This actually should haunt Obama.
Speaking as an Obama and Edwards supporter, I expect better.

Both should commit to having our troops out within a year of taking office.

That said, notice that First Read has so ma puff pieces on Hillary and a slam on Obama ?

Typical of First Read


PS:

I must be irritating the Clinton Cult....
They keep faking posts by me.

What's wrong Clinton Cultists ?
Can't you zombies argue the issues ?
Don't you have a candidate worht ddefending ?

"Hello" Then karma kicks you in the face again..

Can you spell i r o n i c? Rhymes with moronic.

The real thing to notice here is that Obama tells the truth.  I doesn't tiangulate or pander - he tells the voters how he stands on the issues whether they support his position or not.  At least you know where he stands - more than I can say for HRC.

Random thought on the 2013 guy...

If a pro-war republican goes up against a dem candidate who won't commit to a full withdrawal by 2013 (in the Washington consensus, there will always be 'compelling reason' to keep troops in Iraq {"diplomatic, humanitarian and counterterrorism purposes" so where does the 2013 guy go?  I'm going to speculate that maybe 10%-20% of democrats are primarily passionate about ending this war, not just about ensuring that a Democratic candidate is in charge of it.  Does that 10%-20% sit at home on election day, vote third party?

Realistically, I can't see how any candidate can say with any certainty that they will have troops out of Iraq at a specific date. Who knows what will happen in the next few months with respect to terrorist activities?  I think Senator Obama gave an honest answer, which I, frankly, would rather hear than a promise not base on reality.  

The 2013 question was such a red herring.  The main difference in the Democratic primary regarding ending the war is between those who will have COMBAT troops in Iraq (Clinton) and those who will not (Obama, Edwards).  There's a BIG difference between having a few thousand troops for special operations and having TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops occupy a MidEast nation.  

Whether we have a small force left in Iraq at all is a reasonable issue to debate as well, but it is NOTHING compared to whether or not we keep on occupying Iraq and continuing the war.  THAT is what the American public cares about, and it's what the political reporting SHOULD be focused on, because that's the choice people will have to make in the Democratic primary in regards to the future of Iraq.

Sierra - Perhaps if you were not so rude and insulting, people would give you respect.

I am from manchester, NH, the press want us to believe that telling the truth to the citizen would actually hunt him. Guess what? You are lieing as usual.

I have been in 3 town hall meeting and i must say this, people appreciate his honesty and thoughtfulness than mere triangulation.

The media have been implying that having some limited number of troops there is the same thing as continuing the war.  They did a similar things on Obama and Pakistan...suggesting a special ops strike against Bin Laden is the same thing as an Iraq-style invasion and occupation.  The media does not explain nuances well and that is why we end up with simple minded policies that harm our country.  I think people can be sure that Obama and Edwards would really end the war...I don't know if you can really believe Hillary...I could totally see her flip flopping after the election...she is pretending to be antiwar to get the nomination, I think.

Siera from San Francisco,

You've actually earned my respect. Please keep updating us on Clinton Trriangulation.

The words "I hate you" are not in "Move Along" by the All American Rejects. Perhaps you heard wrong or have gotten the song title incorrect.

Here we go again. First Read doing everything they can to slight Barack to make Hilliary look good. Baracks plan is realistic. We all know they won't be hone the first year no matter who is elected because this administration will have the troops in Iran and Hilliary will sign on for it. This is the only way any republican can work with her. If she is the democratic choice I will sit this one out. No way will I vote for her. It's a good thing I don't take you people at first read seriously as unbiased reporting , your nothing more than clowns who entertain me with the crap you put out.

Here we go again. First Read doing everything they can to slight Barack to make Hilliary look good. Baracks plan is realistic. We all know they won't be hone the first year no matter who is elected because this administration will have the troops in Iran and Hilliary will sign on for it. This is the only way any republican can work with her. If she is the democratic choice I will sit this one out. No way will I vote for her. It's a good thing I don't take you people at first read seriously as unbiased reporting , your nothing more than clowns who entertain me with the crap you put out.

The only part of the song "Move Along" that I can think of that sound remotely like "I hate you" is "Move Along, Move Along, like I know you do."  I guess the way it is sung could sound like "I hate you".  

Like this CD though.  Could be the only thing on which I agree with Sen. Obama.  ;-)

Shadow, Hamden, CT

The "combat troops" distinction is the red herring.  The quote from the story:  

"At that debate Obama said that he could not guarantee that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Obama qualified that answer today, as he has in previous town halls in New Hampshire and Iowa, by saying that he would keep troops in Iraq for ****diplomatic, humanitarian and counterterrorism purposes****."

Let's look at all of these three broad categories that Obama spoke about:

Diplomatic purposes: (guarding the mother of all embassys in Baghdad, which will be a target our troops will have to defend, which will make them targets.

Humanitarian purposes: (administering to refugees, fixing roads, schools, power grid, etc.) which means you will have troops mixed in and amongst the Iraqi population, which will make them targets.

Counterterrorism purposes: if your target is hiding in and amongst the surrounding civilian population, and you are going to conduct counterterrorist operations, you have to go into those population centers to do so, which will make them targets.

So Obama (and Edwards) are talking about keeping troops in Iraq doing the same things they are doing now, only we will have less of them, which will make them even less likely to be able to succeed in any of these goals, which will make their continued presence even less of an good idea than it is now.

I understand the "half a loaf" mentality at work here, but keeping a few thousand or ten thousand troops in Iraq and expect them to be able to magically do the impossible job (increased security leading toward a political reconcilliation) that 160,000 are not able to do anything other than hunker down and not get killed is a logistical impossibility.  

The 2013 question was such a red herring.  The main difference in the Democratic primary regarding ending the war is between those who will have COMBAT troops in Iraq (Clinton) and those who will not (Obama, Edwards).  There's a BIG difference between having a few thousand troops for special operations and having TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops occupy a MidEast nation."

C'mon Shadow! Please tell the differences  between, "troops", and "combat troops"? Clinton calls for the use of special forces and navy seals, who would OBVIOUSLY NOT number in the tens of thousands, would it? Where are you getting your numbers and quotes from?
Will they have guns? Will they return fire if attacked? Will they NOT act preemptively in the event of a perceived threat? Any American troops in Iraq are COMBAT TROOPS, if their mission is to protect American soil(the embassy) or lives.
I think you have bent over backwards, semantically speaking, to draw a big distinction where none really exists.
Any troops in Iraq are potentially combat troops. Clinton has said that she would continue to use our troops (Special forces and navy seals) to go after al qaeda wherever they are, and that would include, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
2013 is 2013, no matter who is saying it, and none of the three is even saying that they would be completely out by then.

Van

This exclusive harping on pulling "the troops" out of Iraq is boneheaded and infantile.  Every one of the Democratic candidates agrees that it was poor policy to go into Iraq.  We're there now, and there's nothing they can do about it.  It is simple pandering for any of them to say they're pulling them out immediatley (yeah, I'm looking at you, Richardson).  For heaven's sake, we've still got troops in all sorts of places where we are no longer engaged, that's how it works.  And to say, without question that some arbitrary date in 2013 is absolutely going to happen is almost as ignorant as believing we would be "greeted as liberators."  The man is pragmatic, if he's President, hard decisions need to be made, especially regarding all the screw-ups that have been made over the tenure of this administration.  To believe any one of these candidates will have a magic broom to clean this mess up is foolish.  This is not a one issue election, people!

Here is an update on HRC. Remenber she propose a baby bond when she was addressing the congressional black caucus. Basically, she try to win vote by sugesting a "Baby Bond" idea. Apparently, HRC is backing away from that idea now after majority of America call it a bad idea. She is not fit to be our leader. No principle whatsoever.


Here is the link for update.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/clinton_ditches_baby_bonds_shi.html

As a soldier, our job is not be diplomats/humanitarians!!! This so illustrates how the Democrats view the military, which is why our nation became so vulnerable in the 1990s. The mission of the Infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy...period. If combat troops are removed, then what type of troops will be left?

The drop in deaths in the last month is a result of us finally having enough troops on the ground to relatively control the situation! Arbitrarily removing them puts us more at risk. Either you are in it to win or not at all.

Hillary will end this war sooner than later. Go Hill!!

It's funny...isn't it.  The current holder of the 'White House Key' isn't so stupid after all huh?  The democrats voted FOR the war, the democrats keep voting to FUND the war, now the democrats are expected to REMOVE the soldiers from the war.  Hmmm...and get everyone killed in the process.  Yes, time to rethink the situation...but to think that the domocrats, by getting one in the White House, will bring all the guys home...you are all fools.  They can't and they know it...it won't happen with or without a Democrat in office...it would be suicide for our nation...PERIOD!!! Maybe start listening to the professionals instead of listening to your hot-headed little minds.  Reality is in full force, we can't leave, sorry...we just can't.  Obama is finally saying what the democrats usually lie about.  At least he is telling the truth.  It can't be done!!! THINK ABOUT THIS ONE....Hillary Clinton in the WHITE HOUSE - we get attacked again on our nations ground - what would she do?  How would she handle it?  I am absolutely terrified of the answer.  Be careful America...don't put someone in the office just because it's a woman, or just because it's not a republican...BE very careful!!! Our economy is high, our strong hold is steady, our military is finally getting the raises they deserve, we might finally become a nation to be proud of...be careful.  It will be over faster than you can say, 'God bless you' when someone sneezes...BE CAREFUL!!!

Interesting that almost everyone on this blog want to defend the Democratic candidates position on troops in Iraq. If we are truly concerned with our troops being over there,being killed and maimed, should we not be telling the candidates that we want them home regardless. No "special op's"groups,no peace keepers. The administration now is being rediculed for military diplomacy, but you want to keep diplomatic troops in Irag? Humanitarian troops? According to the left, our troops are there to butcher and maim. Let's face it, no matter what side you vote, the troops will still be there,still be putting their lives on the line.

to all you people out in the world..lets face it the only one that knows just how to put this country on tract..is hillary clinton we dont want another bush in the white house that goes around making war for no good reason.

I think most of the Dems would not commit to having the troops out by 2013. Only Kucinich and he's showing about1% in the national polls. Why is Obama being singled out.

you have to admit whoever takes over this Iraq mess faces a situation like that of the Carter Administration.  Though completely not his fault he paid for it with his presidency.  Iraq is no different, made all the tougher by the fact that there is no right answer there.  He should run on a platform of cleaning up someone else's mess, and to be realistic by not saying he'll remove something he isn't sure he can remove right away.  The best defense is to not commit to taking all the troops out right away, but to guage how many you can safely and effectively remove once you take office.  Will it take till 2013.... probably not but it's better to over-estimate and finish early than to under -estimate and finish late.

Pls note that Obama was not the only democratic candidate to state that they would have the troops out of Iraq by 2013.
The questgion was if elected president of the united state would you have the troops out by 2013.

Pls go back and review the debate.

I wonder why they did not print that this was a question that was asked to all the candidates.

They are pushing again, anytime they stands by what he has stated before they have to make a big deal out of it. Ewdars & HRC made the same statement.
A few othe democrats said they would do it sooner.

Pls go back and review the debate.

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!


Best Ticket: OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

The troop question in the debate was a "gotcha" question.  Truely, does anyone on this board KNOW for sure what the real situation is in Iraq to give a definitive answer on troop withdrawal date?  If you know this, conclusively, please give this to the presidential candidates.  Because they sure in the hell do not know.  And trade.  Obama is just keepin' it real.  NAFTA is here and not going anywhere as long as these companies can trade on the cheap.  Is it right?  No.  But it needs to be revamped.  Thank Bill Clinton for signing the worst trade agreement in the United States history.

While I cannot envision a scenario in which Senator Barack Obama is the recipient of my vote, I think that Senator Barack Obama should not be criticized for refusing to commit to a course of action that might not be prudent depending on future, presently unknown, circumstances.  

The significant bit, the one real action Obama can take in his current position as Senator, the vote in favor of the corporatist Peruvian trade pact tells me there is nothing new about this candidate.  Same old Republican in sheep's clothing as the Clintons.  Can we do better than the lesswer of two evils this time?

No Democratic deserves the support of the party if he or she can't commit to pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq by 2013, or for that matter 2010.  The war is a disaster.  Does everyone know that except the Senators running for President?

Why is Obama being singled out....again? This is starting to get absurd. When he made his first foreign policy speech in August, and said if Pakistan did not act on hard intel on Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda targets, then he would, the media and First Read went crazy with the "Obama's gaffe" nonsense. Nevermind the fact that HRC said the exact same thing on a radio show two days later, and John Edwards said the same thing as well a month later.
Then First Read keeps telling us Obama is not experienced, nevermind that he has more years as an elected official than HRC and Edwards COMBINED.

Hopefully people will see through this nonsense.

Jimmy. Are you out in this world or out of this world? Just wanted to know what planet your on.

HRC knows nothing about ending this war, she agrees that we need to keep an ongoing presence in the country, and won't specify what she wants to do there and how many troops it would take.

“There is a choice that has emerged in this campaign, one that the American people need to understand," he
(Obama)said recently at DePaul University. “They should ask themselves: Who got the single most important foreign-policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong?"

Both Hillary and Obama and, for that matter, John Edwards, are saying similar things about the war in Iraq.
the half-hour interview she gave The New York Times in her Senate office on March 14th of this year. In that on-the-record session, Hillary let slip her real colors on Iraq, revealing her essentially hawkish approach to the issue.

She said that she foresees a “remaining military, as well as political, mission" in Iraq. She said she “would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."

While noting that in public HRC backs the goal of “bringing the troops home," the newspaper said that she took a “more nuanced position" in the interview and spoke of the “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require an ongoing deployment of troops.

That interview, a major mistake by Clinton, provides enough of an opening to drive a truck through and gives Obama a perfect way to position himself vis-à-vis her. The Illinois senator should quote his opponent and ask Clinton to explain to the American people how many troops she would keep in Iraq and for how long.

Hillary would, of course, parry the attack by declining, as she always does, “to discuss hypotheticals,"  her disinclination to address specifics will seems evasive to the antiwar left of the Democratic Party. It has become evident as the exchange between Hillary and Obama on the issue unfolds that she would not pull the troops out but would leave very significant numbers there for a very long time.

It is a short leap to imagine that if
(very slim chance) President HRC would find it necessary to reinforce the American garrison in Iraq to make it less vulnerable to attack. Indeed, the extensive missions she enumerated in her interview leave open the possibility of a long continuation of the war.

The Democratic presidential debate on Aug. 19 in Des Moines, Clinton claimed that when she voted for the Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, she thought she was voting to support more diplomatic efforts. She said she “regret[ed] giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused.”
This  is the MOST LAME EXCUSE I have ever heard when you are supppsed to have "EXPERIENCE"

On the Sept. 23 "Meet the Press," Clinton made yet another misleading statement about that vote, saying she opposed the measure because she did not want to give the United Nations veto power over U.S. actions. But the measure did not give the U.N. veto power and explicitly said the U.S. has the inherent right to use military force in self-defense.
And this is "EXPERIENCE"

If you continue to help her get the nomination, then you will only have yourself to blame when another Republican is sworn in.

Here is an update on HRC. Remember she propose a baby bond when she was addressing the congressional black caucus. Basically, she try to win vote by sugesting a "Baby Bond" idea. Apparently, HRC is backing away from that idea now after majority of America call it a bad idea. She is not fit to be our leader. No principle whatsoever.
Promises that she know damn well she will not keep.

Don't nominate someone that doesn't have a chance in the general election.
END 15 YEARS OF DARKNESS AND CORRUPTION
Hillary Clinton= 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness.

The fact Hillary has absolutely nothing to show in terms of accomplishments, both in the senate and outside of her husbands political career.

Her continually changing her mind to fit her audience, is really getting ridiculous.
THIS DO NOT MAKE YOU EXPERIENCED.

I still don't understand how 8 years of being First Lady counts as "experience

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!


Best Ticket: OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

It was "Move Along." I remember thinking it was rather strange too (I was there). But yeah, they don't say "I hate you" in that song...

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues.  We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen.  We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

It simply isn't realistic to think we will have every single member of the armed forces out in a mere six years. That's the thing about disasters:It takes a while to dig out from! I appreciate the frontrunners honesty and candor on this one and I am very much against the war. Logistically it would take at least two to three years to get everything and everyone out of there.That's if we started today...which Bush ain't trying to hear.

Chuck Todd, is an idiot! I would not believe anything he has to say. First Read is obviously one-sided...I think its clear who the media wants to win the nomination...dont buy in to the media spin.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):