So, no, probably even the most rabid antiwar candidate will not pull troops out once actually in office. 
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.
“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.
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.
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.
I heard an Obama ad the other day in which he specifically stated that he would bring the troops home in ‘08.
We have no choice. 1/2 a conservative is better than none at all especially since McCain is good on WOT and reduce taxes.
I posted a vanity when Rush said this, saying conservative hosts had "jumped the shark" and indeed they had. We had a plethora of "Hilary/Obama won't be so bad" comments that turned conservatism on its head.
Think folks, and Rush too, EVEN IF the demcrats were afraid to pul troops out of Iraq, what a disaster will be a foreign policy led by someone who hates the military, sees no role for America in the world, or as Obama says repeatedly, believes "terrorism is being used to scare voters".
Many conservative comentators should do the Ahole Monologues because that is where they had their heads when they said these things.