WTF? We Can’t Leave Iraq by 2013?!?

If this weren’t so depressing, it would be comical.

In last night’s Democratic Presidential candidate debate, Tim (Timmeh!) Russert asked the three front-running Democratic candidates if they would make a firm commitment to pull out all U.S. force from Iraq by 2013.

Not one of them — not Clinton, not Obama, not Edwards — took the pledge to do so.

We should all be asking — why the hell not?

For perspective, let’s get this straight:

The current war and occupation of Iraq started on March 20, 2003.  That’s a little over 4 years.

And none of our leadership, the ones topping the polls for President, want to commit to get us fully out by 2013…or in other words, SIX YEARS FROM NOW.

So, is that the position of the party now?  We can’t commit to solving this problem and withdrawing from Iraq TEN YEARS after the damn thing started?

What are they afraid of? Leading on the issue? Getting tagged with the wimp label?

It’s disgusting.  For more perspective, full engagement of U.S. forces in the Vietnam War (if we use the Gulf of Tonkin as our guide) began in 1964.  We fully left in 1975. A little over eleven years.

In other words, the frontrunners are now saying they are at least open to the idea of keeping forces in Iraq longer than we kept them in Vietnam.

The question that we should all ask, again, is why.

I’m waiting for my answer.


Skip to comment form

  1. Will somebody please stand up and end this maddness?


  2. And of course you are right.

  3. Edwards said that he envisioned possibly having military personnel in Iraq acting in a humanitarian capacity when he challenged Clinton’s combat troop for AQ position?

    I am not sure what to make of that exchange and the answers to the 2013 question.

    Also I just want to say that I am really tired of the Democrats using the phrase “There are no good answers in Iraq”.  Like we don’t know we’re f*cked.  At some point, leaders just have to pick what they think is the “good” answer and go with it.  I appreciate the fact that Biden has at least had the courage to go ahead and choose a position on a course of action in Iraq and stick with it.  I thought he gave the best answer on Iraq last night.  All this stupid “I don’t know what I’ll be dealing with” BS was very disappointing to hear from the three front runners. 

    • srkp23 on September 27, 2007 at 16:41

    Nice to see you here.

    I was shocked by this! I can’t vote for any of them.

    It’s also shocking to see many in some parts of the left blogosphere defending the top 3’s refusal to pledge to withdraw the troops by 2013.

    The next president will not stop the war. I guess we have to accept that, unless we want to go insane.

    That said, we have to keep speaking out, even if insanity is the risk.


    • pico on September 27, 2007 at 18:30

    I hate to sound like a broken record, because I’ve probably made this comment about a dozen times at different sites, but there was an excellent essay by eugene at Progessive Historians that argued that our Iraq policy is much more in line with traditional Democratic foreign policy than Republican, and the combination of our ideological history with our current voting patterns in Congress promises that we’re not getting out of Iraq anytime soon, regardless of who wins the nomination.

    It’s a sobering thought, but I’ve come to believe it pretty firmly.

  4. I’m still one of those who believes we need to elect as many Dems as possible in order to halt the conservative movement.

    But if they can’t bring themselves to make a stand on this issue, than what’s the fucking point?

    They’re selling the base down the river and it’s obvious that whether a Dem is elected or a Thug is elected we will continue to kill Iraqis for years to come… and drain our resources in the effort.

  5. In 1993 I attended the final parade when the “Allied Forces” finally left Berlin.
    We have our very own self chipped pieces of The Wall.
    One comes down another one goes up.

Comments have been disabled.