During the last debate Neither Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama would commit to bringing the troops home before the end of their first term. They have both insisted Pres. Bush do this "NOW."
If they have flipped now, will they fip again? And if they have flipped on National Security, what CAN you trust them on?
Honest answers only please... I'm interested in your point of view.
Douglas
2007-09-27 10:51:46 · 19 answers · asked by prancinglion 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Obama has already stuck his foot in his mouth about making foolish commitments such as meeting with the Iranian president. He probably did not want to make the same mistake twice, although at least he had the courage to stand by his previous statement.
Clinton has probably realized how extreme she has appeared and is making moves to appear more moderate, however, after all that she has been on record as saying and voting, she's pulling a Kerry.
Having boasted how quickly they would bring the troops home previously, none of the Democrat candidates have any credibility on this issue.
If I cannot trust them to keep their word, I cannot trust them. Granted, I believe they may be saying some of what I want to hear, but I already knew they would take that stance.
Lately I have gotten the impression Democrats are creating temporary chaos to incite voters in order to pretend to be saviors. Threats of raising taxes have stifled the housing market, slowed business growth, frozen the federal reserve, and gotten analysts to kick around the "r" word. The whole campaign is about fear and blame.
When will it truly be about us?
2007-09-27 14:59:23 · answer #1 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they are owned by the same people who own Bush. These same people are making huge profits from the war.
Remember, politicians say what they need to say in the moment, in order to get elected. Lincoln was anti slavery to abolitionist audiences, but offered the South the option of keeping slavery if they would end secession peacefully.*
Giuliani promoted gun control when running for mayor in a city who's population was mostly in favor of it, but is now very anti-gun control when he needs to appeal to a wider Republican audience. Clinton, Edwards, and the rest say they want the troops out because the message will appeal to most of the Democratic base. These same people voted to authorize the war, in spite of having access to the same information that I had** that told me that the war was sold on false premises.
I have no illusions that who ever is elected, Republican or Democrat, will show any regard for the will of the vast majority of the people.
They will all serve the will of the less than one percent that foot the bill of getting them elected.
2007-09-27 11:52:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is more to deal with now that Israel has dropped a b-o-m-b on Syria, of which the White House is trying to keep secret - Ha. What the new president is facing now is not leaving our troops in the Middle East, the task will entail HOW safely they can get them out. Therefore, it will be delicate in approaching how and win to bring them home, and to not allow anyone to know how it is going to be done. It seemed that they had all been asked to not tip their hats for the opposition to take something as weakness.
2007-09-27 11:10:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Dems have seen advancements in the war on terror. They also see more Americans supporting a victory and are now backpedaling from previous statements. People like Hillary have no real platforms to stand on but rather wait and see how the public reacts and base their actions on public opinion and whatever will get their the votes.
I think all candidates should state their intentions and leave nothing up in the air. This way I could base my vote on who I agreed with the most. Dems scare me because their intentions can shift any time.
2007-09-27 10:59:16 · answer #4 · answered by valet4u2 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's becoming more likely that one of them will be President, and, when she (or he) is President, she (or he) would be in bigger trouble for going back on a promise to end the war immediately, than for not making that promise in the first place.
Plus, a lot of the American people realize that ending the war precipitously would be a mistake, and some of them are swing voters, while the anti-war crowd can be counted on to vote /against/ the Republican, no matter how wishy-washy the Dems are.
2007-09-27 11:24:05 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
None of them want their hands tied. If they commit to an early withdrawal they know they will be saddled with the legacy of being the coward. However if they all hang together...sort of like the republicans avoiding the minority-sponsored debates...then none of them will have to do anything that isn't good for them politically.
Besides...they will want to get the troops out just before the following election to ensure they are re-elected.
2007-09-27 10:55:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
First Off- I am soooo tired of hearing about politicians flipping! I would much rather have a politician change their mind and make an educated decision when they find out more information, than to have them stubbornly stick to the wrong course of action rather than flip-flop! That is one of the reasons we are still in Iraq now.
The reason they want him to do it now is so hey do not find that they get blamed for his huge mess. That and the fact that the majority of the American citizens want the soldiers home NOW! We are trying to spread Democracy so the least we can do is act like a Democracy!
2007-09-27 11:12:21 · answer #7 · answered by B. D Mac 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
he's no longer being unrealistic approximately "commencing" to hold troops homestead as quickly as he takes workplace. how some years did it take to realize the anticipated a hundred and sixty,000 troops over there besides, after the preliminary bombing assaults? answer: quite a few, and it ought to take a mutually as to re-installation maximum of them state-area. As President he might come to a decision to guard the yank embassy over there with troops. The question Dr. Paul likes to ask is,"can we take care of to pay for to maintain somewhat some militia distant places, while our us of a is going bankrupt?" As a former USAF, I used to ask your self how might i'm getting homestead, {usa} if I grew to alter into deserted distant places, for one reason or yet another. {WW 111, no transportation, extreme money issues, and so on.
2016-10-05 11:21:54 · answer #8 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no need to at this time..dems won 2006 elections by telling voters what voters wanted to hear....dems also know that the cut and run mentality did not work in vietnam
2007-09-27 11:33:21 · answer #9 · answered by fretochose 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i truly believe they are scared and want the blam if anything happens on bush if he is too pull them out. They want them pulled out so bad but yet they wait such a long time because they just know something will go wrong
2007-09-27 10:55:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋