Latest Democrat Debate

B

Bruxley

New member
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.

Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.

"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_po/democrats_debate

I saw this in the debate then had a slightly difficult time finding it in news stories.

It made me wonder why they had that position on stage (a position I find actually honest and realistic) but these same folks push for an immediate pullout and/or set timetables on the floor of the Senate. I have contended before that they are interested in facilitating a defeat because they have a political stake in it and want to hang it around the neck of Bush and therefore on Republicans. That they don't actually think Iraq is a worthless effort and of no value.

I also got a sense that the moderator was more informed then the candidates on a lot of issues. I don't particularly agree with Tim Russert but he seemed to be the smartest person in the room.

Anyone else watch?...... notice the odd position on Iraq ...... other issues?
 
It made me wonder why they had that position on stage (a position I find actually honest and realistic) but these same folks push for an immediate pullout and/or set timetables on the floor of the Senate. I have contended before that they are interested in facilitating a defeat because they have a political stake in it and want to hang it around the neck of Bush and therefore on Republicans. That they don't actually think Iraq is a worthless effort and of no value.
Click to expand...

This is one possibility. Another is that while their position given current circumstances might be one thing, they're leaving themselves some room in case the situation actually changes between now and when they take office...a lot can happen in a year and a half.

Personally I'd say it's a little of both.

Also, it's "Democratic" debate.
 
The question was if they would pull them out before the END of their first term in 2013. That's five plus years away.
 
Yeah but they don't know if the current administration will do something in the next year that could completely screw up any plans of pulling troops home. Or Aquavelvajad could decide tomorrow that he needs to invade Iraq. Who knows? :o
 
The question was if they would pull them out before the END of their first term in 2013. That's five plus years away.
Click to expand...

But the question was also if all US combat forces would be pulled by then. Which could mean not even a brigade or so to defend whatever support/training forces would still be present. Heck, it could mean not even a single battalion under NATO/UN control depending who's writing the attack ad.

It's standard politician-speak; it was a very "absolute" statement and thus one they'd be hesitant to assert so as not to have it come back up in 2012 even if they've managed to achieve a vast majority of the goal.

EDIT: Also, what Redworm said.
 
Also, it's "Democratic" debate.
Click to expand...

Nope. The people aren't represented, it's just a bunch of posturing, pandering and idiocy.

It's members of the democrat party bloviating. Nothing to do with democracy.
 
Nope. The people aren't represented, it's just a bunch of posturing, pandering and idiocy.

It's members of the democrat party bloviating. Nothing to do with democracy.
Click to expand...

It's a proper noun. You can argue that it has nothing to do with democracy all day, but the simple fact is that they are the "Democratic Party." Capital D. Proper noun. You're arguing that the small D usage wouldn't appropriate, and you may or may not be right.

It's not the Republic Party, and it's not the Democrat Party. It's just petty nonsense that people like you and Bruxley insist on to insult people. It's also the kind of partisan crap that I thought we were trying to avoid around here with the election season coming up. Maybe I'll get clarification.

Attack ad???
Click to expand...

You may have heard of them. In this instance it's where the opposition takes something you said at some point or another, possibly out of context, then insinuates that you've failed to follow that statement...insinuating that you are, in fact, a liar.

You know, an advertisement attacking a candidate. Some are actually based in fact and quite reasonable...others, not so much.

Or are you suggesting that this strategy will have petered out by 2012?

Note that I've not claimed that this strategy is limited to either party. It isn't.
 
Democrat party. The President did that first, others have picked up on it, and I think it's far more correct.

They're not acting in a democratic manner, they're acting like socialists and statists. Hence, not democratic.

Watch any not-lefty pundit, any Republican politician, they'll say "Democrat party". Sorry, rail and fuss all you want, but it's here to stay.
 
Democrat party. The President did that first, others have picked up on it, and I think it's far more correct.

They're not acting in a democratic manner, they're acting like socialists and statists. Hence, not democratic.

Watch any not-lefty pundit, any Republican politician, they'll say "Democrat party". Sorry, rail and fuss all you want, but it's here to stay.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, organizations get to choose their own names rather than have them chosen by their opponents. Just because the President uses it, or pundits use it, does not make it correct. It just makes it a widely used insult. This will be my last response in-thread on the subject. I'll shoot off a PM and see if we can get clarification on the issue.
 
They came into office (at least in their minds) based on a promise to pull out. They've been remarkably unsuccessful in fulfilling that promise. With Congressional approvals ratings actually being below the President's currently, they need to change the paradigm so that their failure is irrelevant. If everyone starts thinking deployment past 2008 is and was always inevitable, their failure is of no consequence and they can largely take that off the table..
 
They came into office (at least in their minds) based on a promise to pull out. They've been remarkably unsuccessful in fulfilling that promise. With Congressional approvals ratings actually being below the President's currently, they need to change the paradigm so that their failure is irrelevant. If everyone starts thinking deployment past 2008 is and was always inevitable, their failure is of no consequence and they can largely take that off the table.
Click to expand...

They never really had the ability to bring about a withdrawal. First off, the Democrats (both in Congress and across the nation) are hardly unified as to how quickly we should bring about a withdrawal (if at all). Which means that there's almost zero chance of a bill calling for immediate withdrawal passing (you won't even get all Democrats to vote for it).

But at the same time, while a majority might agree that setting some kind of timetable is the way to go, there's almost zero chance of getting a filibuster-proof majority, let alone a veto-proof one.

Which leaves only one option: fail to fund through "inaction" (failing to pass funding or passing funding the President won't sign). Political suicide, since all the opposition needs to do is invoke "the troops" and the public will crucify them. Probably because the public knows darn well that even without funding our forces won't be withdrawn; few people (in Washington) really give a crap about "the troops" unless it's to score political points.
 
I'm a Democratic not a Republican - wait, I'm a Republican not a Democratic.

WAIT I'm a Democrat not a Republic, NO NO I'm a Republic not a Democrat.

AHH This getting caught up in semantics isn't fun.

I'm a Republican, YOUR a Democrat YEAH that's it.

They were called the Democrat Party, I don't know when that changed.

OK back to the topic......................
 
They were called the Democrat Party, I don't know when that changed.
Click to expand...

Looks like before you were born (see the top). It has always been the Democratic Party. Prior to that it was the Democratic-Republican Party. Just venturing a guess, but I assume the only reason that members of the party are called "Democrats" rather than "Democratics" is because the latter doesn't quite sound right as a noun in the English language (while "Republicans" does).

Oh, and I checked, just to make sure...still the Democratic Party. So that's settled.

In fairness, it appears that this little insult goes back to before you were born as well. At least if you're less than about 80.

EDIT: I'll assume that now that you've been definitively educated on the subject, you'll no longer be making this mistake. Also, the reason for this response (despite the whole "no more in-thread response on the subject" statement) is because you claimed ignorance; Manedwolf, on the other hand, stated his use of it is intentional. I don't know how you could not have known, though, since the proper name is used in the very block of text you quoted. But oh well, at least we can be sure everybody in this thread knows now. You could always go back and edit the title now, too.
 
Democrats get testy when you refer to them as the Democrat Party. This may be part of the reason why.

Joseph J. Ellis wrote a book called "Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation." One of the Amazon.com reviews for this book says "This book is really unique in that it gives a really interesting perspective not only on the men [our founding fathers] , but the dynamic between them."

This book has some information on the origination of the word "democrat." We've been told repeatedly our founding fathers were not too fond of the idea of democracy, or, as they viewed it, mob rule.

Here's the quote:
"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

That is, as they say, the rest of the story.

pig-lipstick.jpg
 
Juan, you're "parsing" the words again and again and again. The Democrats said they will not pull out all the troops by 2013.

That means they will not pull out all the troops by 2013. Period, end of story. All this talk about getting out of Iraq has been, responsibly, recognized as an area where the Americans should be involved in stabilizing the Middle East.

What did you think about Hillary saying she would not torture an individual who knew where an atomic bomb was hidden that would destroy an American city?

I don't know all the facts about this torture "turnaround" by Hillary but, if it is true, we may have a Dukais "blunder" in the making. I mean, Hillary wouldn't condone torturing an Islamic Fascist who knew where an atomic bomb was located that would destroy an American city?!:eek:
 
The word democratic does not always refer to democracy. That is only one of three general meanings.

Within the context of this thread, Democratic refers to a political party, while democrat refers to an individual, ostensibly a member of the Democratic Party. Structurally, democrat is a declension of the noun democratic.

Now... Can we get this back on topic and away from the sophomoric insult throwing? Yes, we have Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians and Constitutionalists and even a few libertarian leaning Democrats and Republicans among the membership.

So fracking what? Must we insult everyone who does not see eye-to-eye with our political views? For those of you that must smear the other side, I've got news for you... You are no better than the politicians you besmearch.
 
It gets irritating Anti when people try to argue against the plain words spoken by an individual(s). If someone says two plus two equals four. Then they mean two plus two equals four IMHO.

When I first became employed in arguing legal issues, an old veteran told me "don't fight the facts", if someone says "this" than they said "this". Whenever I see someone trying to argue against the plain meaning of the words someone says, I get frustrated. It leads to nowhere IMHO. It's a ruse designed to deflect and confuse. I don't like that. The old veteran I knew was correct, as I found out after gaining more experience.

Keep people "on point" and make them answer for what they said and what they did.

None of the Democrats said they would get the military out of Iraq by 2013. Nuff said IMHO.
 
Last edited:
RDak, there is no disconnect here..

"All" is the key word in Russerts question, since the mainstream Democratic plan is to reduce the size of the Iraq commitment but to sustain a force for key missions. Those missions would serve our national interests first, and secondly assist the Iraqis, but also encourage them to take responsibility. The Levin-Reed amendment is the latest proposal.

By the way, there were Democratic presidential candidates in the debate, like Kucinich and Richardson, that said they would have no troops in Iraq by 2013.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top