Custom Search

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Democratic Debate: They Can't Guarantee Withdrawal

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.

While they did discuss other things at the debate, the Democratic candidates statements about Iraq is what made the head lines all over.

It is easy to make campaign promises of "we will change things" but once someone delves a bit deeper and finally asks them "How?, it becomes a whole new ballgame and finally they start admitting that conditions on the ground is the most relevant issue in making those decisions.

Which is why I understand why Captain's Quarters makes the point that General Petraeus as the progress he is seeing on the ground in Iraq has literally changed the whole debate.

How far has General David Petraeus moved the debate on Iraq? His testimony on the surge, and the effects of the surge itself, has made it much more difficult for Democrats to argue for withdrawal and defeat. In fact, at last night's debate, the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination couldn't even commit to a withdrawal

Obama's statement should be noted here, from last nights debate:

"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.

As Conservative Belle rightly points out, that contradicts statements that Obama made back in January 2007.

The more disorganized and the more they attack each other, as they did in last nights debate, the more I have to agree with Kristol, last night was a very good night for the Republican candidates.

Here, judging from the debate, is what the 2008 Democratic nominee is likely to be for. Abroad: ensuring defeat in Iraq and permitting a nuclear Iran. At home: more illegal immigration, higher taxes, more government control of health care, and more aggressive prosecution of the war on smoking than of the war on terror.....


The Telegraph has a piece out saying Hillary Clinton could cost the Democrats "dear".

A leaked Democratic poll has suggested that Hillary Clinton, the front runner in the race for the party's presidential nomination, could lose the 2008 election because of her "very polarized image".

The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.

All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.

"The images of the two early [Democratic] favourites are part of the problem," the memo said.

The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.

Definitely read the whole thing... bet someone is upset about that leak.

Daily News catches Hillary flip flopping.

HANOVER, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Clinton scored with a Democratic audience last night by contradicting her husband's belief that a terrorist could be tortured to foil an imminent plot - but what observers didn't know is she was contradicting herself, too.

"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.

When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:

"Well, I'll talk to him later."

She may have to give herself that talk, too.

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to bepreparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."

She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to numerous requests for comment on the eye-popping contradiction.

The debate was not a shining moment for the Democrats but it did put a spotlight on them for the American people to see them attack each other, flip flop and pander to the crowd and also help America understand that it is conditions on the ground that determine our actions in Iraq, not the next opinion poll.

Wow, they are beginning to sound a lot like Bush.

Tracked back by:
Democratic Party Presidential Aspirants Hemming an from Take Our Country Back...

Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.