In Petraeus' Wake, Fog of Withdrawal Gets Even Foggier

Contradictions and confusion were not confined yesterday to the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. In assailing the pair, the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination seemed to espouse positions on the war that did not square with those they had previously put forth.

"The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now," said Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), "not six months from now." Obama added that he "can only support a policy that begins an immediate removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war, and initiates a sustained drawdown of our military presence."

At a campaign stop in Florida shortly after Petraeus testified before congress, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) told the audience, "Our troops who have performed heroically and have done everything they've been asked to do in Iraq have no business refereeing an Iraqi civil war... We need to get our troops home and let the Iraqi government take responsibility for themselves."

Other presidential contenders joined in the chorus. Calling the recommendations part of a "false debate," former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) said that "President Bush's Iraq strategy has failed, and Congress must not cave. Congress must support our troops by using every tool available to force the president to agree to a withdrawal."

Immediate removal? Get our troops home? Force the president to agree to a withdrawal? For Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, these are novel stances! Especially when you consider the Iraq policies on which they are currently running:

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

Did yesterday's testimony prompt a sudden and sincere change of heart where Iraq is concerned? Or is this simply an example of timely grandstanding? Obviously, some clarity or consistency is needed going forward, since I'm guessing that the Democratic candidates don't really mean to call for policies that primary voters can only receive from certain competitors.

Related:
Democrats Blast Petraeus Recommendations [HuffPo]
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years [New York Times]
Why We Should Exit Iraq Now [Washington Post]

Previously, on Eat The Press:
The Fog Of Withdrawal

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

02:03 PM on 09/12/2007

Billary once said that, if elected, she would end the war. I guess that's changed...?

[FogBelter]

08:17 PM on 09/11/2007

The Democrat's Presidential contenders have to stop playing for the camera and start engaging in genuine ...

ACTION!

Words are nice but it's the DEEDS that count. With all that is currently taking place in Iraq, and all that is on the line for the United States, where the candidates stand on Iraq is not as important as what they are actively doing from the place they are standing.

Again ... ACTION!