval of sending troops into iraq. It needed to be done. We are fighting a war on terror. If the United States stands for liberty, why do so many citizens want the United States to halt our struggle to form a civilized Middle East with justice and liberty? To have democratic candidates that do not support justice and liberty that the United States CAN provide for foreign nations is a monstrosity. If the democratic candidate is elected as president, what will our country that protects the rights of born humans turn into? (In that respect, our country clearly does not respect all life considering 4,000 unborn babies are killed everyday).
I am kinda mad that few seem to address this from the view of the soldiers. They are the ones who are risking their lives to be in Iraq. They should have the greatest voice in these debates.
Who says we cant just pull out now? Obviously the last 5 years we've been in Iraq have done very little to make the country more stable. If anything, we have made the country worse with our presence there. While our soldiers are there, they are seen as hostile targets for many of the citizen there. This allows the terrorist groups a clear target that has very little means of winning. I see it like the American Revolution. While the colonists were here alone, without England's influence, they lived the way they wanted, without restrictions being forced unpon them by an oversea goverment that knew very little about the colonist's struggles. Once England sent soldiers over to the america's and started forcing their own laws upon the colonists, uneasy broke out and the british troops became clear targets. It is the same thing with Iraq. As long as our troops are there, they will continue to be attacked and killed by terrorist groups. Normal citizen who have no need to attack americans now turn to hate the troops stationed there. I believe we should pull out our troops because as long as we are there, we feed the terrorist groups with clear targets for them to strike at. If they are back home, it will be like taking the fuel out of the fire, and the terrorist groups will die away.
Pretty much, i think we should pull our troops out as fast as possible and leave Iraq to fend for itself. It's not the United States' job to fix countries half the world away
Building on what poncho villa said.. this war isn't even close to Vietnam! Here's a history lesson for all of those who need it.
The war in Vietnam was roughly nine years long, during those nine years there were 47,359 hostile deaths, and 2,338 MIA, 25% of all troops on ground in Vietnam were draftees. Now lets look at the war in Iraq. As of August 12 there have been 3,026 hostile deaths, right now only 1 MIA and 3 confirmed captured, and right now 0% of troops on the ground were drafted.
Until those numbers start going up not another word comparing Iraq to Vietnam should be uttered!
One last thing too, after WWII a plaque was laid in Germany, it read, "Never Again Fascism." It's a shame that nobody remembers that...
The answer to the headline of this article is ABSOULTELY NOT!
My dad, a General in the Air Force, pointed out several very interesting facts to me when I posed this question to him. He replied, "We are still in Germany 60 years after World War II aren't we? We still inhabit Somalia do we not? Heck, we even still spy on the Russians. We will be in Iraq long after I'm dead, guaranteed."
These are all very true statements. For any democrat to truthfully say that they will pull out of Iraq fully if they were to be elected President would be an utter lie.
Certain canidates such as John Edwards skew the reality by claiming he would keep troops in the region only for the purpose of intervening in an Iraqi genocide and to be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Does that not just sound like a coward's way of stating that withdrawl from Iraq at this stage would be next to impossible? I think so.
So to Kayla and others who have this crazy idea that a full and complete withdrawl could be completed within 6 months I have one question for you. Who do you buy your crack from?!?!
The problem goaf is that even though we will need to leave at least some troops in Iraq, we do not need all of our troops there right now. What are our troops really doing in Iraq right now? I do not know the answer but im very sure that whatever it is.. we do not need all of our soldiers to do it. It is not about pulling out every single troop. It is about bringing home all the soldiers that we do not need there.
Okay, I think I gotta set this one out here for you guys to see. Poncho , Beef, and the like, I thank you for showing your moves, but there are always counter attacks to anything. Bad references aside...
Let me first talk on this "Not Vietnam!!" Ideal. It might not be, but it is darn close. Sure, there aren't riots, casualties are low, and drafts are nowhere to be seen, but do we really want to wait around until it is? Should we just "Stay the Course" until dogs and firehoses are again released to combat those exercising our pirmary rights? Is "Mission Accompilshed" enough to let the fighting continue until death surpasses Vietnam? Do we really want to stick around until bright minds like us, sons and daughters like you and me, are forced into Old Men's (not attacking any of them, just a phrase) wars? I doubt you would when that time comes. Maybe a full, sudden withdrawl isn't the answer, but we can't stick around until the water gets too deep to swim back home.
And the idea of using "War Against Terror" to justify, and, worse, attack non-believers with is truly low. Not to mention counter-productive. As I've said before, do you think that fighting these battles are "combating terrrorism"? We are turning ourselves into terrorists! We barged into a country, who had done nothing to coax us save having a brutal dictator, killed him, forced our Western-Christian ideals upon them (without understanding their culture in the least, I might add...), and then used their cities as warzones. I don't think they really appreciate that.
And, yeah, we might have had an obligation to help them, and try to put them on the right track, bt we do NOT have the right to stay around, holding their hand, not letting them learn to walk on their own. Sure, in our Revolution, France came in, for their own interests, and helped us, but they left when their duty was done. They didn't walk us through how they thought things should be done. Such is our duty.
zeratul your totally right... but another counter-attack. we still have troops stationed in germany from world war 2, troops in somalia, troops in japan, troops in korea and in vietnam i guarentee it. SO we have been sitting around in other countries. Iraq is definitely not the first of it's kind thats for sure
I would have to side with Beef Sandwich with saying...
"I don't think pulling troops out of Iraq is even an option anymore. Not until the job is done."
Personally, i think that we should keep the troops in. And since we're fighting a war why not go full out. Why take years to end it when it could possibly take months??
It is funny how everyone can voice their opinions on the situation in Iraq when it appears no one really has all the facts. Basically, the average American has limited resources telling them what is going on. How can people base their views off of information from television news stations, newspapers, etc. that always show slanted views? The fact is unless you are in charge of the military actions and granted full access to every document and event, how can you be the one to judge the government's actions? You simply are not qualified to make these decisions. Don't take this the wrong way... by all means you should have an opinion and, if you so choose, inform others of your perspective. I am just trying to say, until you are the Secretary of Defense or of equal standing, there is no way of knowing exactly what the best decision is.
Besides all this, there really is no 'right' answer because no average American will ever fully understand and average Iraqi's point of view. Everyone can agree that in Iraq life is much different from here. The majority of people live out their faith and are willing to kill others and themself for it.
With that said, I trust our government to do the best thing. My dad has a good chance of being deployed and I still believe at this time it seems to make sense to let the troops to do their job. I think we all need to step back and realize the troops are not coming home any time soon because, like goaf2004 and poncho have said, our troops are scattered all over the world from things like WWII.
Ummm... Cap'n... How about the fact that we'd loose even more people in doing that. Plus, this is not your average fight. This is urban warfare. You can't just stuff more troops into crowded hallways and roads and expect to kill all your enemies. Just makes you an easier target for a well-placed bomb. And you can't fight well-trained guerilla fighters by that strategy. We've proven that ourselves. Ever heard of the American Revolution?
Also, there is no instant answer. Pulling, staying in, sending more; any way you cut it, we're not getting out easily or without harm.
And, I must thank you, Poncho, for that insight. I guess I wasn't totally aware of all millitary stationing. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all But my point, though maybe not well worded, was the fact, not that we are still there, but that we are still walking them through making their government. If we're still doing that in places like Germany and so on, I'm not aware, but would like to know about it, definetly.
goaf2004 said, "For any democrat to truthfully say that they will pull out of Iraq fully if they were to be elected President would be an utter lie."
Goaf2004, I would like to tell you the definition of a lie. A lie (and this is straight from dictionary.com) is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. I highly doubt that every democrat running for president is trying to deceive their country. If a democrat, or anyone for that matter, truly believes that once president they can begin pulling troops out of Iraq, is that a lie? If a democrat does become president and tries to bring home the soldiers, but is unsuccessful during their presidency does that mean they deliberately tried to deceive America? NO! Just because somebody thinks the U.S. troops can be brought home does not mean they are lying.
I believe too many people forget why we are even in a war. We are fighting for all of those who died September 11th and keeping such a tragedy from occuring again. Our country can not leave Iraq the way it is right now, or else they have won. These terroristic groups want the U.S. to leave so they can create their own civil war or create a country ruled by them. I can not understand how so many democrats say they will withdrawl troops right away. It takes a victory or defeat to be able to withdrawl right away. So...are we declaring defeat?
Post a Comment