Comments: Clinton, Obama and Edwards on Training of Iraqi Forces

Ah, the imperial American occupying forces, training puppet Iraqi troops to prop up the puppet Iraqi regime, so the Bush gangsters can steal their oil. It sounds like a "brilliant" plan, imperial Democratic war-monger candidates. We just need to get the fark out of I-Rack now, period, no questions asked. End this fascist, corporatist misery.

Posted by james k. sayre at November 10, 2007 09:24 AM

from the NYT transcript of the last debate:


EDWARDS: Well, I -- here's what I want. I want to make certain that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and all across America -- Democrats, independents -- understand that you have choices in this election, very clear choices. If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq over the long term, if you believe that combat troops should remain stationed in Iraq, and if you believe there should be no actual timetable for withdrawal, then Senator Clinton's your candidate.

I don't. I think that we need to end combat missions; we need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United States, I will do that. I think it's a requirement of leadership as president, and I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended, combat troops out of Iraq, period. So there's a very clear choice here between the candidates.

And the second thing that I want to be certain that voters are aware of, when we talk -- we've had long discussion about Iran, and Barack just made the connection to Iran, and there is a very clear connection, because we need to learn from the past. And what we've learned from the past is you cannot trust this president, and what I worry about is if Bush invades Iran six months from now, I mean, are we going to hear, "If I only I had known then what I know now"? Well, we know enough now to know we have to stand up to this president.

And the second point I would make is, I was surprised by Senator Clinton's vote, I'll be honest about that, and then I saw an explanation of it in The New York Times for her vote, which basically said she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to be in tell-the-truth mode all the time. We should not be saying something different in the primary than we say in the general election.

I think that's what Americans have been hearing from George Bush, and I think they're looking for something different, and voters have a choice in this election.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, 30-second rebuttal.

SEN. CLINTON: May I -- well, I -- I need to rebut this. I don't know where to start.

Number one, when we talk about combat missions in Iraq, my understanding is that we had the same agreement, most of us, on this stage, that we would bring out combat troops,t we would pursue a mission against al Qaeda in Iraq if they remained a threat. Now, I don't know how you pursue al Qaeda without engaging them in combat. So I think we're having a semantic difference here.

I think we should get as many of the combat troops out as quickly as possible. If we leave any troops in, like Special Operations, to go after al Qaeda in Iraq, I assume that we don't want them just sitting around and watching them; we want them to engage them. That is a very limited mission. That is what I have said consistently.

And you know, when it comes to where I stand, I have been explaining that to the American people. I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home.t I also know it's going to be complicated, and it's going to take time. And I intend to do it in a responsible manner that is as safe for our troops as possible. We're going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy. We may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against al Qaeda in Iraq.that's a very big difference than having the 160,000 troops that George Bush has there today.

I'd like someone to explain to me how we "end the war" while continuing combat missions (that's just what we're doing now - isn't it?)

I like Richardson's plan - end the war - no residual troops!!!

Posted by portia at November 10, 2007 09:28 AM

Portia,

That's a bit off-topic, but it is interesting you mentioned this. My next post will touch upon this debate about "combat" troops.

Posted by eriposte at November 10, 2007 10:02 AM

from Foreign Affairs:

As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region. These units will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent that such training is actually working. I will also consider leaving some forces in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq in order to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that have developed there, but with the clear understanding that the terrorist organization the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) must be dealt with and the Turkish border must be respected.

sigh. She's not the right choice! We need someone who will get us out of this illegal, immoral war. It's time to bring our troops home - all of them!!

End the war now - cut off funding - start bringing home our troops now!!!

Posted by portia at November 10, 2007 10:12 AM

My next post will touch upon this debate about "combat" troops

Wonderful! It's an important issue - can't wait to read it.

Posted by portia at November 10, 2007 10:29 AM

I don't know why you're taken aback by any of the anti-Clinton rhetoric that spews from The Atlantic.

The boys there (save Ambinder) have never been "honest brokers" when it comes to her.

Posted by JoeCHI at November 10, 2007 11:19 AM

Portia, leaving some troops in the Kurdish area to help deal with the PPK terrorist group and try to ease tensions with Turkey seems necessary. As we've seen lately, the Turks are not happy with the PPK in Iraq attacking across that border and are close to invading Iraq themselves.

It's in everyone's interest to prevent a wider war, particularly one involving our NATO ally Turkey.

Posted by RalphB at November 10, 2007 11:34 AM
Post a comment
HTML Tags:
<b>Bold</b> = Bold
<i>Italics</i> = Italics
<a href="http://www.url.com/">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Note: comments from signed in commenters will show up right away. If you are not signed in, your comment will not appear until it has been approved.




Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

In order to post a comment, you must answer the following question.