So, no, probably even the most rabid antiwar candidate will not pull troops out once actually in office. 
Posted on 02/14/2008 8:05:41 AM PST by Pharmer
Ok I get it. You don't like McCain and neither do I. I think he is a Bob Dole like candidate something you have said before. But I have to take issue that there is not difference between the Democrats and McCain on the war.
To claim that OBAMA or Hildebeast (her thighness) would not pull the troops out of Iraq is just wishful thinking. You are giving them far too much credit. Don’t forget the primary symptom of liberal-itis is myopia (that and a bug in the bum). They don’t give a damn about the long term consequences ANY of their actions. Iraq can burn in hell for all they care. Besides, liberals only break promises to conservatives not to their own (I tried and worked so hard to find a way to provide a middle class tax cut, but I just don’t think we can do it at this time…). If the troops don’t come out el-quicko there will be hell to pay from the Kooks and the media. The tremors will make “no new taxes” seem like a tap on the shoulder. And these guys are the big fundraisers and not to be ignored. If they don’t draw down the troops they will be in the same soup as Pelosi and Reid at 14% approval.
The only reason they would keep troops in would be a lame attempt to claim victory for themselves. But to do that would undercut their objections for invading Iraq and would also validate President Bush’s efforts in the War on Terror. It would also heap a large credibility boost to the military for achieving this victory. That also would not play well with the base.
They hate the military, they want them defeated. They want Vietnam. They don’t care how many helicopters they see landing on rooftops evacuating American personnel. They want it made clear that American “hegemony” is over. They have already discredited the Intelligence Community. And given the Posse Comitatus Law, there will be no need for a military. Thats their “Mission Accomplished”.
You seem to think that the adult in them will come out. By definition Liberals are not adults!!! They cannot be trusted with serious matters of state in any aspect.
You’ve said all this yourself. Sorry Rush, on this matter I’m taking them at their word. You make up your own mind. I going to vote Romney in the PA primary, but come November, I am putting on my gas mask and going into the voting booth to vote for McLame.
BTW mega dittos
Pharmer
Don’t know about Obama...nobody does, he just sounds good, but Hillary? You can’t trust anything she says. Why would she pull out of Iraq? Her friends a making too much money over there.
Yes, but they want the defeat to go down in history on the shoulders of a Republican, just like how they blamed Nixon because the troops came home under his watch even though it was LBJ who screwed up Vietnam. They know that if the troops come home defeated under their watch, history will show it was they who were defeated, not President Bush. Look at Vietnam, as I mentioned, opposite parties, but same possible scenario. LBJ screwed it up, but Nixon was blamed because he had the final watch.
Did Rush really say that?
Hasn’t he also criticized them for wanting to cut and run?
Both will want two terms and they neither will give up unilaterally the position of superpower status just to bring the troops home to appease their base.
We have a WINNER!!
“You seem to think that the adult in them will come out. By definition Liberals are not adults!!! They cannot be trusted with serious matters of state in any aspect.”
EXACTLY, Majah Rushie is offbase, and off the planet on this, he actually somehow thinks that “magically” the Dhimmis are now to be entrusted with National Security and fighting a War?
Nay Sir, he bases that on next to nothing but some nebulous trust in Dhimmis that they do not want to lose a war, it has never bothered them before, why would they start caring now?
And how does El Rushbo expect Che Obama to pay for his social spending other then by taking Iraq War money and spending it on Socialist Programs?
The Dr. of Democracy pointed to a 60 minutes interview in which Che’ said “I would have to evaluate the Iraq War” and took it to mean that Che’ would not Cut and Run, I would beg to differ, it only meant that Che’ did not want to tell the over 65 Voters that he would be Cutting and Running...
I see you’ve been drinking the kool-aid for quite some time now. They dirty little secret that the partisan hacks are hiding is that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the foreign policy of Bush vs. Clinton. She tells us that she’ll begin withdrawing troops as soon as she gets into office; unfortunately, she’ll be about 6 months too late, as troop reductions will begin this summer. She voted to support the war in the first place, and when pressed to promise all troops out by the end of her first term, she was unable to do so.
At the moment she’s pandering to her base to secure the nomination, just like McCain’s pandering to his by pretending he care about the border.
Is that a reason to vote for one? No.
They have been on both sides of the issue.
They have said they will bring out the troops and they have also refused to make a pledge.
Hillary once in power can be expected to continue the GWOT and even remain in Iraq. She has stated so before and while she panders to her left base now, once in power the realities on the ground will force her to make decisions that she knows already she will have to make. She will twist it once again. She voted for war and when it became unpopular her angle was that she had bad intelligence and had been “tricked” into supporting a war she actually would have been against. Once in power she will blame Bush and the Republicans but will try to present herself as the one that fixes all the problems, more or less staying the course except for some symbolic changes. It’s a big game of political maneuvering to reap all the positives of every issue but avoid the sticky ugly side on all of them.
Obama on the other hand scares me. He’s a junior politician, inexperienced, surrounded by amateurs. He looks good, he’s articulate, he’s black, but he’s a featherweight and so are those around him. Powerful ideological beliefs, no previous public commitment to the war, he is very capable of making huge irrational decisions. Those filling the most senior ranks of departments and his administration can be expected to be armatures and heavily left bent as well. He very well could cause a disaster and push for an immediate US withdraw. He’s a lawyer, kind of educated, young, no military experience; no foreign political experience, etc etc etc. Like the former Clinton, he rides on the votes of Blacks, the young and the women, but he brings little to the table in form of experience or education.
So, no, probably even the most rabid antiwar candidate will not pull troops out once actually in office.
L
You are correct, it is amazing the number of people who go off have cocked. The important part is that in current polls 60% of the American people want the troops out within 12 months.
They've already assigned historical fault and are now in the process of inculcating it into the public mind:
. . . the same Washington game . . .
It’s a game where the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting and voting like Bush-McCain Republicans, while our troops are sent to fight tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and should’ve never been waged. That’s what happens when we use 9/11 to scare up votes, and that’s why we need to do more than end a war – we need to end the mindset that got us into war.
That’s the choice in this primary. It’s about whether we choose to play the game, or whether we choose to end it; it’s change that polls well, or change we can believe in; it’s the past versus the future. And when I’m the Democratic nominee for President – that will be the choice in November. -- Senator Obama's Victory Speech in Madison, WI
Your post is absolutely correct but does not include one other important bit of information. Rush is doing a “static” analysis in noting whether or not Hill/Obama will pull troops from Iraq. Even if they don’t the important thing is what will be their reaction to the next attack (and believe me if a dem gets in it will happen). Will they run to the UN or do some other action that will further embolden the islamo-fascists? Remember that the current radical Iran was a result of the Carter presidency and we are still paying for that decades later.
John McCain may be many things but he gets the war on islamo-fascists. That should be enough for us to give him our support against either one of these dem lightweights.
Knee Jerk Olympics- Freepers always take the gold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.