And you disingenuously failed to include the FACT that Duncan Hunter wants to pull the troops out AFTER victory is achieved.
In fact, here is what the Honorable Mr. Hunter has said:
"The idea that Congress pulls the rug out from under the soldiers as they're actually carrying the mission out, by condemning this mission . . . I thought it was a disservice to our soldiers. There is a right way to leave Iraq and that is to continue to rotate Iraqi battalions that we've trained and equipped into the fight."
That chickensh*t cut and run coward that YOU support says this:
"RETREAT!"
"Unlike the neocons who think America should stay forever in Iraq."
And according to that cut and run coward YOU support, Duncan Hunter is a neocon too because *GASP* he wants to WIN before bringing the troops home.
"So, the only thing that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul disagree regarding U.S. troops in Iraq is their timetable in leaving, but both agree that they need to leave."
No.
The difference is Duncan Hunter wants our troops to WIN before they come home.
YOUR little cut and run coward wants to tuck tail and run.
BIG difference.
And you disingenuously failed to include the FACT that Duncan Hunter wants to pull the troops out AFTER victory is achieved. In fact, here is what the Honorable Mr. Hunter has said: "The idea that Congress pulls the rug out from under the soldiers as they're actually carrying the mission out, by condemning this mission . . . I thought it was a disservice to our soldiers. There is a right way to leave Iraq and that is to continue to rotate Iraqi battalions that we've trained and equipped into the fight." That chickensh*t cut and run coward that YOU support says this: "RETREAT!"
Not exactly.
Ron Paul states that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Hunter states that we are already in the second phrase of the 3 part program already, as Bush withdrawal of Combat troops states.
So, the only difference between the two men is the timetable.
Iraqi troops will be able to defend their own nation by the time the next President takes office, but if one of the major candidates is elected (it won't be Hunter), they will keep our troops there indefinitely, exactly what Hillary wants as well.
[ "Unlike the neocons who think America should stay forever in Iraq." ]
And according to that cut and run coward YOU support, Duncan Hunter is a neocon too because *GASP* he wants to WIN before bringing the troops home.
Last reports I have seen is that we have won and now the only issue is getting the Iraqi troops trained to handle their own fighting.
There is no more organized enemy left in Iraq that is a threat to the government.
[ "So, the only thing that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul disagree regarding U.S. troops in Iraq is their timetable in leaving, but both agree that they need to leave." ]
No. The difference is Duncan Hunter wants our troops to WIN before they come home. YOUR little cut and run coward wants to tuck tail and run. BIG difference.
Well, the big difference is that we have won, there is no serious organized enemy left to defeat.
And that has even been posted on FR in several threads, how the enemy has admitted that he is defeated.
So, the only question remaining is if we will leave Iraq at all, not when.
So, stop blowing smoke about 'victory', the neocons will not even give a definition of what constitutes victory so they can have an excuse to remain in Iraq forever.